> Yes i am Crazy, just love dealing with egotistical scientists who have a
> bone to pick, or an ego to scratch.
Climate Science is a lot like Tobacco Science:
1) They describe complex systems with thousands of causes and
thousands of effects.
2) The exact cause-and-effect mechanisms are not always known,
and there are random factors, too. ("Uncle Ed smoked a pack
every day, and he lived to the ripe old age of 99." -- many
others didn't.)
3) You can't get clear, repeatable results like "add liquid A
to liquid B and the color changes, every time". In case of
Climate Science, we don't have multiple Earths for proper
tests ...
4) Valid scientific methods can make statements with a high
level of confidence, which would be explicitly stated in
the study, but not with absolute certainty.
5) News media wants certainty in 20-second soundbites, so the
qualifiers get dropped.
6) There are vested interests with lots of money who want to
raise doubts. Factors 2) and 4) make that possible, as
long as the standard is a court-like "beyond reasonable
doubt".
Any reasonable expert would claim a high likelihood that both
cimate change and cancer from smoking are real, not certainty.
PS - I realize this is a bit off-topic, but then the list isn't
exactly swamped with other traffic :-)
_______________________________________________
GurpsNet-L mailing list <[email protected]>
http://mail.sjgames.com/mailman/listinfo/gurpsnet-l
