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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: neolib who wrote (20514)2/19/2008 2:17:55 PM
From: TimF  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 36921
 
They would make models to document exactly how wide the confidence bands are and they would strive to make the very best models, so that their wide confidence bands were the narrowest that are robustly supported. This is what is badly needed in fact. It is good science.

Even models with fairly wide confidence bands may go beyond the limits of our current understanding of climate.

As for arguments from ignorance, your attacking a straw man. I'm not saying "global warming if false because you can't prove it". Absence of evidence, isn't evidence of absence, but absence of (sufficient) evidence means you don't have sufficient evidence. Stating that isn't using either form of argument from ignorance.



To: neolib who wrote (20514)2/19/2008 6:00:25 PM
From: Thomas A Watson  Respond to of 36921
 
well neolibus-liesAlotus, the science is well understood. There is no science in any explanation attempting to give CO2 a causative effect increasing temperature.

There are supposition that other heat transfer mechanisms that are well documented and understood be ignored based upon only the divine pronouncement of st. al.