Re: [Phys-L] just for fun

[John Mallinckrodt <ajm@csupomona.edu>]

And I, in turn, wonder what those who so smugly treat the overwhelming scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming as if it had already been roundly falsified and is, therefore presumably, a massive ongoing hoax on humanity by the scientific community will have to say about themselves when and if that position becomes untenable.

IMO, if the overwhelming scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming turns out to be wrong it will be one of the few times that modern science has been SO shockingly misguided and WILL, therefore, be cause for some very serious introspection.  But by the same token, given the strength of that consensus and the fact that it is based on relatively simple physics that is amply supported by the data, it seems to me that anyone who dismisses it so casually betrays a deeply anti-scientific worldview.

John Mallinckrodt
Cal Poly Pomona

On Dec 31, 2013, at 11:07 AM, Ze'ev Wurman wrote:

> It was a perfectly nice thread until John "Know-It-All" Clement chose to 
> climb on his beloved wooden pony yet again.
>
> On 12/31/2013 9:05 AM, John Clement wrote:
> > In the US both evolution and global warming are fields where politicians and
> > religious leaders are not engaging in critical thinking.  (see the latest
> > PEW survey)  They are ignoring the professionals in science and using common
> > everyday thinking which is often not critical.
>
> The proximity of "evolution" and "global warming" that so predictably 
> and so uncritically roll off his tongue make me (critically?) wonder 
> what will happen if/when global warming will be shown not to be 
> man-caused, or even possibly non-existent. Will John the-pony-rider 
> start separating evolution and global warming then, or will he stop 
> believing in evolution too? Critical minds want to know.