The atypical belief system called "science" supposedly has inviolable rules. The most fundamental of these being the distinction between theoretical science and rigorous physical science.
I have previously more than once made the point that AGW/CC are definitely NOT rigorous physical science. To qualify as so, we would need a planet otherwise identical to Earth, except the inhabitants would never have burned any fossil fuels. By observing the climate differences between the two planets, we could determine the actual impact of FF combustion upon planetary climate. I believe that the chances of us ever discovering another planet that is identical to Earth, save for the burning of FF's and the overshoot human population thus enabled, are so remote as to be practically speaking, impossible. In the absence of such a control planet and true rigorous analysis of AGW/CC, we are reduced to the other alternative of theoretical science. Theoretical science also has rigorous rules. The other major scientific theories dependant upon the rules of theoretical science include but are not limited to the writings of Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud, and Charles Darwin in the respective fields of Economics, Psychiatry, and Biology.
In his latest book
The Kingdom of Speech, author Tom Wolfe said:
The ideas of the first two, Marx and Freud, would seem to have been unpersuasive from the first. Unworthy of the attention of folks who were, well, paying attention. As important as economics are, humans are motivated by many more things than their material condition, contrary to what Marx tried to teach us. He’s discredited now almost everywhere save university faculty lounges, always the last places to get the memo.
Freud, from the comfort of his middle-class psychiatric practice in Vienna, gave us penis envy, the Oedipus complex, and other equally risible phantasms. First hearing of these matters in university lectures as a freshman, I kept waiting for the punch line which never arrived. It finally sank in on me that sentient and otherwise coherent adults were taking this nonsense seriously. (Confirming once again that he who laughs last didn’t get the joke.)
Of the three men, only Darwin’s ideas had a bit of surface plausibility about them at the beginning. But only a bit. Darwinism, which many with the show call science but has no experimental basis and is dealt with now like religious dogma, can be stated economically, to wit: A series of small, random, mutations with survival value brought us, in four and a half billion years, from the single-cell bacterium in slime to Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart.
Not a chance in the world.
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-kingdom-of-speech-tom-wolfe/1123110042?ean=9780316404624#productInfoTabsTheoretical science is by it's very nature, speculative and beyond proof. The works of Marx/Freud/Darwin have dominated the thinking of those in Western civilization for almost a century, but remain at best, rank speculation. Now we have another proposed scientific theory, that of AGW/CC, that fails even the most basic test of widespread acceptance, as it has a few tens of thousands of proponents in a world of 7.4 billion people.
The AGW/CC theories are not, in the modern phrase, settled science. They aren’t even unsettled science. They are educated guesses at best. There are five standard tests for a scientific hypothesis. Has anyone observed the phenomenon — in this case, AGW/CC — as it occurred and recorded it? Could other scientists replicate it? Could any of them come up with a set of facts that, if true, would contradict the theory? Could scientists make predictions based on it? Did it illuminate hitherto unknown or baffling areas of science? In the case of AGW/CC...well...no...no...no...no, and no.
Lastly, I don't think that political ideology in any way corresponds to a belief in the proposed theory of AGW/CC. If you actually believe in the theory, you would demonstrate such a belief with your lifestyle, which would be rural, agrarian, and sustainable. You would not own any vehicle with a fuel tank, use any electricity from the power grid, or consume any but locally sourced foodstuffs. And you would definitely not live in the stinking human hives we call cities, or the slightly less odiferous suburbs.
It so happens that I know several families of such people, as the high tech lifestyle of Silicon Valley often produces a backlash that results in an early retirement, followed by a slower and more contemplative lifestyle in rural splendor. I would say that the mix of liberals and conservatives is the same as when they lived the urban lifestyle of Silicon Valley. They are of course now surrounded by more conservative folks who never would consider living in cities or suburbs. After a couple of generations, there won't be any observable differences between these folks and their neighbors, I would speculate.
The Great O has nothing to do with my question. I want to know what is it about you few that allows you to see and understand and accept the science, and even come here and help the rest of us understand it, when so few outside these threads from your side of the political spectrum can't. Thanks ahead of time for sticking to this point and for avoiding getting side tracked.)
