Dear QA when I went to school Science was based on maths and physics
both exact rigid disaplines . Arts was the backbone of the humanities.
It seemes to me someware the lines have crossed and science is more a belief system than an exact measure today. I could never presume to debate science with you as I am not educationaly equipt to debate science.

Richie 10, your last sentence says it all really. There is a lot of ‘noise’ in the popular media and blogosphere made by people who have had no substantive training in the various ‘climate sciences’ yet who are prepared to say scientists have got it all wrong. It’s akin to me telling my accountant (or electrician, or doctor, etc) they don’t know what they are talking about.

Science is not a “belief system” like a religious based faith. Scientists have a set of processes and procedures that are premised on the scientific method.

Also, science is not “exact” like maths where you can ‘prove’ 1 + 1 = 2, maths is a tool that science uses. Science is more to do with probabilities, of outcomes if you like e.g. There is a very high probability that you will not spontaneously combust while watching TV tonight, but there is a possibility that your loved one will wake up in the morning and just see a pair of smouldering shoes where you once were.

So too with global warming, there is a vast amount of science suggesting that it is real and that humanity has had a significant impact ... to such an extent that they quote numbers like 90 – 95% confidence limits, or the anthropogenic component (as opposed to natural variability) comprises 70% of the warming, etc.

Nevertheless, this is NOT to say that those scientists who don’t believe in the severity of AGW are wrong. Indeed, we can all hope, wish and pray they are right ... they just have not been able to demonstrate this when scientifically critiqued.

I will say this though; scientists need to be articulate in conveying their findings to the non-scientific community. This is where the humanities can really add to the scientists’ arsenal. Unfortunately, many people well versed in arts/humanities (Bolt for example) do the scientists and injustice by misrepresenting or distorting the science. Why you may well ask.

Interesting analogy, Q&A

>>It’s akin to me telling my accountant (or electrician, or doctor, etc) they don’t know what they are talking about.<<

So, if you were a director of Enron, talking to the company's accountant, would you have been comfortable with his explanation of their revenue recognition methodology?

Or if you were an investor in Madoff's wacky world, would you have accepted his accountant's explanation of what was going on with your investments?

I guess you would.

Pericles

Most people would understand the point I was making ... you don't and therefore are playing semantics.

Or, you do understand the point I was making and are being deliberately obtuse and are engaging in calculated obfuscation.

Not at all, Q&A.

>>Most people would understand the point I was making ... you don't and therefore are playing semantics.<<

The point that I was trying to illustrate was that it is not necessary to be an expert in order to ask questions. Often, in fact, a lack of knowledge in a particular field enables really important questions to be aired.

I know nothing about architecture. But I still question the thinking behind Blues Point Tower. And when I discovered that Harry Seidler's original plan was for a series of Blues Point Towers, "marching up Blues Point Road", I am extremely grateful that other non-architects asked the same question in time to stop it.

Meanwhile, Harry went on to become one of the most revered architects in the world.

By other architects, that is.

Non-scientists have a vital role to play in the questions they ask, and the knowledge (or ignorance) that they display. If we left it entirely up to scientists, they'd go right ahead and build an atomic bomb, recommend the use of agent orange, develop weaponized ebola and anthrax, find ways to synthesize narcotics in your home kitchen...

Oh. Right.

Nevertheless, my point is valid. Merely because someone has a deeper knowledge than you in a particular field does not render them i) infallible ii) smart or iii) immune from questioning.

Of course Pericles, ask questions (I do all the time). But, the questions you ask have been asked before, and the answers have been given time and time again, here and elsewhere.

I can understand that some people don't like the answers, but that does not mean the answers are any less correct. Following your logic, 100% proof is required before you will act, on anything. The end result being nothing will ever get done, whether that be risky but life saving surgery, or taking action to adapt to climate change and live in a more sustainable way.

Like another poster has said, it is like squeezing your eyes shut and clamping your hands over your ears and shouting to the skies 'I can't hear you'. Only when when you open your eyes you realise you have missed the boat.

Now, have you got any substantive question/s, or are we going to conduct a tete-a-tete on my accountant's or doctor's diagnosis of the latest in the chemistry and physics of climate change?