Re: OT - *Some* Canadians get it . . . .

Eddie G wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 20:25:30 GMT, gtski <xxgtskixm@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


Eddie G wrote:


A scientific theory is nothing at all, but a theory. And I'm being
generous in letting 'theory get applied to it because it doesn't
technically qualify as one.

Let's see what the EPA says about Global warming:

With all this talk about 'theories' noboby ever posted a real defenition of a scientific 'theory'...??? It's a very overused word IMO...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

And someone posted awhile back that theories were just short of 'fact'... (whoever posted it can fess up..!!)


Someone did post that. On the other side, Flipper is contending that
Global Warming info is 'just a theory' and implying conjecture
(meanwhile Flipper's CO2 vs Temp data is posted as Fact.). They are
both wrong, but the difference is that Flipper is deliberate and
calculating about it. That's screwed up.

Theories a not the same as facts. The word is overused and has different definitions depending on the use... Facts such as data gathered by scientists are considered facts until they are proven incorrect. So if everyone looks at the data and agrees that the temp increased BEFORE the CO2, than those are the facts until they can be disproved. Which very well may happen...

The 'fact' that the earth is warming, *overall*, is indeed a fact that has been observed by most everyone... WHY it is warming is less certain and there are less facts to support the multitude of theories... the part of mankind in this warming is even LESS known, and the theories that propose mans large part, make many 'assumptions'... assumptions are NOT facts.



Anyway, the meaning of 'Theory' changes with context, as anyone in the
sciences or math damn well knows. 'Number Theory' is an entire branch
of mathematics. Music -Theory- is hardly arbitrary. etc. Casting
doubt on legitimate peer-reviewed research has become the norm. That's
not a scientific approach.

Fine. There are WAY too many 'assumptions' going on in Climate theories for these theories to be more than 'best guesses'... far, far from being 'facts'...


The bottom line is that even if the 'skeptics' don't have an agenda
(questionable, given the rabid approach and fuel-industry funding),
then at best, the concept of GW is uncertain. As for 'uncertain':

Everyone loves a skeptic when it fits their agenda... Scientists have been wrong, and have come up with more incorrect theories WAY more than they've gotten it 'right'. This alone makes good reason to be skeptical of ALL scientific theories until they stand up to scrutiny.


I read a very good analogy: Say there are 6 people in a car, driving
at high speed through fog, and three of them look at a map and
calculate that there is a brick wall directly ahead. They warn the
driver to slow down, so at least any impact will be minimized. The
driver refuses, saying "You can't prove that we'll crash."

That's a very weak analogy. I like analogies BTW... but that one is weak. Your analogy has no consequence(s) for slowing down the car... further, maybe ANY impact will be fatal to all... as in, the car is traveling at 120 mph, and the calculators suggest the driver slow to 100 mph...


Many of the world's top climatologists are warning about this, so even
if there is uncertainty, a course correction damn well be accounted
for right now.

But scientists have been SO wrong, so much in the past... nobody is listening... (whether that's good or bad...)


What is the advantage in gambling? What is the big
payoff?

Good question... another similar situation, there is a virtual certainty that a big earth-quake is going to hit California... why isn't the govt moving LA and all it's inhabitants to Nevada...????

Why are they 'gambling' ...??? What's the 'payoff' of staying in LA..???


Also, keep in mind that many of those saying that they're absolutely
certain that we can keep up our currrent level of pollution were the
same people who were willing to gamble on Iraq. That was also
presented as a sure thing.

Remember that some of those that are talking up global warming told us in the 70s that an Ice Age was coming... besides, you're being disingenuous saying what you said... climate change is worth studying and studying hard... real answers are needed.

The gamble in Iraq...??? It wasn't a gamble with mother nature...

Can't be compared....
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Globaloney elsewhere
    ... any way similar to the present scientific standing for global warming is ... "science" is politically motivated junk science IMO and I refuse to ... Another poor game of the whipped by the facts crowd is to try to play ... we invoke the aid of the scientists and Al Gore instead. ...
    (soc.men)
  • Re: Bad Archaeology
    ... Fringe science begins with a theory and looks for facts to support it. ... Disamissal of fringe "scientests" should always be urgent, ... those scientists on the fringe, those mavericks of thought and idea, ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • "No greater love" the motto of Fidel Castro
    ... Because Cuba, by keeping its people alive longer than any other state, has shown a love for its people that goes beyond all the BS bourgeois free speech crap that the other killer states dish out. ... Scientists always hedge their beliefs and spend most of their time saying "We do not know". ... they don't even talk about facts so much as theories called "hypotheses" which are nothing but educated guesses. ... three tugboats out of the port, and which appeared to be directing operations by radio, eventually picked him and others up. ...
    (soc.culture.cuba)
  • Re: Carbon 14 Dating Post Mistake
    ... yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; ... a tentative explanation for a set of facts which can be tested by ... This prediction can be verified or falsified. ... Scientists try to prove or disprove this relationship. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Bad Archaeology
    ... Fringe science begins with a theory and looks for facts to support it. ... Disamissal of fringe "scientests" should always be urgent, ... those scientists on the fringe, those mavericks of thought and idea, ...
    (sci.archaeology)