Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkland
Only if I were to believe the hype. If what I believe, global warming is cyclical, then NO we do not need to do anything. Nature is doing its thing just fine and the way it is supposed to.
On the other hand if I BELIEVED in man made global warming of COURSE we should try to fix those 2 things.
|
You're acting like science is religion, where you either "believe" or not.
It's not.
In most cases, science presents you with a large amount of data which will often contain apparent contradictions. Based on that, you can create hypotheses and theories, the likelihood of which you can test with existing data and new experiments. This, however, will never lead to absolute certainty, since absolute certainty in science is epistemologically impossible.
So instead, you usually end up with a number of competing theories, with varying degrees of likelihood. Eventually, more observations and experiments will eliminate a number of those theories and corroborate one or more others. That will point you in the right direction, and increase chances of those theories and newer ones corresponding with reality, but it will still not lead to absolute certainty.
The problem with the view you express here is that you believe something to be true, and see that as a reason to ignore the possibility that you are wrong.
That is not sound scientific thinking.
Now, you did mention in a previous post that you think that AGW is "at present undecided". Treating a matter you consider to be undecided as if it were a decided matter hardly seems like a good idea, because if it actually is undecided, then there's a chance that your view ends up being incorrect
