quote:
Originally posted by JL(SFC58,AFCB):
Which is the scientific approach, and which is the religious approach?
A "The Wise Men say there is man made global warming. Therefore there is man made global warming"
B "Please produce numerical predictions from your models, so that I can compare them with reality"
Actually BOTH Statements A and B contain a scientific truth.
An analysis and comparison of Statement A against usable models - as required by Statement B - would produce the following statement, from which predictions can be produced:
"A global warming exists and its cause is the Wise Men (therefore it IS man-made)"
If we substitute 'global' with 'worldwide' and 'warming' with 'negative climate change' the statement develops as follows:
"A worldwide climate has been negatively changed by the Wise Men"
And, as the type of change is acknowledged to be a destabilising one:
"A worldwide climate has been destabilised by the Wise Men"
We can now look into accepted definitions for the words 'climate' and 'change'
Climate: 'Prevailing public attitude'
Change: 'Replace'
A result is TWO possible statements:
1) "One climate has been replaced (by another) by the Wise Men"
2) "A worldwide prevailing public attitude has been destabilised by the Wise Men"
So, scientifically, the Wise Men must express the original 'Statement A' as:
"We - the Wise Men - state there is a worldwide destabilisation in prevailing public attitude. Therefore this statement exists as both the cause of that destabilisation, and the effect of it"
Looking a models built on real historic Wise-Men-caused destabilisation's in prevailing public attitude, accurate predictions can be made about the outcome of this one.
