was: Libertarian cartoons [apology]

Good morning. It seems that I owe you an apology, William. Not for
the things some might think, but for failing to communicate properly.
So I offer you an apology for things posted yesterday. I'm only going
to do it in this one place, and the comments elsewhere which doubtless
have accrued in the meantime will be left unanswered or referred here.

I was hurried but did not realize it consciously, I jumped to a
premature conclusion (or perhaps I was simply too lazy to write a book
within a usenet post), and did not respond as I should have; for my
ill response and what followed, I apologize.

Now I'll attempt to do a better job of responding to your comments:

William Hyde <wthyde1953@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 13, 1:33 pm, barf-bear <n...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
WilliamHyde<wthyde1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:


I think there are enough possible causes for things to confuse wiser
than men.


So can we summarize by saying that you know nothing about the problem,

I wouldn't say that is a completely accurate characterization. I do
not claim to be an expert on the subject of global climate change. On
the other hand I am not as ignorant as I think one would need to be in
order for "you know nothing" to be an accurate characterization.

don't intend ever to learn anything about the problem,

That depends on what you mean by "learn anything about the problem".
If by that you mean will I continue to observe and conclude, gather
information and correlate what can be correlated, the answer is that
that is something I do as a matter of course. If on the other hand
you mean will I spend irreplaceable time ingesting the conclusions of
others, taking some layman's class on climatology, accepting the
statements of those considered experts on the subject, the answer is
no, I do not have time to waste on such obligatory activities.

It is a large area of study and could consume many lifetimes. I know
that I do not know its answers. I do not even know the answers to
such basic questions as (a) how much of the heat that is generated on
this planet escapes into space, (b) when did Man discover fire, (c)
what is the total amount of heat that has been generated by Man's
heat-releasing activities since the beginning, (d) what is the
cumulative heat retained by the planetary sphere as a result of all of
Man's heat-releasing activities, and (e) how much heat does it take to
produce a change in planetary climate.

but you are
sure that whatever it is, it is beyond anyone, even those who work at
the problem?

I am reasonably sure that before Copernicus came up with the
heliocentric model, people were operating under some premises that
seem to have been in error, yet they were able to live out their lives
in spite of that. I am fairly certain that before Newton came up with
his theories about gravity that rocks did not fly around without being
thrown. Whatever theories people had in those pre-enlightened times,
even though they were in error, worked to some extent. The Egyptians
seem to have been able to construct pyramids even though their
pre-Newtonian theories were presumably incorrect.

It also seems evident that modern physics has passed beyond the
Newtonian stage. New particles have been discovered that we call
"quarks" and to which characteristics like "charm" and "strange" are
attributed.

What seems obvious from all this is that we probably do not know
everything, and at some point in the future new things will be learned
that show some of what we now believe we know is false. Certainly Man
understands more now than two thousand years ago, and we have many
theories that have not broken down under practical application, but I
think that a belief that Man has reached some pinnacle of
understanding that makes the Truth known to modern science, that
belief amounts to naivte and hubris.

And on this basis you are happy to make policy recommendations.

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what I've said that you interpret to be
"policy recommendations". Was that hyperbole?

If I was to make any recommendation at all, it would be to live on the
planet as a good camper lives in the forest. Generate no more heat
than is absolutely necessary, carry out the trash, and brush over the
footprints. Hardly practical given the rate at which garbage is being
generated in the production and consumption of "must have" items like
large-screen televisions and hairspray.

I'm largely convinced that people are too smart to guess, and that's a
pity.

If this bit of free verse means anything, it is that you'd like
people to go with their gut feelings, rather than actually study the
problem.

"it is that"? You take it upon yourself to define my meaning for me,
yet you do it incorrectly. What I meant was the people believe
themselves to know more than may actually be true. They are too well
schooled to think about it, if they have an apparently-relevant
equation into which they can plug some numbers, they take the easy
course and believe themselves to be correct because the equations tell
them they are. The experts tell them how it is. I suspect that
experts told people how it was before Newton or Copernicus.

Feel free to accept whatever theories for global climate change that
you prefer, it won't make a difference unless you guess right and do
the correct thing to achieve the results you wish,

Again, this poetry is tough to parse.

There are things that are difficult to express with the brevity
necessitated by the expected length of a usenet post.

You seem obsessed with guessing,

Actually that isn't quite the way of it, but I can see how you might
jump to that conclusion. If anything I am obsessed with *not*
guessing. It is my opinion that, regardless of all today's unproven
theories about gobal climate change (and they are unproven, we are on
the edge of our first attempt to verify those hypotheses) until those
theories are known to work what they tell us to do is no better than a
guess.

but if I choose to accept a theory based on, say Newton's
laws, as opposed to one based on, say, astrology, I don't call it a
guess. I guess you'd just say I "prefer" science based theories.

Yes, I understand that. I also understand that prior to the actual
proof that the current climate-related theories are correct, or at
least that they are unfalsifiable by experimental results on this
particular planet, they have no more scientific validity than
astrology (well perhaps a little, but not a lot). That they are based
on principles known to work (whether they are True or not) is
irrelevant with respect to their actual workability within a real
global setting. They remain theories until they are shown to work,
then they may be classified as working principles but they will even
then not be known as Truth.

which in the end may be your downfall.

In the end we are all dead.

Yes, that is what I have been told. I accept it as a working
hypothesis but not as Truth. I will never know the Truth of that
working hypothesis, but in the absence of its being disproven I have
no alternative but to retain it.

--
Where do spurious data points come from?
.

Relevant Pages

  • NBC: Moving Beyond Kyoto
    ... Our home - Earth - is in danger. ... the planet itself, but the conditions that have made it hospitable for human ... on our planet aware of how we can solve the climate crisis in time to avoid ... This treaty would mark a new effort. ...
    (rec.music.artists.springsteen)
  • Re: Petrol in Cumbria?
    ... >>> massively increasing their presence on the planet.. ... >>> and climate change is also implicated. ... Global warming will improve our ability to grow ... >> Not according to projections. ...
    (uk.local.cumbria)
  • Re: Alpha Centauri has a planet
    ... the pull on the sun's mantle, energy, huge amounts of it, is ... you could say each star has planet ... see how this "interactive tidal force has been directly heating earth ... Seems to me the crust is damned good heat insulator or my tootsies ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Study: Climate change could devastate US crop yields
    ... who used a well-known climate change prediction model to ... assess how much yields could decline by the end of the century. ... They wrote that although yields increase with temperature up to 29C ... just a facet of the planet that has always existed.- Hide quoted text - ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: Rotational dynamics and crustal motion
    ... but Planet Earth is not one of them. ... Convection is the internal movement of currents within fluids (i.e. liquids ... which mass or heat is transported by the currents or motion in the fluid. ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
Loading