[cdn-nucl-l] The tragedy of science; Climate Change and Nuclear Energy

["Jerry Cuttler" <jerrycuttler@rogers.com>]

I think this means that this beautiful hypothesis has been disproved by some of the evidence that has been presented to test it, especially the evidence shown in the BBC video.  There seem to be many "ugly facts".

 

So we are not dealing with science anymore.  It is a social acceptance campaign.

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Whitlock, Jeremy

To: Canadian Nuclear Discussion List

Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2007 2:54 PM

Subject: RE: [cdn-nucl-l] The tragedy of science; Climate Change and Nuclear Energy

Jerry writes:

 

> Does the hypothesis (humans are causing global warming) pass the

> many scientific tests that have been presented?

 

I think the IPCC said it best in its 1996 draft report:

 

"None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases."

"No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man-made causes"

 

Unfortunately these were two of the statements deleted from the final text, in the name of consensus.

 

Jeremy Whitlock

-----Original Message-----
From: cdn-nucl-l-admin@mailman1.cis.McMaster.CA [mailto:cdn-nucl-l-admin@mailman1.cis.McMaster.CA]On Behalf Of Jerry Cuttler
Sent: 2007 Mar 24 8:59 AM
To: Canadian Nuclear Discussion List
Subject: [cdn-nucl-l] The tragedy of science; Climate Change and Nuclear Energy

Since we are getting philosophical here, I'll remind folks that one can prove a mathematical theorem, but in science we try to disprove a hypothesis by testing it.

"The tragedy of science is the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact."  T.H. Huxley (1825-95), Collected Essays 1893-94

Does the hypothesis (humans are causing global warming) pass the many scientific tests that have been presented?

Social acceptance is another matter.

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Bill Garland

To: Zigin, Marek ; Whitlock, Jeremy ; Canadian Nuclear Discussion List

Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 9:55 PM

Subject: RE: [cdn-nucl-l] Climate Change and Nuclear Energy

For 36 other ways to prove that 1500 scientists can't be wrong see:
http://www.themathlab.com/geometry/funnyproofs.htm
I urge people to print off a copy and post it above their computer screens.
Let's see, is consensus on CC proved by method 2 or 23? Maybe 6.  7, I hear people shout!  A favourite of the anti-X crowd is 19. 
I 'prove' my skepticism by #1.
Bill (oh, come on! life is too short not to have fun)

At 02:27 PM 22/03/2007, Bill Garland wrote: