That's unfortunately too easy a crutch. I agree that science and politics should NEVER get mixed up, because it allows bad scientists to then use politics as a reason for why no one believes them. The problem is, it now becomes a challenge to tease the bad science from the good. Do you have any actual evidence that GOOD scientists have been kept from doing research which would suggest there's no impact from our activities? I've never heard anything actually credible (beyond the equivalent of a child whining that they're getting bad grades because the teacher doesn't like them...)
victor809 wrote:
Why would there be evidence that suggests man has no impact? I never said we had NO impact. And for this discussion I'm not even saying we have only a minimal impact. When Algore and Obama preach about global warming, they are talking about the burning of fossil fuels. Only the burning of fossil fuels, and only their impact as it pertains to global climate change.
How is that science??
That, my friend, is politics.
Cap and Trade is politics. Based on hysteria, not science.
This is the old adage: A cow is brown. A dog is brown. A cow must be a dog.
Or something like that.
Theories are almost ALWAYS formulated with the idea that you're looking for something specific. IE, "It makes sense in my mind that this is how the world works. What experiments can I design to either prove "yes" or "no"?" This is the basics of science. A well designed experiment will provide evidence either way that the prediction is true.
victor809 wrote:
Not true. Theories are most often based on asking "Why?", without looking for a Yes or No.
"WHY is the earth getting warmer?" Not "Do fossil fuels make the earth get warmer?". Because the second theory makes an assumption. It would be like asking "Does rugby make you gay?". If you knew such an experiment existed, you would cry foul because it alludes to an outcome prior to any data collection.
soooo...since we can't tease out what stupid politicians are doing vs what may be actual science we should just not believe in any of the science? I'd rather believe the science until later science proves it wrong. That's the great thing about the scientific method, false information can't hide forever.
victor809 wrote:
Science is certainly loaded with the "fact du juor". But consider what you're so ready to believe here.
Science can't predict tomorrow's weather with an accuracy that is noticeably superior to the old Farmer's Almanac. Yet we're ready to believe that the sky is falling because too many soccer moms drive SUV's. And just by coincidence, the study was funded by the same government that wanted to pass the Cap and Trade (for instance).
Hmmmmmm.
