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: neolib who wrote (18663)	12/19/2007 3:05:39 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36921

There is very little wiggle room in the basic biology of DNA mutation and heredity. There is TONS of wiggle room about how these mutations work as part of the massively complex system of any modern animals body & genome with many other things that effect survival and reproduction of any individual. 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. OTOH pointing out how models projecting future warming and significant rises in sea levels are uncertain, is operating in the area where there is tons of wiggle room (arguably even there is little wiggle room to state that the beliefs inspired by the models are anything but uncertain). Debating the basic physics of how CO2 works as a greenhouse gas is like debating the points of the basic biology of DNA mutation and heredity. 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.") You seem to think these statements are just based on looking at history, and the future is a mystery. 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). Science is largely about prediction. Science is not largely about the type of prediction we are discussing. Its about prediction, and testing the prediction as a way to test theories. Not normally about predicting the future. The data scientific research gives us can be, should be, and is, used to make educated guesses about the future, but science is not fortune telling. therefore climate predictions which involve the future can't be taken seriously 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. as you seem to think there is a link between science's inability to predict future species evolution and you think this says something about climate models Again your ideas about what I'm thinking are very inaccurate. There is no significant link that I can think of between sciences inability to predict future species evolution and climate models, and I never said or implied that there was any such link. 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.