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 : The Environmentalist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (16623)	10/3/2007 12:00:28 AM
From: Sam	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 36917

Well even McIntyre says that there is a record of warming in one of the three areas he shows: Third here is a plot for the two Antarctic Peninsula stations, which while, they don’t show the 1930s, do show a definite temperature increase over their history. There is a long record at Puntas Arenas in southern Chile which doesn’t have a Waldo-trend though, so whatever trend is taking place in the Antarctic Peninsula doesn’t appear to extend to southern South America. For reference, the Antarctic Peninsula (about the latitude of Norway) is where the Larsen ice shelves have broken off. It is difficult to measure warming on an entire continent. No, make that next to impossible for a continent like Antarctica. Look, science has this aura of certainty and "yes or no" answers for people who aren't scientists. But many "scientific" questions don't have simple "yes or no" answers. Is it or isnt' it. The answers science gives are frequently "The preponderance of evidence suggests" or "It is a high probability that" or "It is very likely that" etc. Science is inherently cautious. The very nature of experimentation and the necessity of duplication forces this. That is what so absurd about people who say things like "Aha, this proves GW." Or "Aha, this disproves GW." Or "You can't prove it!" It is so much blahblahblah. No one observation or experiment "proves" anything outside of the whole institutional context in which it occurs. And if it doesn't occur within any scientific context, it isn't scientific. At least not until scientists generally put it in a context in which it can be verified or falsified.