Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-L] just for fun



A reasonable question. I will simply point out the (past) consensus about
impact of obesity or hormone replacement therapy. Even things thought 'well
understood' are not necessarily so. 'Simple physics'? Carbon dioxide, and
GHG in general, physics may be 'simple' but what about cloud cover? Is
that 'simple' too? Dealing precisely with 10% of the system doesn't
precisely solve it.

Time will tell. But it ain't simple by any measure. And blithely comparing
a century and a half of evolutionary scrutiny with a decade and a half of
AWG seems a tad cocky.

Ze'ev

On Dec 31, 2013 12:55 PM, "John Mallinckrodt" <ajm@csupomona.edu> wrote:

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.

_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@phys-l.org
http://www.phys-l.org/mailman/listinfo/phys-l