As a natural scientist, I wanted to weigh in on this. The key for me was the predictive and explanatory power of global warming theory. This is the strength of any successful scientific hypothesis. So many observed phenomena are explained by the theory that it becomes very, very likely that it is "the" explanation for most of them. Does it expalin everything? No. Should we be skeptical of additional claims (as Deb suggests). Yes! Do some slight flaws negate the whole theory? Not any that have been raised.
What disturbs me most, I guess, is the failure of the public to understand that scientific knowledge is incomplete and evolving. As new data is gathered, we alter our hypotheses accordingly. This means that there may be some apparent "contradictions". Did we say one thing 15 years ago and the opposite now? Could be, but we know a whole lot more now. Furthermore, as we gain knowledge, our explanations become better and more likely. These are complex concepts, I know. However, if I could, with a magic wand, teach the public anything, it would be how science actually works: how hypotheses are generated and tested, what the role of the skeptic is, how scientific consensus is reached and what that means-not a democratic "vote" but rather a consensus of many scientists from many related fields that an hypothesis is successful at explaining a wide variety of observations. I very much appreciate this discussion and hope to see more comments on this thread. Larry Davis ************************************************************************* R. Laurence Davis, Ph.D. Professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences University Research Scholar Department of Biology and Environmental Sciences University of New Haven 300 Boston Post Road West Haven, Connecticut 06516 <rlda...@newhaven.edu> Office: 203-932-7108 Fax: 203-931-6097 UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAVEN- A Leader in Experiential Education *************************************************************************
