Norinco Luger

[ithacaartist]

Ah, yes, I remember the Bush years..their hired lackeys and deluded pundits attempted to alter reality through policy. When researching Lugers, we ask the experts--those who have dealt with the variations and conditions Lugers represent. For the straight dope on climate change, consult climatologists, not Rush Limbaugh! For every issue there will always be denialists. Among those you will not find much in the way of hard fact, or even expertise--just opinions. Just because one cannot believe something to be true does not make it untrue. At this point, the few who have not surrendered to the data are considered cranks. In the early days of this issue, it was indeed difficult to see clearly; but as outlined below, the facts added up. The squabble has its roots in how a person deals with evidence; indeed how a person decides what constiitutes evidence and what does not.

The U.S. didn't fare very well when comparing levels of effective education around the world. We're something like 40th in math. This is not good. Perhaps our grand-children's educations will set them up about as well as a jack knife and a hammer would set any of us up to restore a Luger.

I hold no illusion that I can single-handedly stamp out misunderstanding of what science is and represents, but because I've just witnessed so much of it compressed into a small time and space, I'll do my best to politely dispel some of it.

Science is based on the concept, (Sure, it sounds wacky to some, and you know who you are.) that every observable phenomenon has a physical, material, earthly cause. Applying this is called the scientific method:

Observations are first put through the filters of logic to arrive at an hypothesis, which is a conditional explanation of the phenomenon. At this point, the scientist will already have begun the process of attempting to disprove his own work, which follows throughout.
Then the hypothesis is tested in a way to remove, as much as possible, bias and personal interpretation from the gathering of data. From Dragnet: "Just the facts, Ma'am."
The analysis of what the data means, or the conclusion(s), is made pretty much on the basis of what we already know. The important part is that the conclusions, data, and experiment design are written up for the entire world to see. This is part of the beauty of the idea of science; its tendency is to be self-correcting over time, and an actual scientist has the ability to change his mind if the evidence is compelling enough. Each bit of information has the potential to turn everything we think we know on its head, but usually it's an additive process whereby the understanding humankind has about itself and the universe around us is a stepping stone to the next bit of understanding more, and the next, etc. The body of knowledge concerning climate hasn't been just sitting there since somebody figured out that celestial deities did not, in fact hold responsibility for thunder and lightning. Like any other branch of science, it has been growing and changing. This makes science different from dogma, which does not evolve.

This addresses the idea that science '"changes" . It is not exactly the science that changes, but that the conclusions can change when better data is available. It's really about the body of human knowledge, which is increased every day, now at a pace at which one person is unable to keep up with it.

Paul Erlich's predictions were based on population growth and its effects. The factor he did not foresee was the effect of the birth control pill, which appeared less than a year after the book The Population Bomb. This effectively set back the clock on growth a bit, but it definitely does not negate the rest of it: If we grow too big, the planet can't support it. Any other interpretation of the current data is wishful thinking. Worldwide population is projected to double within less than another generation. Ever set out to do something with an idea of just how long it will take, and have your expectations dashed by doubling your projected time? It's similar to that. It might have taken longer than originally projected, and we found this out by experience and now hindsight, because we now know what made our first estimate be incorrect.

Discussions like this don't often change minds. My brother once described talking to my dad as similar in results to dancing with a telephone pole. Dance your heart out, then step back for a look at how much the situation has changed...