Reply To: Questions regarding DPF.

[Breakable]

Well scepticism is an important part of science, but for it to happen you have to have something to be skeptical about. Be it GW, Evolution or Standard Model. Each of those (and other well accepted) theories have theirs skeptics, controversial evidence and gray areas which are still to be investigated. So here is for you skeptics something to sympathize with 😉
http://i.imgur.com/hAY2R.jpg

Regarding the criticism of GW theory, specifically “EPAGreenhouseGasEmissions.pdf” some of it is probably valid, but that does not mean that GW theory itself is fundamentally flawed, every theory has its criticism. More likely it means that there is more work to be done. Who can actually say that the simplified models cannot predict anything without testing? You can never know what is the programs output without actually running it – this is what I learned from experience – and no theory is better than actual results. And if Copenhagen is of any measure we will see the results in 50-100 years, because the experiment is ON. My own nonscientific opinion is that humans must have an impact on earth if they play such huge part in the system, especially with our outdated technology:
http://www.oklo.org/wp-content/images/p-earth-night.jpg
What the actual impact is – we will see.

There are probably scientists who don’t get funding because of opposition to GW theory, I guess there are some flaws in the Capitalism, this is one of them (in case the concerns are actually valid, and not some angry person rant over getting fired). On the other hand science itself should not be biased for or against a theory, but should instead gather evidence and analyze it impartially.

Open mindedness means willingness to consider new ideas based on evidence. The problem is when evidence is imperfect, and that’s mostly the case. But people usually tend to like the evidence that support their own ideas more, and demand perfect evidence to refute them. Unfortunately this evidence is too hard to produce and in real world we have to work with imperfect one. Motive, alibi, weapon can get someone convicted for life even if all of those can be fabricated. The tricky part is comparing imperfect evidence in an impartial fashion.