Arfa Daily wrote:
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...
Arfa Daily wrote:
snip
**Nope. I accept that when all the planet's climatologists warn of
a problem that they are likely to be correct.
All ?
**Near enough. 97% is as close to consensus as it gets. If 97
doctors told you that if you did not alter your diet, you would get
a heart attack and 3 doctors told you not to alter your diet,
because you'd be fine, what would you do?
I really don't want to get drawn into this again, and I have no
particular desire to fall out with you - you've helped me out in the
past with schematics, and for that I am grateful.
**There is absolutely no reason for two intelligent people to get drawn into
a slanging match.
But I am really
struggling with all of this. For a start, 97% is up from the 95% that
you reckoned it was earlier in the thread.
**The 95% confidence refers to the confidence level that climatologists have
WRT the cause of global warming being anthropogenic in nature. The figure in
the 1970s, was something like 70% and has been rising ever since. The 97%
figure represents the number of climatologists that are convinced that AGW
is the most likely explanation for the warming.
You make a case for what a
doctor might say, but let's turn that around. If one of your
children, say, was up for murder, but there was a 5% chance that they
didn't do it, would you consider that to be a proven case ? I
certainly wouldn't.
**Indeed, but they are quite different scenarios, with very different
outcomes. Would you care to respond to my question please?
Let me throw this into the equation :
http://www.mlive.com/opinion/flint/i...global_wa.html
which tells the story of 650 scientists that apparently spoke out
against the case. Now I'm sure that there is some reason that it is
all lies, or should be discredited, but the same story did appear in
many other places, so I have to give it some credibility. 650 seems
like quite a big number to me.
**Do you have a reputable cite for this alleged statement? That article is
clearly biased and highly flawed in many ways. I'd like some independent
verification of the 650 scientist claim.
**********. Unlike you, I've been examining the subject of AGW since
the mid
1970s. The only thing that has altered is the amount of data that
supports the theory.
Theory ?
** http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory
OK. Let's reproduce it here, to save everyone having to go look at
your link
"1. a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly
regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation
and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of
relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine. "
Yes, I am aware of this variation of the definition of the word, when
used specifically in connection to science. However, you will note
that it doesn't actually say 'proven', only 'commonly regarded' and
that can be used as 'a principle of explanation'.
**Correct. AGW is a theory. An highly credible one, that is embraced by the
vast majority of climatologists.
The fact that
Einstein's theory of relativity is cited as an example is
interesting, in that it has gone so long without actually being
proved, that it has become scientific doctrine - dogma even. And yet
just last week, it was announced to the world that it was likely that
a particle which travelled faster than light, had been clearly
detected.
**Not proven yet. In the same week, other parts of Einstein's work has been
validated.
Professor Brian Cox, a scientist that I have a deal of
respect for in his primary field of quantum physics, and who was
involved in the experiments to locate this particle, said that if it
was correct, it would turn quantum physics knowledge on its head, and
blow Mr Einstein out of the water. Who would ever have thought that ?
**Me, for one. Einstein was known to be searching up blind alleys in SOME of
his work. That does not make Einstein an idiot. NOr does it make him always
wrong. It simply makes Einstein 99% right.
Do you consider the theory of evolution to be a proven case ?
**No. There never was a "theory of evolution". Evolution is an observed
fact. Darwin proposed his Theory of Natural Selection to explain evolution.
Darwin was a brilliant man.
A good
many reputable scientists and commentators don't ...
**Of coruse. They know that evolution is not a theory. They know that Darwin
proposed Natural Selection to explain evolution.
Strangely, having given the definition in the slightly vague terms
that they have, your dictionary then goes on at the end to use the
words 'principle', 'law' and 'doctrine' as synonyms, which they
clearly aren't as they are much more closely defined words.
**Nonetheless, AGW remains an highly credible theory that attempts to
explain the warming of this planet that we are presently witnessing. IT is
not a "law", nor is it a fact, beyond doubt. Doubts remain. However, the
confidence level pertaining to AGW is running at around 95%.
So as far as I am concerned, my query as to your use of the word
'theory', has not been altered at all. The general understanding of a
theory, is that it is one stage up from hypothesis, in that it is an
idea or set of ideas, whose validity is supported by known facts, the
key word being 'supported' not 'proven'
**Correct. By the time AGW is proven, it will be too late to remedy it. I
can't live with that.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au