[Osx-nutters] Denial

[Chris Gehlker]

On Aug 15, 2007, at 11:51 AM, Stefano Mori wrote:

> I mention the millions just to illustrate the huge leap people make
> when they accuse me of not trusting science to make predictions and
> therefore that I must believe that the sun won't come up tomorrow.
>
> Anyway, having a hypothesis about mechanisms is of course very
> valuable. But the thing is, having a complex model doesn't
> necessarily mean that your predictions are more trustworthy.

OK, but I still think you are missing something fundamental. The GW  
proponents *did not start from a complex model*. They started from a  
dead simple physical model that can be tested in any  middle school  
science lab. That  model is verified every time someone sees a  
hothouse tomato. The greenhouse effect in the lab is simple, easily  
testable, and not disputed by anyone.

The problem arose when they tried to apply this simple model to the  
planet and discovered that the observed temperature rise of the globe  
was less than what would  have been predicted by the lab results.

Now this isn't very shocking. Most systems out in the world don't  
behave exactly as theoretical physics predicts they will and in  
accordance with lab experiments. But is does seem to me that it  is   
qualitatively different to start with a model that you can verify in  
the lab and then work work toward something that's a more accurate  
predictor on a global scale than it is  to work on something like  
smoking/cancer where all you have initially is a correlation and you  
are trying to figure out the mechanism as you go along.

--
Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!