The Cure For Global Warming

[LuckyR]

The Object/Subject myth.

Since we only have subjective impressions we can only derive objective statements by the act of comparison with other subjects' impressions on areas where they agree.
As such we can never really get to the pure object as described by the Wiki quote since there is not place from which humans are able to completely distance themselves from their own biases.

Biases are not to be simply rejected, they form the entire basis of the human point of view. Nor can they be fully rejected. Where would you stand to avoid your own experience and learning about the world.

We are left with tautologies which only reflect definitions or analytic truths which are always self referral and not really about the world of impressions at all. For example 1+1=2, therefore 2-1=1. This is true but it is an irrelevance to call it objective; meaningless.

In the end the only thing that "objective" can mean is that such statements can comply with a set of pre-agreed criteria made by your own language community.

Ten people taste the same lemon. 6 say it has average sourness, 2 say it is more, 2 say it is less.
A scientist comes along with his objective machine and declares the lemon to have a sourness factor of 23.65, thus eliminating the personal biases of the ten people.
So what does 23.65 mean? basically nothing, though it is definitely "objective".

But you might as well have chosen one of the people at random and declared him the authority on lemon sourness.

I declare that in this case, at least the subjective impressions mean more than the sourness machine with its objective results.
And like ALL objective statements, if they can be removed from human bias, then they can only do this by compliance with endemic assumptions of the community. The bias still exists here, but at the level of society and historical contingency.

As far as GW is concerned there is no really objective measure of earth's temperature. It all depends on how hot or cold you would prefer the earth to be for optimal human life - usually what's the best temperature where you happen to live.

Nicely thought out piece, but you can get to there from here. Depending on how you much scope you are taking on certain concepts like the temperature of a complex system such as a planet, can defy both meaningful quantification and objective description.

But one could take a step back and re-evaluate and ask, if there is global warming, why do we care? Well because of average daytime temperatures in the tropics, wildfires, sea rise, cost of hurricane damage repair etc.

All of these less complex outcomes can (and have) be quantified objectively.

As an aside, numerical answers are not necessarily objective.

[RJG]

Steve, I moved our discussion to a more appropriate topic/place "How does one find True Knowledge".

[Steve3007]

Noted. I'll see you there.

[Sculptor1]

The Object/Subject myth.

Since we only have subjective impressions we can only derive objective statements by the act of comparison with other subjects' impressions on areas where they agree.
As such we can never really get to the pure object as described by the Wiki quote since there is not place from which humans are able to completely distance themselves from their own biases.

Biases are not to be simply rejected, they form the entire basis of the human point of view. Nor can they be fully rejected. Where would you stand to avoid your own experience and learning about the world.

We are left with tautologies which only reflect definitions or analytic truths which are always self referral and not really about the world of impressions at all. For example 1+1=2, therefore 2-1=1. This is true but it is an irrelevance to call it objective; meaningless.

In the end the only thing that "objective" can mean is that such statements can comply with a set of pre-agreed criteria made by your own language community.

Ten people taste the same lemon. 6 say it has average sourness, 2 say it is more, 2 say it is less.
A scientist comes along with his objective machine and declares the lemon to have a sourness factor of 23.65, thus eliminating the personal biases of the ten people.
So what does 23.65 mean? basically nothing, though it is definitely "objective".

But you might as well have chosen one of the people at random and declared him the authority on lemon sourness.

I declare that in this case, at least the subjective impressions mean more than the sourness machine with its objective results.
And like ALL objective statements, if they can be removed from human bias, then they can only do this by compliance with endemic assumptions of the community. The bias still exists here, but at the level of society and historical contingency.

As far as GW is concerned there is no really objective measure of earth's temperature. It all depends on how hot or cold you would prefer the earth to be for optimal human life - usually what's the best temperature where you happen to live.

Nicely thought out piece, but you can get to there from here. Depending on how you much scope you are taking on certain concepts like the temperature of a complex system such as a planet, can defy both meaningful quantification and objective description.

But one could take a step back and re-evaluate and ask, if there is global warming, why do we care? Well because of average daytime temperatures in the tropics, wildfires, sea rise, cost of hurricane damage repair etc.

All of these less complex outcomes can (and have) be quantified objectively.

As an aside, numerical answers are not necessarily objective.

The difficulty I have with the current debate is that it has long departed from the pretence of scientific objectivity, and descended into the political arena.

I'm old enough to remember the Climate change debate from the 1970s in which the well overdue and imminent ice-age was expected. All the indicators pointed that way, and there were things humans were doing to advance that event, such as desertification which was increasing the albedo and cooling the earth. Once that trigger was pressed the increasing ice would then accelerate the process of reflective and the ice would increase more in a dangerous feedback loop,]
Still a danger.

Science journalism has scored several own goals by presented dodgy data.
Where we are now in truth is anyone's guess.

[Sy Borg]

I don't think the cure for AGW is universal. A quality article about adjusting to how Australia should be responding: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-11-06/ ... d/11673836

Other nations will have their own optimal approaches.