<p>kluge - oh yeah relativity too. If the speed of light in a vacumn is not a constant then that whole theory goes to hell too.</p>
<p>But then science isn’t revealed truth is it? Rather it is just one method of understanding the world we live in with its own strengths and weaknesses. Scientific “truth” if you are going to be true to the scientific method is just our best current explanation of how things work based on a couple of assumption/postulates like cause and effect. Any theory “true” today is subject to revision as soon as a better explanation comes alone and indeed science doesn’t really have a problem with holding two diametrically opposed ideas if they will each work for solving a given problem.</p>
<p>I say that because too little is known about “normal” fluctuations in weather and earths temperature to say with any certaintity if any of the things we are seeing are A) significant or B) related to human activity.</p>
<p>What we do know for a fact is that temperatures in northern Europe and the North Atlantic have varied in recent recorded history with an unusually warm period from roughly 800 - 1300 AD followed by a little ice age that lasted until the 19th century. Unless you have a scientifically sound explanation for that warm period and the little ice age that followed you can core all the arctic and antartic ice you want and it won’t convince me of anything. Were there a large number of internal combustion engines burning fossil fuel in 800 AD?</p>
<p>Volcanic activity, ocean currents, sun spots, forest and grassland fires - there are all kinds of variables that affect global climate and very little is known about them. If you want to start screaming the sky is falling be my guest but if you want to say your half-baked idea is backed up by solid scientific evidence then you are talking through your hat.</p>
<p>OK then who was taking temperature readings in South Africa in 800 AD or 1500 AD for that matter? Don’t give me an ice core from another continent to prove “global” warming if I cannot use direct evidence from half of a hemisphere. There is no data to confirm that the known temperature changes in Europe, the Atlantic and North America were confined to those specific areas or that the anomalous temperatures in those regions was not sufficient to affect the global mean.</p>
<p>Funny, but aside from research funded by the energy companies to murk up the question as long as possible, it’s difficult to find a study involving the continued dumping of megatons of carbon into the atmosphere that <em>doesn’t</em> support models of global warming. I don’t think it’s a case of people crying that the sky is falling, I think it’s a case of people with vested interests scrunching their eyes tightly shut, sticking their fingers in their ears, and humming real loud.</p>
<p>So you can’t disprove the existence of God or cause and effect for that matter either. All that tells us is the utilitarian limits of the scientific method mini. In and of itself it doesn’t make us any the wiser.</p>
<p>On the other hand for those of us who think the scientific method is the only valid method of inquiry, well they are cut off from even addressing some of the most interesting questions mankind faces. The scientist can tell us when life begins but it cannot tell us when human life begins. It can tell us when we are dead but it cannot tell us when our lives cease to be worth living. It can tell us the cost of everything and the value of nothing.</p>
<p>I don’t have a problem with science but I do have a problem with people who don’t understand the limits of the scientific method or who think it is the only valid or usefull way to address problems.</p>