Re: Op-ed writers should just shut up about scientific matters

aborgman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx sent the following on 3/4/2007 1:24 PM:
Jim Gysin <jimgysin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
aborgman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx sent the following on 3/2/2007 11:44 AM:
Jon Enslin <jenslin@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 2, 10:51 am, <aborg...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Jon Enslin <jens...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 2, 10:22 am, Jeffrey Davis <jd_h...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Jon Enslin wrote:
On Mar 2, 10:11 am, Jeffrey Davis <jd_h...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Jon Enslin wrote:
On Mar 2, 9:52 am, Jeffrey Davis <jd_h...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Jon Enslin wrote:
On Mar 2, 9:24 am, Jeffrey Davis <jd_h...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Jon Enslin wrote:
On Mar 1, 10:58 pm, James Schrumpf
<jaspammenotschru...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2007/03/01/AR2007030101293.html
http://tinyurl.com/yv3qbx
The Climate-Change Precipice
By David Ignatius
Friday, March 2, 2007; Page A13
The scientific debate about whether there is a global warming problem is
pretty much over. A leading international group of climate scientists
reported last month that the evidence for global warming is "unequivocal"
and that the likelihood it is caused by humans is more than 90 percent.
Skeptical researchers will continue to question the data, but this isn't a
"call both sides for comment" issue anymore. For mainstream science, it's
settled.
* * *
This is so wrong from a scientific viewpoint it's unfunny. However, it's
very opinionated, for which he should be commended. I suppose.
http://www.slate.com/id/2159164/
"But 10 years' worth of new data have emboldened the researchers, and
now they've replaced their hazy equivocations with percentage values.
This shift in rhetoric-at base, from words to numbers-has made their
conclusions more comprehensible and compelling. It's also made them
less honest."
The thing that really bothers me about this entire debate is that
while we can show that the earth is getting warmer, and we can predict
that certain consequences could occur, we certainly cannot state that
human action has primarily caused it. I mean, we can say it *may*
have.
The writer you quote above is humbugging. He goes round the barn a lot
but "made them less honest" is junk. Just as your "we certainly cannot
state that human action has primarily caused it" is also junk. We know
the source of the CO2 in the atmosphere. We know who put it there.
Unless you've got another culprit (one that whooshes away the known
effects of CO2) you're bucking logic and sense. Occams Razor: human
activity is behind global warming.
We know the source of CO2 in the atmosphere. We theorize that it can
cause a greenhouse effect.
Gimme a break.
You can take a David Hume style skepticism about external reality and
doubt everything, but you should be a bit consistent.
If CO2 weren't in the atmosphere, we wouldn't be here. If it weren't for
the greenhouse effect of gases like CO2 the earth would be too cold for
human life to have developed.
We theorize that this greenhouse effect
has been the culprit of making the earth warmer beyond the
fluctuations that have regularly occured throughout history.
Here's a clue. Fluctuations don't just happen. They have causes.
Identify the cause of the current warm up. I'll wait here.
Why are you asking me something to do that isn't possible?
Why do you think it isn't possible? Do you just doubt out of habit?
Mechanically? Are you an automaton?
We cannot know for scienfic certainty that it is possible. It is a
theory based on observable data.
So, why do you object. Everything scientific is that way.
I object because the op-ed piece from the article that James
originally posted has the following line:
"A leading international group of climate scientists reported last
month that the evidence for global warming is "unequivocal" and that
the likelihood it is caused by humans is more than 90 percent."
While I can see how the former is considered correct, I don't see how
you can claim the latter. 90%???!!!??? How can you prove that?
Science DOES NOT PROVE THINGS. Ever. Science is not even in the
business of proof.
Bull***.
Science is in the business of providing the best, predictive explanation
for the evidence. It is not in the business of proof. If you believe it
is, then you desperately need to seek remedial science education.
So math isn't a science? Interesting. Thanks for straightening that
out for me.

Math is most definitely NOR science. Correct.

Most definitely? Interesting. I suppose the rest of the world can call
off the debate, then. And someone should tell the Wikipedia folks (I'm
not even going to bother digging deeper for references this time) about
this new certainty. The stuff at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Math#Mathematics_as_science

and elsewhere is apparently obsolete.

--
Jim Gysin
Waukesha, WI
.