Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : New FADG. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: neolib who wrote (1644)	6/11/2007 7:20:43 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4152

Comparing Freeman Dyson's criticisms of the current state of climate modelling to creationists' objections to evolution only underscores the weakness of your argument - unless you truly believe that Dyson has closed his mind to sound scientific evidence and has "failed to educate himself". If so, you will need to do more than name-calling to prove it. When I ask a biologist to sketch out the scientific evidence for evolution, he can give me a quick and convincing demonstration of the proofs from many fields, including geological evidence, fossil evidence, DNA evidence, demonstrations of evolution at work, etc, etc. There is no comparison to the level of evidence behind the theory of anthropogenic global warming. The proponents are not merely arguing that the greenhouse effect exists and will be affected by the rise in atmospheric CO2 (almost nobody disputes them there). They argue that they have modelled the entire climate with sufficient accuracy to predict the surface temperature of the earth 100 years from now, taking into account all the interactions with water vapor, precipitation, cloud formation, vegetation growth, etc etc. Calling on them to offer more proof than a model which has been parameterized to fit available data is simply not on a par with doubting evolution.