On 9 Jan, 15:59, bildan wrote:
There are a couple of words which have been thrown around in this long
thread. *One is "Believe or belief". *Another is "proof". *Neither
have a place in an objective discussion of climate change.

"Belief" has far more to do with philosophy or religion than science.

"Proof" is a mathematical term not generally used in other scientific
disciplines.

It is not belief or proof but criticism which is central to the
scientific method. *No scientific "conjecture" or "theory" or "fact"
is beyond criticism based on new data. *However, there are rules for
presenting criticism. *Any valid data contradicting the current
warming trend or suggesting causes other than burning fossil fuels
would get top billing.

The climate change theory is a particularly difficult one in that by
the time a solid data set is available for study, profound and highly
disruptive changes to our environment may have occurred. *This
requires an attempt to predict the future with incomplete data - a
chancy endeavor at best.

Climate scientists don't talk about belief or proof - they use far
softer terms like "suggest" or "trends" . *They don't worry much about
being 'right' or 'wrong' - their only certainty is that each new data
set will change their models and theories. *The study of climate
change is very much a work in progress and the climate scientists know
it.

If one would understand the current state of climate research, avoid
all popular media - they have no interest in objective reporting. *The
popular media just wants to stir up controversy so their audience will
stick around to watch or listen to the commercials. * *Avoid too the
radio talk show propagandists whose motives are similar and possibly
more sinister. *Instead, read the scientific media like Scientific
American or New Scientist.

The whole basis of experimental science is that you observe what
happens, and then produce a theory or a mathematical model to explain
the observed facts. You then make further observations or carry out
experiments to test the theory. If the observations and experiments
continue to support the theory it eventually becomes accepted as a law
(although still a theory). If they don't you then have to modify the
theory. Isaac Newton almost got his laws of physics dead right, but
then Einstein then discovered relativity which modified things again.

The worst scientific mistakes seem to occur when scientists are
convinced they are right and then falsify evidence to prove their
case. Examples include Piltdown Man which was supposed to be the
missing link between apes and man, and it seems even Gregor Mendel
(father of genetics) probably fiddled his data, because statistically
speaking his results came out too well.

The problem for a scientist with a theory is; what do you do if you
start getting data that doesn't quite fit? Do you dismiss them as
statistical outliers, do you keep repeating the observations or
experiments until you do get the right answer (probably what Mendel
did), do you make up false evidence (as per Piltdown Man), or do you
revise the theory?

Suppose you measure CO2 levels in the atmosphere for a few years when
global temperatures are increasing naturally. Then you draw a graph of
increasing CO2 concentrations against Global Temperature and find that
you have a correlation. Then you nail your colours to the mast, go to
the politicians and say 'we have a big problem here'. The politicians
then start scaring the hell out of the population by showing films of
crumbling ice cliffs (which were probably crumbling anyway) and polar
bears falling out the sky, and generally brainwashing the young and
impressionable people with spin, who then become Climate Change
Protesters. Then the global temperatures stop going up! What do you do
next? Interesting dilemma!

Derek Copeland