I misunderstood your point. Sorry, I should clarify.

Public debate has no place in science. However, science should have an important place in public debate. As you say, scientists don't write policy, politicians do.

Well then, we actually agree :)

The amount of energy and "force" that humans apply in comparison with the energy of the sun and the earth's internally stored energy is so miniscule as to require a very lengthy formula to express.

The amount of force that the sun and earth apply is in balance with the environment. A new force - even a small one, applied over time - will change the environment.

Right you are, but if those other other forces create a reasonable equilibrium, mankind’s "minuscule" forces may nevertheless be sufficient to upset the balance and thus wreak havoc -- especially when considered cumulatively over time.

-- ArcticStones

Again, the previous three posts are referencing philosophical arguments, not scientific arguments. If you want to claim that people are exerting an enormous "force" (I use quotes because it's not necessarily a force in the Newtonian sense) on the environment, then back it up with examples and evidence. If you want to claim that the human contribution is minuscule compared to environmental factors beyond our control, then back that up equally. The "they say" generalizations don't really move the dialog anywhere.

I wasn't aware that such a complex system as the planet Earth was modelled with a single formula! That's a bit of a naive view of science. I think, rather that you were trying to imply that $1000000 is not appreciably different from $1000001 (in a practical sense).

CAlverez, wdympcf...

1) do you believe global climate change is happening?

2a) if you answered 'no' to (1), what are your objections to the scientific data presented in its favor.

2b) if you answered 'yes' to (1), what are your objections to trying to control the one factor we can control, which is our output of greenhouse gasses?

Since you're asking for my personal opinion (after all you are asking me what I believe), I will give it with no apologies to either side of the argument. I think that the only thing that the global warming argument is good for is giving us a sense of urgency and a measure of a target as to what we HAVE to do for the environment.

Does it really matter if the human component to global warming is as significant as some say it is? Not really. In the scheme of things, it shouldn't take an impending global catastrophe (i.e. many of the doomsday predictions about global warming) to motivate us to take our stewardship of this planet seriously. But that is exactly what the "issue" of global warming is being used to do. It is being used to spring us into action, as a rallying point around which we can all hopefully come to some agreement that we MUST take better care of our environment.

So, whether global warming is actually a result of human activities, there can be little doubt that we do take the environment for granted. This attitude needs to change - regardless of whether the catastrophe is global warming or just everyone living on one giant landfill.

seems entirely reasonable to me.

No, it's not, and never has been. Go study a little science before you make a statement like that. What appears like balance to you is a state of continual change over thousands of years. We are but a tiny speck in the earth's timeline.

The earth is in a constant state of change, and continues to be. Whether that change is warming or cooling, and there is evidence of both, I don't know. I have no objection to trying to control gas emissions, I do object to the hysteria and calls for excessive controls.

1. One valid way of looking at science is as a branch of philosophy. Even if you don't see science that way, they're both valid methods of approaching an accurate understanding of reality.

2. Our atmosphere, and hence our climate, has mass, and we add millions of tons of CO2 to that mass every day. Just look at what a very small portion of our economy adds! It is impossible to imagine the climate system not changing without some equal and opposite counter balance to what we're doing. If you know of one, I'm sure the rest of the world would love to hear of it.

Science is a part of philosophy, I will agree on that. However, philosophy is not science - and that is where I'm drawing my distinction.

If you re-read my post above, you will see that I wasn't saying that we are not exerting a "force" on the environment. I was saying that you'll need to back up the claim that it's an enormous force. Certainly, I believe that Newton's third law is true - and I also believe the third law extends to philosophical generalization as well.

Now it's about imagination, still no science. I can easily imagine it not changing, and I refute the presumption that there isn't a counter-balance.

lol - you can refute the assumption that smacking into a light pole at 90 mph will damage your car, too, but that isn't going to do you a whole lot of good. :) the fact of the matter is, the environment does and will respond to the pollutants we pour into it, and because the environment is a dynamic system, the response it gives may be utterly out of proportion to the stimulus we give it. or it may not be, of course... the fear here comes from a mathematical concept called hysteresis, which is present in many physical systems. in brief, that's the tendency of a system to stay in a given state (despite disturbances) until some given disturbance pushes it past a limit point - then the system will rapidly shift to a new state and resist any attempts to push it back to the old.

from my view, the worst position to take is that environmental change is going to be a slow and steady (and thus visible and predictable) process. frankly, we may not see any significant changes until we're past that limit point, and by then it will be just exactly too late.

Pffft! I should have been more precise: Compared to the amount of CO2 that humans are adding to the atmosphere, which amplifies the effects of the Sun's energy, the amount of energy that the Sun radiates upon the Earth is relatively fixed.
And what's excessive controls? Shall we leave that decision to the oil companies?
So where's your counter-balance? Since you're an expert on what is and isn't Science, I'm expecting something impressive.

Warning: Off-topic, environmental posts will be deleted
 

That’s a fascinating thought, TW. And I agree with you.

However, like some other recent posts, it has absolutely nothing to do with the thread topic! Please take environmental posts elsewhere.

If there is a repetition of off-topic posts in this thread – which is on medicine (!) – I shall delete all stray posts by said poster.

I hope that is clear, and I hope it is respected.

-- ArcticStones
.

lol - sorry, I really thought I was responding to a post in the other thread. my bad. :)

Sorry, but
 

Actually, even in 2008 most (by which is meant over half) of diagnoses are made from the history.

Skilled physicians use three basic tools: history (the story the patient tells of what has happened, often focused by questions posed by the physician), the physical examination (in which some examiners will use more of their senses than others), and tests (body fluid chemistry, imaging procedures, biopsy results, &c.).

Fifty years ago, the percentages stood approximately at 70% history, 20% physical examination, and 10% tests.

The drift away from history has, in my opinion, more to do with the relative de-emphasis of the skill of taking a good history in medical education, and the relative over reliance on tests.

I can think of many utterly brilliant diagnoses that were made uniquely from the history.

When a journalist asked Abraham Lincoln, in the dark days of the early U. S. Civil War, what kind of generals he liked, Lincoln was long silent, finally replying, "Lucky." So, if you have a personal physician, I hope that you are lucky when you make your choice, or that your physician has been well trained in the use of the most powerful available tool for diagnosing illness (the history), alas, very poorly represented in the current manifestation of the internet.