[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Human vs. natural influences on the environment
In article <50i1bb$c1b@spool.cs.wisc.edu>,
tobis@skool.ssec.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis) wrote:
>jw (jwas@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: In <504hmm$pdp@spool.cs.wisc.edu>
tobis@scram.ssec.wisc.edu (Michael
>: Tobis) writes:
>: >What we should be concerned about isn't how much the
>: >temperature increases (we're pretty confident at this
point that
>: >it's nonzero and positive) but what that means to the
general
>: >circulation.
>
>: We cannot be confident of this in the least - *even*
assuming,
>: for the sake of the argument only,
>: that the greenhouse effect and all the chain of
>: its indirect consequences (some of which may
>: well have opposite signs) is somehow modelled
>: perfectly.
>
>I see you confuse "confident" and "certain" when it suits
your purposes.
>Since this is the case, I will state that I am certain that
all else
>being equal, increasing greenhouse gases warms a planet
reliably and
>effectively.
I agree with this statement 100%. However, how do I know
that "all else" is actually "equal"? There are some hidden
assumptions here that should be validated by observation.
Unfortunately, many see the consequences as so "dire" that
they do not want to gather the observations necessary to
validate the underlying theories! What consequences can be
so dire that we don't have the time to follow the scientific
method?
Follow-Ups:
References: