RE: Off topic - US climate loonies

[R . O . Cornwall]

Nick, No, there may be climate change natural or man-assisted. What I object to is non-scientists carrying on like they know the scientific method. To be correct, global warming is a hypothesis.   From my website (below), read and understand why emotion (feelings) and politics is absolutely irrelevant in science. You are turning science into politics whereas we search for the truth. In short, one has to know what one is going on about.   Try to understand we don’t say something *is so* until we know *it is so*. This makes a difference between gospel or suggestion.   Remi.   Global Warming is a Hypothesis. Some very good people say it is conjecture (Fred Singer).  Yes, despite all the ranting and consensus science it has to consider exhaustively other explanations and it has to make accurate predictions! Apparently this hurricane season is no worse than on record; the 1930s and 40s were particularly bad. Global Warming is worse than the so called 'dismal science' economics; just how is it possible to isolate and test hypothesis in the manner of Reductionism? Don't trust computer models either, non-linear dynamical systems are prone to Chaos and the input data would need to be precise and extensive to assist convergence otherwise it's "Garbage In, Garbage Out (GIGO)" - just how good is the weather forecast? One week if you're lucky. If you don't want to condemn the World to a recession by a hypothesis, find more oil and build more nuclear power stations. They are the only mature technologies capable of sustaining our lifestyle (try affecting disaster relief with a 3rd World economy and then look at the air lift in New Orleans). No, Global Warming is properly a Proto-science and the best we could do with it is to heed it's suggestions by investing more in alternative energy - instead of problems start looking for solutions. "Global Warming" is the scientific method and science policy gone mad.       -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nick Palmer Sent: 26 September 2005 17:36 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Off topic - US climate loonies   Remi Cornwall wrote:- <<You don't mind my asking but are you an engineer or scientist? What have you done and have you done any research?>>   Oh, Remi you really have pushed my buttons now! I recognise the gentlemanly tone of your request (you're a fellow Brit right?) but really...! Perhaps you did not see that it was an undoubtedly highly qualified scientist from the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution who came out with the "US climate loonies" remarks. Sorry Remi, I think your attitude is part of the problem. Did you never hear that "you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"?            I have to extrapolate your views from your email, but, rest assured, in around 33 years of being an environmentalist (before there were any courses at colleges) I have encountered what appears to be your argument many, many times. It is at heart a patronising one (despite your denial) inasmuch it implies that you think your point of view and values outrank the "non-qualified" in this subject.You are so totally wrong in your apparent view that only people with qualifications as scientists or engineers are qualified to talk about this particular matter and be believed. In fact, it is the very heart of scientific philosophy that renders those who live and decide issues by this code DISQUALIFIED from having any validity if they think that it is a good method for making strategic policy decisions in this area. It is their duty not to comment as science is a post-dictive subject. Scientific predictions are only hypotheses and cannot be relied upon. As I have explained so often to people like you, the whole danger of your viewpoint is that one cannot conclusively prove that global warming is happening/will happen without running the experiment i.e. letting us continue to alter the global atmosphere and seeing what the ultimate result is. The consequences of doing so CANNOT be predicted accurately - they may resemble the results of computer modelling but then again, such models may, in due course, prove to be totally inadequate as predictive tools. I can say this as an absolute fact beyond the necessity of proof - it should be self evident to a truly intelligent person and not just a highly trained one. If some computer speculation suggests that the results may be catastrophic while others say things will be fine, marginal or could be coped with, then raw intelligence dictates that, as we are dealing with a global  part of the only life support system that we have, not only for humanity but all the countless millions of other lifeforms we share the Planet with (upon many of which we also depend), chances cannot be taken that the results will be neutral, favourable or "acceptable". If there is even a small chance that things could be well and truly screwed up, such a chance must not be taken. It merely requires true intelligence to see this point. One cannot take the chance that new technology will arrive, like the US cavalry on the brow of the hill in the nick of time (but as you may know I have been following cold fusion since the beginning, as it could be a great solution). It is the scientists, engineers, politicians, business men etc who do not understand this simple logic who are the problem. That is why I characterise those who do not understand this logic as morons or insane or both. Perhaps I should qualify that by saying instead "functionally moronic" or "functionally insane". It certainly is the case that many of the stupidest, most dangerous beliefs and opinions around come from those who feel secure that society has awarded them a certificate (like the strawman in the Wizard of Oz who wanted a brain). Robert Park continues to spout his opinions on cold fusion etc which he undoubtedly feels superior enough to the common herd to do. He used to have a bit at the bottom of his ""What's New" that said something like "the opinions expressed here are the authors alone and not those of the American Physical society (but they should be)". The root cause of the problem is vanity - vanity of those qualified or experienced in one field who come to believe that their "special quality" gives their viewpoint and those of their similar peers, on matters outside their area, more gravitas than they deserve. If a Professor comes out with a stupid, dangerous assertion and out of the mouth of a babe and suckling comes intelligent sense, who do you listen too?   Nick Palmer Ex area coordinator for Jersey, Channel Islands, Friends of the Earth. Ex recycling and climate change campaigner.