SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : The Environmentalist Thread
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: TimF who wrote (19413)1/7/2008 8:38:12 PM
From: neolib  Read Replies (2) of 36921
 
I wouldn't necessarily say climate science is more full of wholes than evolutionary biology, but I would say specific models of AGW are more densely full of holes than evolutionary biology.

I disagree. Evolution is a skeletal framework. 99+% of the details are missing. Climate science is far better filled in. You are correct that one field is much larger than the other. We can model most of the major contribution in climate science with a reasonable numerical accuracy. In evolution we don't have even a foggy idea of the relative importance of the mechanisms we know about.

In climate science, we don't know much numerically about certain specific dynamic systems (ocean conveyors, etc) which can clearly cause some tippings. So yes, there is still plenty to learn.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News