Ian,
I tried to stay out of this OT thread but I could not resist it once the
question of belief arose.
On 28 February 2010 15:54, Ian Thomas il.tho...@iinet.net.au wrote:
Noonie - You make what I believe are good points – and I agree with them
in part (the bit about the Carboniferous is a bit wide of the mark, but I
get your general thrust).
I've encountered these graphs, and general sentiments, on several sites. Not
knowing who's-who in the xGW debate I took it on face value.
http://biocab.org/Carbon_Dioxide_Geological_Timescale.html
It appears that this group is skeptical of current trends and therefore
could be accused of having an agenda :-P
There’s a problem with the non-scientist general public in that they tend
to believe that consensus = truth (consensus: the supposed 3,000 scientists
who supposedly wrote the IPCC top-level reports). Or is it the media that
insists on pushing that simplistic line?
Yes the 10,000,000 blowflies theory of diet ;-)
Of course, progress in science depends absolutely on dissent – but not on
irrationality and emotionalism or consensus to “prove a point”.
Precisely my point. Without vigorous debate amongst those who know the
rest of us are just flapping our gums. I do get very cross with those who
make claims about their data but who refuse to share that data so that the
claims may be verified (or not).
I watched the second of a series of 2 programs on SBS yesterday, called
“Absolute Zero” (ie, theoretical 0o Kelvin, and pursuit of very low
temperatures in the laboratory). While unrelated to GW/climate change
debates, the program illustrated well the competitiveness and even the clash
of personalities, etc of leading scientists of 300 years ago to the present
– ie, they’re generally human - and also the cooperative and generous spirit
of many. The practical side-effects of these endeavours are huge, in our
current technological age – including quantum computing.
Scientific endeavour depends on dissent and pursuit of facts (and results)
to back up theories or hypotheses.
I over-educated in geology, chemistry and physics which has given me an
appreciation of that aspect of science and the scientific method. Geology is
an interesting discipline, in that it encourages a lot of vague arm-waving
and hypothesizing – because of the vastness of the time-scales involved, and
some difficulty in finding unambiguous evidence to support or refute. In
itself, that’s a useful experience and vantage-point to critique the global
warming / climate change fiasco as it’s playing out.
I imagine the current state of global climate science to be similar to the
early days of modern physics. I just hope that there's no equivalent of
quantum mechanics in the climate sciences. If there is then the rest of use
will never understand it.
Unfortunately, the intent of my post a week ago has been lost in
extraneous flak. I thought the email would survive until Monday night; it’s
occupied too much bandwidth.
I have actually enjoyed reading this thread. But I'm easily amused.
--
noonie
--
Ian Thomas
Victoria Park, Western Australia
--
*From:* ausdotnet-boun...@lists.codify.com [mailto:
ausdotnet-boun...@lists.codify.com] *On Behalf Of *noonie
*Sent:* Sunday, 28 February 2010 7:03 AM
*To:* ausDotNet
*Subject:* Re: [OT] Bill gates on our energy futures - some tech miracles
needed
Greetings,
On 27 February 2010 17:49, Tony Wright ton...@tpg.com.au wrote:
snip
So if you don’t believe any scientist can be credible, who do you believe
in? Only the ones with a neo-conservative agenda? Only ones that agree with
your point of view? That is, the 5 in 100 scientists that don’t believe in
climate change? Perhaps American Spectator, a newspaper considered
right-wing in a country that we consider further to the right, funded by
Richard Scaife, the principal air to the Mellon Banking, Oil and Aluminium
fortune?
But this is how the majority of the general public choose the side they are
going to agree with. It's human nature.
Science is about facts and measurements and exposing your theories, along
with your data and methodology, to critical peer review, and taking your
lumps and revising your theory until you have a strong proposition that is
acceptably close to the truth.
You are not supposed to believe _in_ a scientist. That stinks of cultism.
You are supposed to be convinced by the quality of his/her research. It
should not be about personality and charisma. Copernicus recanted, Isaac
Newton was a prat and Thomas Edison seldom washed.
I'm afraid I don't believe any of the xGW crowd, from either side. I do
wonder why it is such an issue at the moment. I do, however, believe the
following:-
1. Global warming (and cooling) is inevitable. It has happened before. Get
used to it.
2. Pouring all the carbon dioxide, that was laid down
