Exactly. But rejecting evolution isn't operating in the area where there is tons of wiggle room, but rather in the area where there is little wiggle room.
You claimed to know something about the creation/evolution debate. The above comment shows you are totally ignorant of it. Most creationists accept what they call "micro evolution". The reject what they call "macro evolution". So you are dead wrong above. The debate is 100% centered on the system level complexity issue. That is what ID is all about.
And guess what, science does not have ANY neat concise response! Our ability to provide anything better than handwaving for how evolution works on complex systems is far inferior to our climate science prowess. This is what you don't understand. If our climate models of CO2 behavior were as poor as our detailed explanations of systems evolution, I would also doubt AGW and for good reason (but not doubt evolution for obvious reasons as well).
Debating predictions of future climate is nothing like debating the points of the basic biology of DNA mutation and heredity. Esp. if your just pointing out uncertainties (rather than saying "Those predictions are wrong.")
Our predictions of future climate change are orders of magnitude better than our ability to provide any detail at all on the historical evolution of complex biological subsystems. There is no scientist on the face of the planet who can even remotely provide even a rough sketch of the historical evolution of a single organ in the human body. Yet scientists baldly proclaim that all of the organs evolved. What jackasses! Well, no, they aren't. Despite the inability to provide any plausible detail. Contrast that with the detail that can be provided, and has already been historically vindicated with climate models. You keep ignoring the history of the 1970's-80's and the predictions for the current time. You seem to think this success is not going to be repeated going forward. Why?
Try to deal with what I actually say. Your ability to tell what I am thinking that's not directly expressed in my words, seems faulty.
They are not based on just looking at history (although that is part of their basis).
Feel free to clarify. My bad if I got things wrong, but you have avoided any detailed response looking at the predictions and how they turned out, and then linking that to IPCC predictions going forward. Instead, you revert to the ignorance argument.
I never said they can't be taken seriously, I said that they are uncertain. I mean that not just in the sense of not being absolutely 100% certain, but of not being something that we can be very strongly confident in.
Sounds link Lindzen. I doubt, but I never said I doubt. Don't be a weasel. So which is it? Should they be taken seriously enough to do something or not?
The only link is the analogy you made between evolution and climate science. I continued the analogy. Just as the solidity of the basic ideas of DNA mutation and heredity does not mean that we can predict the future evolution of species with confidence, the solidity of the physics of how CO2 works as a greenhouse gas does not mean that we can predict the future climate with confidence. In both cases pointing out the fact that there isn't a good reason to be confident in the prediction, is not challenging or arguing against the basic science which is fairly solid.
And I merely pointed out the astonishing order of magnitudes difference in current science models designed to 1) predict future climate, and 2) predict future species evolution. But for some reasons beyond me, you don't seem to understand this. Earth To Tim: Our accuracy at predicting future climate is WAY better than our accuracy at predicting which future species evolve. You think otherwise? If so why? Could you point to any computer simulations with any track record in predicting species evolution which you think supports your analogy? |
