[MD] Global Warming: Science or Politics?

[Squonkriff at aol.com]

Platt:
Sorry. I'm too dense to follow your argument. I just seems to me  that if 
predictions based on so-called science have been wrong about changes  in 
global
climate in the recent past in the past, they can be wrong now,  especially 
when
some scientists who supposedly know about such things say the  dire 
predictions
made by Al Gore and others are wrong. If you see a flaw in  that more or less
common sense argument, please let me know.  Thanks.

Regards,
Platt
 
Mark 20-02-07b: Hi Platt,
Platt: '...if predictions based on so-called science have been wrong about  
changes in global climate in the recent past in the past, they can be wrong  
now....'
 
The example you cite from the 70's isn't wrong; our generation cannot live  
long enough to span the geological time necessary to observe the next ice age.  
However, the history of past cycles are written in ice layers for us to 
examine.  If the cycle continues then another ice age will occur.
 
This is how inductive inference works:
"Inductive inferences start with observations of the machine and arrive at  
general conclusions. For example, if the cycle goes over a bump and the engine  
misfires, and then goes over another bump and the engine misfires, and then 
goes  over another bump and the engine misfires, and then goes over a long 
smooth  stretch of road and there is no misfiring, and then goes over a fourth 
bump and  the engine misfires again, one can logically conclude that the 
misfiring is  caused by the bumps. That is induction: reasoning from particular 
experiences to  general truths." ZMM ch. 8
All i am indicating here is that the 70's example you gave is flawed  with 
respect to inductive reasoning.
Platt: "...we cannot be sure that present TF is not being  catastrophically 
enhanced by technological influences for the same reason  we can't be sure that 
solar activity won't bring on a period of global cooling,  as was widely 
predicted by scientists in the 70's."
The current situation regarding TF has no inductive basis like the  70's 
example you gave.
 
"Deductive inferences do the reverse. They start with general knowledge and  
predict a specific observation. For example, if, from reading the hierarchy of 
 facts about the machine, the mechanic knows the horn of the cycle is powered 
 exclusively by electricity from the battery, then he can logically infer 
that if  the battery is dead the horn will not work. That is deduction.
Solution of  problems too complicated for common sense to solve is achieved 
by long strings  of mixed inductive and deductive inferences that weave back 
and forth between  the observed machine and the mental hierarchy of the machine 
found in the  manuals. The correct program for this interweaving is formalized 
as scientific  method." ZMM ibid.
 
I agree with you when you suggest scientific method is fallible.
It is then appropriate to be careful when considering global warming to  
remove any shadow of political influence as social patterns of value and  
concentrate instead on the intellectual patterns of value. If the intellectual  
patterns of value help us to identify danger, then political patterns will have  to 
do the donkey work of change under intellectual guidance. This seems in  
accord with the moq i think you may agree Platt?
 
The question remains: Has scientific method identified a danger?
Best,
Mark