DomKen
Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004 From: Chicago, IL Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote:
ORIGINAL: DomKen I was on the fence on that one but claiming we don't understand the complexities of climate change is very close to the line. If you feel I misinterpreted your statement I'll take your word that you meant that differently. I think insisting we DO understand the complexities is far over the line. We know very well from the geologic record that the climate of this planet has gone through many changes before we ever got here. You are on the wrong side of Occam's Razor. Getting shrill, and insisting that a data-set of one is meaningful doesn't help. ? I'm guessing you think Occam's Razor is "the simplest solution is usually the right one" and that global warming isn't the simplest solution. What Occam actually said atnd what is useful in science is, translated into English, "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity." Which IOW is "all things being equal, the simplest explanation that accounts for all the data is right until something contradictory comes along." Anyone who has hung around the internet for very long has seen somebody post their elaborate complicated theory about something or other. The fact is that no matter how well thought out that theory might be if all it does is account for exactly the same data present, simpler theory explains it will never be accepted since it is unnecessarily complicated. You could be right that this climate change is entirely natural and the massive release of carbon sequestered from the atmosphere from 300+ million years is having no effect. However claims of this sort either ignore the change in CO2 concentration in the last 250 years or attempt to claim it isn't related to human activity which, to me and most researchers in the field, seems extremely unlikely. So all things are not equal between the deniers and those who report that global warming is happening and think human action is a factor in this event so there is no unnecessary multiplication of entities between the two explanations and therefore Occam's is not violated. I'm still much more interested in your response to the second half of my previous post.
|