I apologize, I didn't see this post Daniel.
danieLion wrote:All science is opinion. Presuming that everyone in the discussion believes in the validity of fact v. value or fact v. opinion false dicthotomies further obsfucates an all ready overly emotionlly charged topic.
You're free to believe that all science is opinion and that all facts are opinions, but then you also forfeit your right to claim any authority in determining what is or isn't appropriate science. Taking the stance of epistemological anarchism and then complaining that a scientific process doesn't have enough data is as intellectually dishonest as the libertarian who calls the fire department when his house goes up in flames.
Science does not seek conclusions. Science is about demonstrating which opinions are the currenty the best opinions with the available information. In the case of climate change "science" there is almost no information.
Science is about making pragmatic predictions based on theories that demonstrate explanatory power in regards to the available data. The theory of anthropogenic climate change does this, and does it well.
Humans have been on the scene approximately 10,000 years. The planet is approximately 4.5 billion years young. 10,000/4.5 billion equals 0.00000222222 which equals not enough information.
But it's worse that that. We've only have discrete statistical clilmatology measurements (not inferences) for about the last 150 years. 150/4.5 billion equals 0.000000033.
Let's say a sinkhole opens up under my house tomorrow. Would the correct response be, "There's not enough data to show whether or not this sinkhole is going to continue expanding. Why, it only appeared this morning and the rock below me is over three billion years old!" No, the correct response would be, "Holy shit a sinkhole run!"
The fact is, the planet is warming, and we know for a fact that human beings are doing things that can be shown
scientifically to create conditions that accelerate that warming. We know that greenhouse cycles, atmospheric dimming, particulate accumulation, and deforestation are undeniably capable of causing global warming. We also know that global warming is occurring, and that this new round of warming began to manifest around the time that our activities began generating these conditions. Your recourse to statistics is fatally misguided; arguing that we can't know the reality of AGW because our sample size doesn't represent the entire course of the planet's climate is like arguing that Nate Silver can't predict the outcome of an election without considering the voting records of the Whigs in early 1800. We are worried about present conditions and their ability to bring about artificially distorted near-future events. We are using the last century to predict the next century, based on the influence of conditions that we know to be detrimental to a healthy planet.
Gain and loss, status and disgrace,
censure and praise, pleasure and pain:
these conditions among human beings are inconstant,
impermanent, subject to change.
Knowing this, the wise person, mindful,
ponders these changing conditions.
Desirable things don’t charm the mind,
undesirable ones bring no resistance.
His welcoming and rebelling are scattered,
gone to their end,
do not exist.
- Lokavipatti Sutta
Stuff I write about things.