Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
TOK Presentation, Global warming
Transcript of TOK Presentation, Global warming
30th November 2012 Global warming GLOBAL WARMING lie or truth? climate change
ice caps melting
endangered species droughts
fires Are we screwed? Is it our fault? carbon dioxide
freons Different opinions Deniers
Fanatics Selective data Media rules the world Knowledge issue How can we know whether media presents the right picture of scientific discoveries and by presenting those doesn't influence on our perception concerning the problem of GLOBAL WARMING? Areas of knowledge science, mathematics, media, politics Ways of knowing reason, perception, language SCIENCE 391.03ppm Atmospheric CO2 for October 2012 - The upper safety limit for atmospheric CO2 is 350 parts per million (ppm). Atmospheric CO2 levels have stayed higher than 350 ppm since early 1988. - Measuring Location: Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii - increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere contribute to an increase in the mean global temperature
There is an overwhelming level of scientific consensus on human-caused climate change. Over 95% of actively publishing climate scientists agree that the earth is warming and that human activity is the cause. In spite of this agreement, only about 50% the general public think that scientists have reached a consensus on human-caused climate change. Two sources of the discrepancy are the unbalanced portrayal of the situation in the media, and the Manufactured Doubt Industry. Scientific consensus?
“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.
Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.”
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.”
Galileo Galilei Mathematics
-statistical errors Hockey Stick Graph bad statisticians? biased? wrong methods? - scientific funding - supporting thesis by finding evidence - deliberately fabricated results, usually for personal fame
- corporate and politically funded research grants, poor results are becoming more dictated by policy than by scientific infallibility
Science Fraud - Dishonesty and Forgery in Research. Dr. Hwang Woo Suk. - had successfully cloned a dog, and also had some success in human cloning. This research was published, passed the tests and then he was subsequently suspected of fraud and ethical violations - Language in media - over - dramatizing
- scare stories
- more or less truth catastrophic disaster devastation life threatening destruction danger "Catastrophic Effects of Global Warming Have Already Begun" "Zbog rekordnog topljenja arktičkog leda Europi prijeti ekstremna zima!" "Životinje i biljke su sve manje, a ista sudbina očekuje i ljude..." Politics - differing obligations of industrialized and developing nations, the question of who will pay to help poor nations adapt, the urgency of protecting tropical forests and the need to rapidly develop and deploy clean energy technology - Copenhagen in 2009; Cancún, Mexico, in 2010; and Durban, South Africa, in 2011, produced much chaos and last-minute drama Further questions Is science biased?
How can we know when the data is true? How can we know that scientist are not influenced and directed with politicians when doing the researches? Is it ethically right to know the truth and be silent even though causing harm to the nature? Can we be certain that the methods used for determining what happened years ago are reliable? Is it ethically right to adjust the data to present your hypothesis as a valid one? Other perspective - computer models are merely a guess at what will happen on Earth in the future - while the Northern Hemisphere has warmed, the Southern Hemisphere has actually cooled - GLOBAL WARMING OR THE “NEW ICE AGE”? FEAR OF “THE BIG FREEZE.” - the placement of some weather stations in urban areas may produce inaccurate measurements - Arctic temperatures have cooled over the past 2,000 years due to a natural tilt in Earth's axis. But human-caused global warming reversed that trend in the mid-1990s Ethics (1) will changes in human activity change climate
(2) what actions should governments take? - politics typically requires simple “yes/no” answers - Instead of acknowledging the uncertainties, politicians are tempted to claim certainty about climate change “over-representation” of the facts is justified
“Nobody is interested in solutions if they don’t think there’s a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are” - perception - adjusting and correcting the results