TallDave wrote:I think gblaze is right to the extent a lot of scientific claims are treated as gospel truth because they come from scientists rather than on their empirical merits.
Global warming is a good example of this. There's very little empirical basis for some of the claims being made, but a lot of people seem to evaluate those claims as 'Well, they're made by scientists, so they must be scientific, therefore they must be true."
Tell me gravity causes object to fall at 10 m/s/s and I can verify it empirically, myself. That's real science. (Obviously some things require sophisticated measurement devices, but the principle is the same: we can all measure the same effect.) So when you give me a projection based on the assertion that things fall at 10 m/s/s, I can say this is a very scientific projection and very likely to be accurate. When you throw a bunch of variables into a computer based on historical data and a lot of assumptions and very simplified treatments of very complex phenomena, and on that basis tell me we're all doomed because of rising CO2 levels, no one can say whether the conclusions are accurate as we don't have a spare Earth and 100 years to test them with. But many people are treating those conclusions as though they're as ironclad as the 10 m/s/s we can all measure.
i think you make some good points.
the same criticism can be leveled against any 'technical discipline' - economics for instance and even 'sacred' medicine to some extent.
the debate has gone out over here. consumers and producers may themselves be cynical, or they may not; they will do what whatever the law says. in any event, its particularly difficult to effectively endorse a 'public harm'.
some 'iron clad' state of affairs, was what was required for 'synchronized' carbon markets to operate, on the basis that 'something' eventually has to be done about pollution, so better create a mechanism to moderate it now. so, its (inherently) imperfect.
the American stance is an unwelcome distraction in this issue. China and India are of greatest common concern, then Europe, then the US.
it will be interesting to see how flexible/brittle this whole arrangement becomes under the economic cycle ahead.
to tomclarke: at last! someone has introduced Huxley. I am sure Orwell or either of the Wells's might also be wheeled-in at this juncture.