3 thoughts on “Global Warming Update

  1. Oh Philo: how anecdotal of you.

    By the way, since I am taking Classical and Mod Phil concurrently, I understand that the Aristotelian approach to science is observation, and the Cartesian approach is experimentation. I find it interesting that the entire AGW science is based on observation, and that the theories from the observations must be proved empirically, that is, by having Mother Nature validate our tiny feelings.

    I wonder if the Global Warmongers would appreciate being called “Aristotelian?” The Scholastics of our time?

  2. Great point! Climate science is almost by definition Aristotelian in those terms.

    That’s not to say we don’t understand the theoretical issues, and can’t identify underlying factors that would contribute to planetary warming or cooling. We can, in considerable detail. What we can’t do is assess relative levels of strength of the differing factors, especially since there are a lot of feedback mechanisms that tend to push things back to equilibrium.

  3. With respect to identifying underlying factors, it seems that the Warm-mongers have perfected the art of “denying” the most obvious factors. There have been studies that correlate solar activity with mean temps but this is all but ignored. Solar activity is directly related to cloud creation: what could be more obvious than “shade cools?” But , that’s an inconvenient truth. BTW, the Dane who put forward this hypothesis actually designed EXPERIMENTS to test his idea, but has been frozen out (sorry) of funding because his very premise denies AGW.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s