[LINK] NASA Solar Storm Warning

[stephen at melbpc.org.au]

>>> I have a genuine Sagan Baloney Detector .. it's rather surprising to
>>> see it raise it's ugly head in the once highly-respected Link journal
>>> Perhaps the critical thinking gene is disappearing from the genome ..
>
>> .. good to see you, and Phil, are so certain about science, Greg.
>> It must be a nice feeling. Of course, I'm certainly no astro-physicist
>> but, do you think it may be prudent to await additional information so
>> that one can be so sure of things? ... 

> What's with the sarcasm?  

Apologies if you think i'm sarcastic. However, may one ask, of the two 
comments above, which might appear more sarcastic? Whatever, no matter.

> Why shouldn't Greg and Phil be comfortable in being able to dismiss
> nonsense like the idea that the movement in the Milky Way might
> contribute to short (very very very short) scale climate change? 


Why be so quick to dismiss? Though most of us are sure it's humans re-
arranging carbon, does this mean other factors might not be at play as
well? Or, is this strictly a one-problem-circumstance, in your opinion?

For example NASA has issued an extreme 'Solar Storm Warning' within the
next two years. Eg, they say, "the next solar maximum should be a doozy"

 http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/10mar_stormwarning.htm

This has been building since 1958. Does science assert climate systems
are completely un-affected by solar storms, and by associated sun spots
and a build up of them?  I guess NASA uses the term 'Storm' with reason?

Anyway, i say again, let's await additional scientific information, but
also act on what we do presently know anyway. Or is this just 'bullshit'?

Cheers,
Stephen

> You don't need to be an astrophysicist or even any sort of specialist
> to  be able to spot bullshit.  Rather, you need to be scientifically 
> literate, schooled in scientific method, and therefore (I hope) alert
> to to nonsense. 
> 
> One of the problems in the climate "debate" is the propensity of 
> non-scientist critics to demand "100% proof" of scientists. I think the
> sarcasm in "good to see you, and Phil, are so certain about science" 
> comes from the same sort of mind set on show by Steve Fielding et al.
> 
> It's a real dilemna for scientists to be tasked with proving to 
> non-scientists that any given flight of fancy is nonsense.  I am 
certain 
> that astrology for instance is utter nonsense, but if you want me to 
set 
> out precisely why, it might take thousands of words. 
> 
> The key is that one's scientific training provides a world view in 
which 
> certain explanations are valid and accepted (and even if they're "just" 
> thoeories, or are still works in progress, can be regarded as "true") 
> while most other conceivable explanations are able to be dismissed. 
> 
> It's not arrogance or hubris to be able to dismiss crackpots, it's 
skill.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Stephen Wilson
> Lockstep
> www.lockstep.com.au
> 
> 


Message sent using MelbPC WebMail Server