[Terrapreta] the most terrifying video...climate change

[Kevin Chisholm]

Dear Sean

Sean K. Barry wrote:
> Acting on a belief is good if that is ones only option.  However, the
> outcome depends on chance. Get the Science right and then we can proceed
> with virtual certainty. Why isn't Big Science looking at ALL
> possibilities? By not looking at all possibilities in a rational manner,
> they are setting themselves up for potential disaster.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Kevin
> Hi Kevin,
>  
> Big Science has looked at the "solar activity and cosmic rays are 
> causing global warming" possibility.  Its effect on GW 
> is insignificant when compared to the effect on GW of recent (human 
> generated) increases in GHG.
That is what they ask us to believe. Have you ever seen anything 
responsible in print that provides a reasonable basis for disputing 
Svensmark's Hypothesis?
>  
> There is no complete truth or fact in science, nor anywhere else.  
> Science just has a way of logically connecting evidence so it 
> compounds support for ideas, thus developing them into theories.  From 
> theories, predictions are made.  When the predictions come to pass, 
> then the theories are given even greater support.  The best scientific 
> work has produced predictive theories meeting out valid predictions 
> and application in the real world; Classical Physics, Special and 
> General Relativity, Quantum Theory, Electrodynamics, etc.  Science 
> generates high probabilities, at best.

If I tip over my coffee cup, I can be absolutely certain that it will 
spill, if there is anything in it.
>  
> If we must continue to wait until you see an "absolute certainty", 
> because you cannot accept high probability percentages in the high 
> 90s, then we should all just continue on as is, until it all comes to 
> pass and then we die.
Most Climate Change models acknowledge that their treatment of Cloud 
Cover is weak. Cloud cover is important. Therefore their models are 
weak. Svendsmark's stuff seems to hang together than present GHG 
theories for GW. What happens if we spenbd all our resources on GHG 
mitigation, and it doesn't work? We all die, same as if GHG's were the 
villian, and we did nothing.
>  
> Good luck with the "head in the sand" approach.
That to me, is a statement reflective of "Belief Science", and 
"Consensus Science", for which I have no respect. In reply to this 
rather insulting and demeaning statement, the only other thing I choose 
to say is "100,000 Lemmings can't be wrong."

Kevin
>  
> Regards,
>  
> SKB