The Gulf stream....

[Mondy]

And which of the many gods that folk have believed in do you believe in? Or have you invented you own one?

And which of the many scientist reports do you believe in? Or do you take every (a)GW report at face value? Or do you think you know better?

[Gray-Wolf]

Hmmm... I'd disagree with most, if not all, of what you say above - a discussion for another thread, methinks.

Perhaps not quite the right place for religious aphorisms...?!

CB

I have shifted it over to the 'Serious discussion' section and look forward to your reasoning!

Ian.

[noggin]

Now, THAT, is a scary assumption. Scientists have been studying the climate, the weather and the sun in ever greater detail for a long time ... Yet, you assume they've missed an effect of great magnitude?? Well, then, publish your findings

Pahhhhh....if there is such a word! I make no assumptions, which is totally different to assuming that they have missed something. Of course I cannot say that they have definitely missed something any more than you can say that they know everything.

NB I've tried to do a friendly smiley to show no offence intended, but I can't get the icon thing to work!

[biffvernon]

And which of the many scientist reports do you believe in? Or do you take every (a)GW report at face value? Or do you think you know better?

I think you misrepresent the scientific process. A scientific report typically describes observations and then may attempt to explain the observations in the light of theory, or use the observations to refute a theory and propose a new theory that better fits the observations. When a theory is sufficiently supported by observation it may be used to make useful predictions. Therein lies the power of science.

'Belief' is not involved, though confidence in the integrity of the method and honesty of the scientists is assured by the lengthy peer review process.

[7andY]

Wasn't the pre-Copernican Solar System (the Earth centric one) subject to such 'peer review' rigours? After all, for many years, all were agreed that it fit the observations.. It wasn't until somebody challenged the belief (and was punished by the establishment for doing so) that the real situation was revealed.

Following the majority point of view does not necessarily make it the right one! Which is why many hereabouts are trying to sort the wheat from the chaff for themselves, in the midst of the 'Fog of Climate Change'!!!

Cheers, 7&Y

[biffvernon]

Wasn't the pre-Copernican Solar System (the Earth centric one) subject to such 'peer review' rigours?

No, it wasn't. It was supported by religious dogma. Nothing to do with science at all.

[parmenides3]

7andY: Er... no, the pre-Copernican world view was not subjected to peer-review. The anthropocentric model of the universe was constructed to conform to pre-existing assumptions about the existence of God, the nature of God as being manifested in order and law as opposed to chaos and anarchy, and a bunch of other stuff besides. It was an attempt to model a pattern which fit these assumptions, and was not based on 'scientific' observation or the testing of hypotheses. it was also not presented as an open subject. But this is all really rather more comlicated than that, inasmuch as you need to take into account the relative influences at the times of Chruch, State and Alchemy/Natural Philosophy. The last of these was miniscule in influence in the real, illiterate world of the majority at the time.

This doesn't mean you aren't right in saying that following the majority view doesn't make it right. This is self-evident. The test of the validity of any argument has nothing to do with how many people believe, or agree with it, but with its truth or falsity. In trying to sort out the wheat from the chaff with respect to global warming, climate change, etc., what you might want to ask is what you, personally, think the truth about this is, and whether you think you are willing to change that belief or opinion if either the evidence or the arguments suggest that you might be wrong.

This is not just a question for you, or for one 'side' or other of the general run of attitudes, but for everybody. The reason I say this is that, in spite of serious attempts to present a rational and consistent argument one way or another, very few people appear to have 'changed their mind'. Is this because we wouldn't recognise reason if it bit us on the backside, or because, in the end, we can't help feeling that we are right, whatever the evidence?

I don't have an answer for this, by the way.

:)P

[Mondy]

I think you misrepresent the scientific process. A scientific report typically describes observations and then may attempt to explain the observations in the light of theory, or use the observations to refute a theory and propose a new theory that better fits the observations. When a theory is sufficiently supported by observation it may be used to make useful predictions. Therein lies the power of science.

'Belief' is not involved, though confidence in the integrity of the method and honesty of the scientists is assured by the lengthy peer review process.

When Apophis hits in 2036 it will all be a moot point anyway!

[parmenides3]

Is that due before or after Yellowstone goes 'supervolcano' on us, or around the time that the next ice age officially starts?

P

[Gray-Wolf]

When Apophis hits in 2036 it will all be a moot point anyway!

If we survive the next 30yrs with our technological base intact that a bit of space debris will be small beer!

[biffvernon]

When Apophis hits in 2036 it will all be a moot point anyway!

...impact probability for April 13, 2036 is estimated at 1 in 45,000, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/99942_Apophis

[Mondy]

Sorry. I should've made it more clear, as i have before on the dedicated Apophis thread of yesteryear - one was joking

Edited April 20, 2007 by Mondy

[parmenides3]

They just don't understand you like I do, Mondy.

Now, let's help the North Koreans develop that ICBM system, shall we...

Have I lefy any disasters out?

:)P

[Gray-Wolf]

Have I lefy any disasters out?

P

The 'shortfall' in the IPCC figures driven by the insistance by U.S, Australia, China and India to 'tone things down' maybe?

I hear the creaking of Greenland,WAIS and EAIS as I type......only a matter of time before the 'slide' starts.......