[EMAIL PROTECTED] quotes someone else:
Global Warming is a Hypothesis. . . .
The difference between a hypothesis and a theory is a matter of opinion,
but I think most people in the climatology business would agree with that
global warming is a highly likely hypothesis. Only the extent of the effect
is debated. Experts on both sides of the debate use the good-form weasel
words -- as they should -- such as "very likely" or "uncertain." For example:
Sir John Lawton, the guy who accused the US administration of being
"climate loonies" says: "The increased intensity of these kinds of extreme
storms is very likely to be due to global warming," Note he says "very
likely." Not certain, but likely enough to make a do-nothing policy highly
irrational. I agree with him.
In recent congressional testimony, some US weather service experts said
they do not think the recent hurricanes have been intensified by global
warming, but on the other hand they did not deny that CO2 causes warming.
Max Mayfield, director of the National Hurricane Center in Miami: "The
increased activity since 1995 is due to natural fluctuations (and) cycles
of hurricane activity driven by the Atlantic Ocean itself along with the
atmosphere above it and not enhanced substantially by global warming."
http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/09/23/hurricane.cycle/index.html
Maybe so. I cannot judge. Anyway, this is the right tone for a scientist.
Yes, despite all the ranting and consensus science it has to consider
exhaustively other explanations and it has to make accurate predictions!
Statements like this are annoying.
Accurate predictions of global warming have been made, and present weather
conditions meet them closely. This is like saying, "accurate calorimetry
should be performed in cold fusion." I cannot judge whether the outcome
from these predictions was a coincidence or not, but no one should accuse
global warming proponents of having no models or not making accurate
predictions.
One can never exhaust other explanations, even in principle. No conclusion
will ever be reached if we stick to this standard too closely. Again, this
is the tactic that opponents to cold fusion often employ.
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.
Oh come now.
If you don't want to condemn the World to a recession by a hypothesis,
find more oil and build more nuclear power stations.
Building nuclear power stations might be a good idea, but there is no more
oil to be found, and it is a waste of resources to look for it.
The notion that conservation might cause a recession is disingenuous
nonsense. Rapid implementation of things like carbon filament plug-in
hybrid vehicles would not cause a recession, and this step alone could
reduce the consumption of oil by a factor of ten or more.
I will grant, this would cost a ton of money, perhaps $1 trillion over the
next 10 years. It may not be a good idea to divert such large sums of money
just to solve this one problem. It is unfair to take people's money away
and spend it on this, rather than letting them spend it on whatever they
please. (Although, to put it in perspective, if we had done this 20 years
ago we would have avoided the Iraqi war, which will probably cost $1.2
trillion over 50 years, which is the time it takes for all of the disabled
veterans to die.)
A plug-in hybrid megaproject might cause inflation. But the notion that
this would plunge the nation into a recession is ridiculous. That is like
saying war is bad for business.
- Jed
