Al Gore crapped first OJ,now everyone is trying to out crap him.And giving everyone on Earth Dysentery.Not good for the Ozone layer

i suppose if you cant shot the message you shot the messanger

but that doesnt even make sense dysentery has nothing to do with the ozone layer and the ozone layer has nothing to do with climate change

kragus
what is this increasing evidence you speak of in your penultimate paragraph?

Post deleted at 08 Sep 2010 9:42am by Mona

Kragus
Good to hear from you again.

Skeptics often claim that the science of anthropogenic (man made) global warming (AGW) is not "settled". But to the extent that this statement is true it is trivial, and to the extent that it is important it is false. No science is ever "settled", science deals in probabilities, not certainties. When the probability of something approaches 100%, then we can regard the science, colloquially, as "settled". The scientific consensus the AGW is causing climate change is now in the mid 90% probability range.

In most aspects of our lives, we think it rational to make decisions based on incomplete information. We will take out insurance when there is even a slight probability that we will need it. We reinforce buildings when the probability of an earthquake is higher and that worked for Christchurch. Why should our planet's climate be any different?

Gidday

Morgan, "No science is ever "settled", science deals in probabilities, not certainties."

Therefore science never deals with facts so all the crap we see is only dreams and theories.

Old Jack
Certainties and facts are two different things.
Science gathers all the facts available then considers them to see how they fit together. From these comes a theory.

There are very few certainties in this life, most things are only probabilities.

Incidentally the jump from your first statement to your second statement has no logical basis so you shouldn't use the term therefore.

Morgana: "science deals in probabilities, not certainties. . . ."

That is not true in the real world, and you know it, Morgana. Quantum physics may deal in probabilities, but the Quantum world and the Macro world do not meet under the same rules. It takes only one wrong result to disprove even the most useful theory here in the real world. In the micro world, anything is possible. In our world, we are confined by the collective probabilities of vast collections of quantum particles so that one single improbable event out of many is totally swamped by the events that unfold.

Science is an explanation of nature, using physical laws to create theories that try to explain and encompass as many different phenomena as possible. It does not matter how many instances there are where the theory explains the phenomena, it only takes one instance where the theory breaks down and therefore it does not have the ability to explain any of the phenomena.

Radical thinking: “kragus
what is this increasing evidence you speak of in your penultimate paragraph?”

Will answer your query shortly.

Cheers.

Gidday

Yep no facts or certanties so must be fantasy.

Kragus
If you follow your line of reasoning then nothing could be determined.
The old saying "The exception that proves the rule" mean the exception tests the rule.
So when an exception comes along then it needs to be analysed to see how it affects the theory. It could be the theory will be refined to account for the new finding and we are seeing that all the time. Or it may completely disprove the theory, we don’t see that very often.
In terms of AGW it will take more than one or two minor variations to disprove the vast body of evidence that exists. Especially when the minor variations turn out to be incorrect or deliberately falsified. However each additional piece of evidence that is valid helps strengthen the understanding of the process.

Old Jack
Please reread my posting as you either don’t understand it or you are deliberately ignoring what I have said.

Science is based on facts otherwise the computer you are reading this on would not work.

And with AGW there are millions of facts which support the theory.

I think the fantasy lies with your beliefs.

Gidday

There are also as many facts that support the opposite view to. Otherewise why would there have to be lies and inuendoes from the IPPCS or what ever it is called.