"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message
...
ArSee wrote:
A real scientist, not one with shares.
I'm sure you know who said it.
I don't.
if you had any grasp on science you would know that consensus is not
a word that is used in the world of science.
This is a grand sweeping generalisation which a moment of thought will
tell you isn't true. There are huge slabs of science where there is no
controversy or where there is controversy about 1% at the leading edge and
consensus on the remaining 99%. When preparations were in progress to
launch orbiting spacecraft where were the contrarians who said "no, no
your equations are all wrong you cannot launch it that way"? Issues like
orbital mechanics have been settled for a long time and we have tested the
theory so many times with the same results that nobody really expects to
ever get any other outcome. Logically it is possible for falsification to
come out of the blue. Practically it is so unlikely that it doesn't
exist.
Even when there is a major shift it often modifies the existing body of
knowledge rather than discarding it. Einstein didn't destroy Newton's
ideas he showed that they were not quite right in extreme situations.
One thousand people
could support your theory or supposition, and one person can falsify
it and completely destroy it.
Quite so in theory. But how often does this actually happen? The classic
paradigm shift is a rare bird indeed. All science is subject to
falsification by new data. This doesn't mean that is likely. It doesn't
mean therefore science is all wrong or that we can never know anything
about the world. Joe Blow typing from his blog is entitled to express an
opinion on climate change. It doesn't mean that the opinion of is
automatically as good as any other opinion that might be found - say
amongst the authors of the IPCC reports.
Since the IPCC has observed in its 2001 report that of all the CO2
in the atmosphere, only 4% is of anthropogenic origin.
I cannot find that figure so I would be obliged if you would give me a
cite for it. Even if it is true what is your interpretation of the
statistic? Are you assuming that it cannot be significant? How do know?
Here is what the IPCC said on the matter:
"In conclusion, anthropogenic CO2 emissions are virtually certain to be
the dominant factor determining CO2 concentrations throughout the 21st
century."
which I found he
http://www.grida.no/publications/oth...ar/wg1/125.htm
Another
recent report has indicated that this ratio of natural to
anthropogenic CO2 has remained the same for over 15 years.
What report is that? I would like to read it.
I hope this can take you there. Im a little busy at the moment.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/in...ant-over-time/
So, you could take every one off this planet, and every trace of
them ever being here, and reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere
by only 17 ppm, which considering there is currently 388 ppm, is
bugger all.
Is that your conclusion? How do you know that?
Not mine at all.
Unfortunately the fors and againts are arguing as loudly as you and me.
And the problem is simply put, if sceintists cant agree, who the hell are
you and me to try and solve this problem.
All I can do is quote and hope there's honesty in all of this....
My attitude is this, it appears the place is hotting up.
This does not mean the should rob people blind for something that is
theoretical at the best at the moment.
Theyre calling for the scientist FROM the ECU who wrote these emails to be
sacked.
What does that tell you?
An ETS will not help this situation, nor anything that man can do,
what we need is the courage and sense to do nothing.
Are you CERTAIN that this is a risk that it is sensible to take? Above
you tell us how doubtful science is but you are personally convinced it is
all wrong so it is OK to gamble with the livelihood of our children and
theirs. I am glad I don't have your kind of confidence.
David I'm not gambling. I'm saying that the taxes will do nothing.
You and others are being stooged.
Someone has to see it for what it is.
Distastefull as the apparent situation is, it looks like the majority of
sceintists arent skeptics but are even now painfully aware of tainted
research What about the Doctor who falsified DNA research in Korea?
It goes on to make headlines, then fizzles when found out.
I say we cant do much about the climate change.
Weather control isnt scientists's strongest point.