Search results

RE 1, science deals with empirical evidence that it can extrapolate into theories, which are then used to make predictions. Predictions are far easier to make when the issue is a simple one, which this patently isn't. Those two should be carefully differentiated in my view. To use an example...

Academics' careers depend on writing papers, among other things. What goes in to those papers has to fall in line with those academics' understanding. In other words, take away climate change, and they'll write about something else, from whatever position they think is appropriate.

Thanks for this. I'll try and lodge it in my memory and use it in future.

This. That said: -- the pedant in me has pointed out a couple of errors, one spelling the other punctuational :p -- I don't see this as being about the planet, which has been here for 4.6billion years (according to science when I last looked, ps sceptics, you can always claim that they're wrong...

1 I don't like operating in binaries (you've been writing too much code, which I suspect, but don't know, operates off binaries, i.e. 0s and 1s ), and actually think it's outdated 2 if your argument is that climate change needs to rip in order to prove the sceptics wrong, I think this is an...

With this post, I do understand and agree with most of it, especially about us being flawed. The bit I disagree with has already been addressed on this thread by Bold Seagull, and that is that the predictive modelling is always going to be precisely what it says on the tin. There are so many...

Me no understand. Are you saying that all that matters is to win the argument? Or that the 'Green Lobby' should solely focus on that, and abandon policy implementation (and adaptation)? Because that leaves the question of whether and who is going to deal with policy which, ultimately, is what...