Re: [Phys-l] About the "why" and "how" questions.

[John Mallinckrodt <ajm@csupomona.edu>]

William Robertson wrote:

> I've already provided one glaring example, which is Hawking stating  
> (in so many words) the we (scientists) are on the verge of knowing  
> what God intended.

I haven't read the book, but I'm quite sure that Hawking didn't say anything even remotely like that.  As I understand it, Hawking offered his opinion that there is no need for God to explain the creation or subsequent evolution of the universe.  I suspect that most scientists would agree with that--I certainly do--but I have some limited sympathy for the proposition that it might have been needlessly provocative.

> When scientists claim that they can falsify ID.  

I don't think I've ever heard a scientist say that.  It seems to me rather obvious that ID simply can't be falsified.  Still I do certainly agree (as you already know) that many of us are sloppy and counterproductive in attacking ID as anything other than "not science."

> When claims of fact are made based on computer modeling of the  
> climate, as if the computer models are absolutely infallible.

Again, I don't think I've heard anyone make a claim that could even remotely be construed as suggesting that a computer prediction (or ANY prediction for that matter, there is nothing special about a computer prediction) is infallible, but the climate predictions (not *weather* predictions) of computer models have been, as I understand it, pretty good and are getting better all the time especially as the data becomes more plentiful.  They now make some fairly catastrophic predictions for a hundred years or less down the line unless we change course.  This is the one and only example you have come up with that represents (I think) the scientific community's position, but I don't see how you or anyone can proclaim it to be "an overstatement."  Of course, it may turn out to be, but we won't know for some time and we may never know if humanity does manage to change course.

So I'm still looking for an example of the scientific community making "overstatements" that would justify societal mistrust, especially given the magnificent and unparalleled record of success that ought to be folded in to that judgment.  

I'll agree with this much:  IF it turns out that the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community (and I think it *is* pretty overwhelming at this point) on global climate change turns out to be wrong, it will constitute a *very* unusual and *highly* embarrassing episode in science.

> ... When was the last time you heard a major proponent of AGW (Hansen at  
> NASA, for example) include in his statements the fact that all of our  
> predictions at this point are based on computer models? A while back I  
> provided a link where a NASA spokesman did just that. It was  
> refreshing, and it didn't take away from the overall message or imply  
> that the climatologists didn't know what they were doing.

Exactly, which may be part of the reason why climate researchers don't mention that the predictions are "based on computer models."  Of course, they are!  Who could possibly think otherwise?  What other option is there?  Hand calculation?

John Mallinckrodt
Cal Poly Pomona