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?



On 01/04/2014 09:29 AM, Richard Tarara wrote:
[The bottom line is that looking at this point makes it look like
Gore outright lied in his use of the historical data graphs which
gives people a excuse for ignoring everything else he said.

I've gotta call BS on that.

a) The fact is, humans are dumping a lot of CO2 into the
atmosphere.

b) The fact is, there is a causal relationship between CO2
and climate change.

c) The fact is, there is a perceptible correlation in the
data.

Note: Correlation is not proof of causation. However
-- It is not the only evidence we have.
-- It serves as an illustration of the relationship.

A cowbell is not the same as a cow, but it may help you
find the cow.

d) If Al Gore had said that CO2 levels explain every detail
of the temperature record, that would have been a stupid
thing to say ... but AFAICT he never said that, so what's
your problem?

e) If Al Gore had said that CO2/temperature correlation was
the only evidence -- or even the best evidence -- of
anthropogenic climate change, that would have been a stupid
thing to say ... but AFAICT he never said that, so what's
your problem?

just like the continents fit together

That analogy illustrates my point. The way that the map of
South America "fits" against the map of Africa is not perfect
... and it is not our best evidence of plate tectonics. Not
even close.

which gives people a excuse for ignoring everything else he said

That's not an excuse. It's a disingenuous pretext, not
a rational reason.

The point remains that if Al Gore and his video had never
existed, we would still have a problem with anthropogenic
climate change.

I'm pretty sure everybody on this list has simplified an
explanation or two for pedagogical reasons. For example,
I would not want to be called a liar every time I write
KE = 1/2 m v^2 [1]
without including relativistic corrections. I insist
that equation [1] should not be used as a pretext for
ignoring everything else I have to say. Conversely, I
am not suggesting that anybody should accept on blind
faith everything (or anything) they hear from me, or
from anybody else.

I am suggesting that we should dial back the nitpicking
and the ad_hominem nonsense. I am suggesting that we
focus attention on the best evidence, not the worst
evidence. That applies to what we say in the classroom,
and in this forum, and elsewhere.