Re: [Phys-l] Poll shows fewer Americans "believe" in global warming

[Jack Uretsky <jlu@hep.anl.gov>]

Hi all-
	over the past few years I've been privileged to hear a number of 
people report on their research relevant to anthropomophic global warming. 
I have no doubts on the subject, we are rapidly paving the way to oblivion 
(for our species) unless, perhaps, we rapidly change our habits.
	As is traditional, since Homer, there are those who argue, right 
up to the end, that oblivion is merely ana unprovable conjecture, and urge 
us to ignore the forecasts of impending doom.  Such urgings are tinged 
with emotional arguments that do nothing but distract us from the problem 
at hand.  I doubt that members of this forum will have much influence on 
the course that our governments will follow in the future, but in the 
improbable circumstance that they may, I suggest the following as a basic 
text for discussion of the evidence for anthropomrphic global warming:

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/pastcc.html

At least we will all be discussing the same body of evidence.
				Regards,
					Jack

"Trust me.  I have a lot of experience at this."
		General Custer's unremembered message to his men,
		just before leading them into the Little Big Horn Valley




On Thu, 22 Oct 2009, Jack Uretsky wrote:

> Who are "scientists"?  How do I recognize one if he/she comes into view?
> 						Regards,
> 							Jack
>
>
> "Trust me.  I have a lot of experience at this."
> 		General Custer's unremembered message to his men,
> 		just before leading them into the Little Big Horn Valley
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, 22 Oct 2009, Marty Weiss wrote:
>
> > On Oct 22, 2009, at 8:37 PM, marx@phy.ilstu.edu wrote:
> >
> > > OK.  Let's just focus on "believe."  One major problem we face as
> > > educators is
> > > the public perception of the word "theory."  Most people think it
> > > means a
> > > "guess" and also that there are lots of theories for a given
> > > phenomenon.  We
> > > must drive home that there may be competing models, but in the end,
> > > there is
> > > only one theory, which represents our "best explanation based on
> > > supporting
> > > physical evidence."  Also, it is as close to "truth" as we get in
> > > science.  We
> > > must also differentiate between "knowledge" and "belief."  The
> > > former must be
> > > true or it isn't knowledge, whereas the latter can be true or false,
> > > and in
> > > many cases, such matters are often difficult to prove conclusively.
> > >
> > > This discussion is also rooted in our inability to educate the
> > > public as to
> > > how science actually works.  The general public has the view that
> > > theories are
> > > guesses because they've been told that scientists make hypotheses,
> > > which are
> > > educated guesses, do an experiment, and voila, you have a theory.
> > > Since the
> > > process begins with a guess, the theory must be a guess.  "What's your
> > > theory?"
> > Finally, someone who understands what I was trying to say.    The
> > earlier thread on data, facts, and theory discussed this.    Not that
> > scientists are above the fray, but of all people, scientists should be
> > better prepared to refute the word BELIEF when used in texts or public
> > statements by the media or politicians.   There can be no BELIEF... it
> > is what it is.
> >
> > Marty
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Forum for Physics Educators
> > Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
> > https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l