The View From 1776

Counterattack on Environmental Paganism

Read Environmentalists Pick Up Where Communists Left Off by Charles Krauthammer and Climate concern ripped as ‘religion’ by David R. Sands, THE WASHINGTON TIMES, ?Friday, May 30, 2008.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 05/31 at 11:27 PM
  1. Krauthammer, says "Predictions of catastrophe depend on models. Models depend on assumptions about complex planetary systems -- from ocean currents to cloud formation -- that no one fully understands. Which is why the models are inherently flawed and forever changing."

    Much of science is indeed based on complicated "models" which are continuously "refined" as the knowledge base improves. But rather than evidence of failure, the "forever changing" nature of the model in response to new data is precisely how the scientific method operates. That is exactly what scientists do all day long -- adjust their models in response to new data to make them more closely predict the future.

    For example, every year the weather models improve and become more precise in their predictions of hurricanes. That this year's model is a better predictor than last year's model in no way implies that the previous model was somehow "wrong." This year's model is just more refined.

    Krauthammer's implication that unless a scientific model is somehow static, it is therefore "flawed" and unreliable, exposes a fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific method.

    Unlike political thought (Krauthammer's forte), in which any change in position over time is viewed as "waffling" and a sign of weakness, the scientist's very raison d
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  06/01  at  12:47 AM
  2. In your stated frame of reference. are current static models of evolution, global warming, and homosexuality, scientific - or totalitarian enforced junk-science?

    "True science knows no final answers - only on-going questions." Dr. Henry Margenau, Yale University Physics Professor, 1961

    semper fidelis
    vincit veritas
    a follower of The Lion of Judah
    Posted by Jim Baxter  on  06/01  at  09:26 AM
  3. Very well put, Mr. Baxter.

    "Science knows no final answers."

    The models scientists formulate to grasp how the cosmos operates, including how global warming and evolution occur, will always be in process of revision and refinement.

    The popular lay expression, "scientific fact," is actually a misnomer and is not used by real scientists, because the nature of science allows any conclusion, no matter how seemingly well established, to be revisited if contradictory evidence arises.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  06/01  at  01:15 PM
  4. Pat,

    Key to understanding climate models is understanding feedback loops (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feedback_mechanism). However satisfying the potential for unraveling these loops and the leap forward in understanding the models give us, this is far from having actual working models; ones we can bank on to say anything about climate or man
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  06/03  at  08:18 PM
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.