Text 11389, 106 rader
Skriven 2007-02-02 18:31:23 av Josh Hill (14828.babylon5)
     Kommentar till en text av rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Ärende: Re: Cath0licism and Creati=nism
=======================================
On 2 Feb 2007 06:32:18 -0800, "SLerman" <smlerman@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Feb 1, 10:03 pm, Josh Hill <userepl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Dude, science is science: it cannot be suborned, because to do so, one
>> would have to suborn thousands of scientists, academic institutions,
>> and journals.
>
>Setting aside the "suborned" (yes, I did have to look that one up in
>the dictionary) part, science is not always science. History is filled
>with scientists who clung to their own theories despite evidence
>supporting opposing views that eventually turned out to be correct.
>500 years ago (give or take a century), even the most prominent
>scientists still believed that the sun revolved around the Earth.
>Scientists can be wrong, even when 99% of them agree on something.

Sure, but I was specifically addressing the conservative accusations
that science has been perverted by money, pressure, or self-interest.
And history tells us that it can't be. Individual scientists can be
paid off, sure, or forced to recant like Galileo or even burned at the
stake like Bruno -- but other scientists inevitably take up where they
left off.

As to individual scientists or the majority of scientists being wrong,
sure, that's a necessary part of science, which is constantly testing
and contesting new hypotheses and theories. But one can only
demonstrate a theory wrong only with science, and that's lacking on
the anti-global warming side.

As Einstein quipped when told that the Nazis had published a book
called "100 Physicists Against Einstein," "Had I been wrong, one
physicist would have been enough."

Note, BTW, that scientists don't claim to be 100% certain of the human
contribution to global warming. The most widely accepted figure seems
to be greater than 90% certainty, which, given the consequences and
the fact that greenhouse gases continue to cause warming many years
after they've been released, seems more than sufficient to merit swift
action. If we wait to see what happens on the basis of that 10%
uncertainty, it will be too late.

>As for the topic on hand, there's an oft repeated statement
>"Correlation does not equal causation." Temperatures rising during the
>period of increasing carbon dioxide emissions is certainly strong
>evidence, but it does not, by itself, prove causality. There is other
>evidence, such as increased solar activity, that there are other
>contributing factors to increasing temperatures. I remember reading in
>high school about experiments where adding extra carbon dioxide to an
>environment didn't increase the amount present in the atmosphere, but
>just resulted in increased plant growth. I still think that the best
>way to decrease carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere is to stop
>hacking up every forest on the planet.

Again, a number of points each perhaps valid in its own right, but
none a real argument against global warming.

Correlation: Global warming isn't just based on correlation, but on
known physical mechanisms, observations, and computer models.

Other factors: These have always been acknowledged, and are considered
in the models. The result is that even when they're taken into
account, the models still show man-made warming.

Increased plant growth: It's already known that the amount of CO2 in
the atmosphere has increased significantly. Deforestation is indeed a
factor, and is taken into account in the models and proposed remedies.
Unfortunately, replanting forests alone would not be sufficient to
reverse the changes. In fact, I read not long ago that in some
temperate areas planting forests would actually /worsen/ the problem.

>As for the "pro-global warming" side, I'm sure that pumping large
>amounts of gases into the atmosphere isn't helping the situation.
>While carbon dioxide is otherwise fairly benign, some of the other
>chemicals being poured out have many other nasty effects on the
>environment. Whether humans are responsible for the whole mess or not,
>it's still our cities that are going to get destroyed when sea levels
>rise 20 feet, so it's probably a good idea to try to save ourselves.

My feeling exactly.

>Anyone that says "obviously humans are causing global warming;
>scientists have proven it" doesn't know much about science. Science
>works on theories and models, not certainties. There is definitely
>enough evidence to consider it a possibility that humans are causing
>global warming, but there is also enough evidence to the contrary for
>people to legitimately question the theory. Earth's climate is
>extremely complex, and scientists don't know enough about it to
>construct completely accurate models. Either side could be correct. We
>may never even know which side is correct. The more important issue is
>whether or not we have enough time to wait to find out which side is
>correct.

Note that I've never used the word "proof." It doesn't exist in
science, and it doubly doesn't exist in complex non-linear models. But
a 90% chance is good enough for me. Hell, even if the chance were
50-50 or less, it seems to me it would be worth our while to do
something about it, given the consequences.

-- 
Josh

[Truly] I say to you, [...] angel [...] power will be able to see that [...]
these to whom [...] holy generations [...]. After Jesus said this, he departed.

- The Gospel of Judas
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)