I'm not an expert on climate change. I know a couple of things though. I know that according to a fairly large scientific consensus the planet might be getting hotter. I know that these predictions are based on flawed models of the weather system and how it operates. I also know that whilst flawed and not being the best possible models, there is a consensus amongst scientists that they are the best available models. They may not actually be the best available, there might be a largely ignored model that is bang on target, but there is a consensus that they are. This consensus exists within a bunch of people who are fairly intelligent and have spent a long time thinking about the models. This consensus has largely be reached independently.
I'm far too busy feeding my family and arguing about angels on pin heads to make it my life's goal to become an expert on climate change. Given that, it would be irrational of me not to act in accordance with the consensus. I know I must not fall into the 'Top Gear syndrome' and deride the consensus because I love cars. Or fall into the 'free love syndrome' and support the consensus because I love hugging trees. That would be silly. I act in accordance with the consensus because there is one, because it is a scientific one, and because it is born of minds that are fairly brainy. The climate change scientists who do not support the consensus academically are being irrational if they do not support it politically. Again, this is because there is amongst brainy people like themselves a consensus which disagrees with their academic work. They should recognize their own personal fallibility. Equally though, the larger community should recognize the fallibility of the consensus and ensure that the attempt to refute the consensus continues with full financial support. But their studies should not be acted upon politically until it becomes a consensus. This oils the gears of progress. There was a time when the consensus was that the earth was flat and only a few years old. That demons were the cause of illness and an apocalypse was imminent, and that sinners were destined to hell fire. If that was the consensus amongst brainy people who had spent time thinking about it, it would have been irrational to act in contradiction to it. Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 09:48:37 -0800 From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Global warming silliness On 11/14/2013 3:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: The use of science by government of science is of the type of pseudo-religion abuse. ?? Does not parse. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
