Dan wrote in
:

On Mar 11, 8:08 am, "Dan Luke" wrote:

That is the way scientists speak. If we are waiting for *certainty*
from them, our wait will be eternal.

But when a theory matures to the point that it adequately describes
and predicts the phenomenon under study, and contending explanations
do not, then it is pretty conclusive. Is the theory of anthropogenic
greenhouse-driven warming as robust as the theory of evolution? No.
Is the theory of evolution "proven?" No. Are they both backed by
evidence powerful enough to convince the vast majority of scientists?
Yes.


Underlying any theory are unspoken assumptions. What annoys (yes --
annoys) skeptics is the unwillingness of the adherents to pull the
rocks up and evaluate the validity of the assumptions.


Therefore some reasonable people -- and I count myself among them
-- are reluctant to accept the premise that "there is anthropogenic
global warming and we can address its causes" because we know the
logical conclusion to the premise -- mandates and
government-controls on all aspects of human behavior.

All aspects of human behavior? Says who? There are alarmists on both
sides, wouldn't you say?

Read history --recent and ancient -- to see that governments are more
than willing -- nay eager -- to mandate controls on *all* aspects of
human behavior. Ask me for proof and I'll be happy to start at either
end of the spectrum.

Historical aside -- One of the assumptions of the founders was
protection from this very thing (See Federalist Papers, particularly
#10)


But we are now conducting a massive, uncontrolled experiment on the
only atmosphere we have. Should we just let it ride and see what
happens?

We *have* been living in such an experiment since humankind has
inhabited this planet. One of the assumptions of the pro-AGW theory is
that the the only variable is human activity -- and when certain
amplifying or mitigating data is considered (solar variation, volcanic
activity, deep ocean heat sink, atmospheric particulate matter of lack
thereof), it is always considered in isolation -- never in aggregate
in any of the IPCC or related publications.


People can always think of a thousand reasons for doing nothing. It
takes some will and imagination to confront a problem as complex as
this one. The easiest thing to do in the short term is simply to
deny that the problem exists.

Edmund Burke suggested that alterations to society should be
approached as one would "address the wounds of a father" -- tenderly,
carefully, lovingly, and with the intent to do as little harm to the
existing organism as possible. Sometimes this means not rushing in and
thereby doing more harm than good.

So my shooting every SUV driver on sight thing is not a runner?


In addition, we should stop "crying wolf" by raising alarms that no
one really believes to be true --

Good grief.


Bertie