Originally Posted by rowley2
All he is saying is that the models for future projection should not be teated as a holy writ. I agree with that, they vary wildly after all. You only have to look at how often the weather forecast is wrong to see that.
If they are proved wrong about their predictions in say the medium term of the next 15-20 years , which they pronounce with so much certainty, the one thing you can be sure of is that many of the same scientists will hoist their colours to another , (well funded), new order and preach to us all all over again.,
But they don't preach with certainty. Science is never "certain". That's the whole point. Even the IPCC report, which so many seem to object to as being politically-motivated, only said the chance of global-warming being caused by human action was >90%. Previously, they'd put it at >66% IIRC.
The trouble is that the "debate", as in so many other cases, largely doesn't exist between people on either side who all know something but have different evidence or different interpretations of evidence. It largely exists between people who know something and people who know next to nothing. Global warming, creationism (Teach the Controversy
), smoking and lung cancer, the causes of the collapse of the Twin Towers. They're all the same thing. They romantically paint themselves as "sceptics" (the way they have been allowed to claim this tag is nothing short of criminal) challenging an established paradigm. Look at that article:
Where is it in American history that freedom to debate ideas has been shut down and resulted in good? Where is it in American history that people have had to fear standing up for their beliefs, backed by facts of the past, not models of the future and been threatened like this? Please understand my appeal. It is not to say you are wrong. But how are you so sure that you are right, given basic lessons of the past?
That seems fair enough, doesn't it? Teach the other side of the argument. Don't shut down the debate. But considering the other side of the argument doesn't entail giving equal weight to someone claiming that black is white. Even less does it entail giving equal weight to someone who has considered the possibility that black is white but rejected it and come to the conclusion, using scientific method, that there is a high probability of black being black. Even less again does it entail giving equal weight to someone with a vested interest in black being perceived as white, and being paid by white paint industry lobbyists.
Yet again, absolutely nothing in one of Tony's links gives anything new. It's the same tedious old shit which has been addressed time after time after time. AGW scientists don't claim their models to be perfect, they don't build themselves up as "Gods": they've come to the conclusions they have using scientific method, and they have to deal with yapping terriers of ignorance ((c) R. Dawkins) on the other side who know absolutely nothing but prefer to sit on the sidelines throwing rocks at people who are genuinely carrying out scientific and, yes, sceptical enquiry.