[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: Human vs. natural influences on the environment



In article <322D8D8F.5C4D0976@math.nwu.edu>,
   Leonard Evens <len@math.nwu.edu> wrote:
>charliew wrote:
>> 
>> 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?
>
>First let me  point out that in public affairs, significant 
changes are
>made without any scientific basis at all.   To give two 
examples,

(BIG CUT)

No problem.  If we want to decree that CO2 emissions are bad, 
let's go for it and see if we can get consensus through 
political debate.  However, if we are trying to present a 
scientific argument to convince the public of the need to go 
along, let's stick with the science long enough to verify 
that we have the right answer.  This attempt to gather a few 
scientific facts and jump to the conclusion possibly two or 
three decades before we can make the measurements that verify 
our mathematical models is getting a bit ridiculous.  In 
other words, if this is actually a political issue, let's 
deal with it from a political basis.  However, if it's 
actually a scientific issue, let's take the time to do the 
science.  This is a very important point, because good 
science and physics cannot solve a good (or bad) political 
problem, as was clearly demonstrated by all of our attempts 
to deal with the Cold War via scientific (e.g., star wars) 
means.



References: