You know, it's kind of funny. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is one of those important books that a lot of people read, but they never seem to get it.

Khun's point was the spasmodic nature of advances in science, deconstructing the notion of even, linear progress, and proposing a radical new role for creative speculation in the process of advancement.

This does not mean that ideas are wrong, just because they spring from a social source, since they still have to withstand testing. He's more commenting on the way that we discover new ideas, which comes from the mind, not strictly from observation.

The issues with global warming are separate. It's not that the scientific community ...

You know, it's kind of funny. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is one of those important books that a lot of people read, but they never seem to get it.

Khun's point was the spasmodic nature of advances in science, deconstructing the notion of even, linear progress, and proposing a radical new role for creative speculation in the process of advancement.

This does not mean that ideas are wrong, just because they spring from a social source, since they still have to withstand testing. He's more commenting on the way that we discover new ideas, which comes from the mind, not strictly from observation.

The issues with global warming are separate. It's not that the scientific community is faulty, but more so that nobody on either side pays any attention to what the scientists are saying. Eco-Alarmists read headlines of newspaper articles that sumarize abstracts of very long research papers (the scientific equivalent of a fax of a photocopy of a photocopy) and then wildly extrapolate it into dire human terms that lack credibility.

On the other hand, the other side normally spends half their time explaining why we shouldn't listen to scientists anyway, and half their time alluding to vague scientific evidence against it which they never seem to produce.

Eco-Alarmists give me a headache, but I can understand their agenda, so I can interpret their assertions according to their obvious biases.

Those who dismiss global warming, though, are much more puzzling to me. What is the real agenda that motivates people to react so vhemently against it? Is it just because people who don't wash their dreadlocks are annoying? (Which they are.) Do they all work for petrochemical companies, and thus have a vested interest in the issue? Is it just because it has become a symbol of other, unrelated political issues? Why is it so important to rigorously deny it?

All kidding aside, I've never had it explained to me in a reasonable way, so I'd really be interested in an answer.

All good points. I would recommend folk also read the complete article as these points are also expounded on there.

As to dismissing global warming, personally I don't. My complaint is with the hysteria surrounding the issue and the lazy scientific scrutiny to which it is subjected. It is more than plausible that something must be done, but to run off half-cocked is potentially more dangerous than doing nothing at all. What are we to do if we spend all our resources enacting solutions in one direction only to find out a few years hence that our efforts should have been in another direction, only now we have no resources to strike out anew?

There are also serious questions to be raised ...

All good points. I would recommend folk also read the complete article as these points are also expounded on there.

As to dismissing global warming, personally I don't. My complaint is with the hysteria surrounding the issue and the lazy scientific scrutiny to which it is subjected. It is more than plausible that something must be done, but to run off half-cocked is potentially more dangerous than doing nothing at all. What are we to do if we spend all our resources enacting solutions in one direction only to find out a few years hence that our efforts should have been in another direction, only now we have no resources to strike out anew?

There are also serious questions to be raised over the trade offs involved. For example, a drastic switch to biofuels will obviously effect the quantity of crops available for foodstuffs as opposed to energy production. Not only will costs rise, but the hungrier will get hungrier. I for one, would rather be surer of the the effects of climate change and whether man can even stop it, before I endorse a program that has the potential to result in starvation. Alarmism never results in the wisest course of action.