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: Maurice Winn who wrote (25216)9/10/2009 10:31:44 AM
From: Bread Upon The Water1 Recommendation  Read Replies (2) of 36918
 
Maurice,

I appreciate the spherical cow (Ha).

And I understand what you are saying about the reduction and overall simplified approach to complex interactions.

I also understand what you say about the difficulties of constructing a model in some sort of physical representation.

You also have to realize my limitations here with respect to thinking about the interaction of climate things. I have neither the background nor training to intrinsically understand these interactions. Hopefully, I'm capable of developing a conceptual understanding of said interactions when such are broken done for me into layman's language by scientists.

I'm in the position here, more or less, analogous to a judge at a trial on an environmental issue who is called upon to evaluate conflicting claims by scientists.

The judge, most likely, also doesn't have the ability to intrinsically understand the science. Rather he must weigh the evidence presented by experts on the matter. His conclusion is less reflective of the truth of the matter than what has been the best evidence presented--or what the "weight" of the evidence shows.

Under that criteria, I'm fairly certain the evidence you are willing to present would lose to the evidence that the scientists on the other side of the issue would present.

They have peer reviewed climate models which, while not perfect, have the respect of a lot of the scientific community inasmuch as they are out there road testing them and tweaking them and letting them be criticized.

Your evidence on the other hand has not been road tested and is not subject empirical review inasmuch nobody can test it.

This doesn't mean your analysis is incorrect, but it does mean it is not as substantial as to what is in opposition to it.

It additionally means I think it would be hard for your analysis to gain traction either in the scientific or political community (although there are probably a lot politicians who would love to see a working model that supports your viewpoint).

And all of the above would require me to accept your viewpoint more or less on faith rather than science--and that is not what I am about--at least with respect to climate change.

So where do we go from here in this discussion?
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News