Monday, November 02, 2015

NASA Says Antarctica Gaining Ice, Packers Lose

I very much question how any person with a hint of a scientific bent rather than a pure ideological, financial, or quasi-religious commitment to AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming)  could look at this information and call AGW "settled". It would be very similar to a Packer fan getting up this AM after the drubbing by Denver and saying that a prediction that Green Bay will win Super Bowl 50 is settled! 

The "fact" of rapid Antarctic ice loss has been a cornerstone of AGW orthodoxy. NASA is and has been a significant source of data presented as "proving" AGW. I find this quote to be especially telling:
"The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away," said Dr. Zwally. 
"But this is also bad news,” he added. “If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for."
So if you admit you haven't accurately measured the ice in Antarctica in the past, what makes it certain that you are accurately measuring it or global sea level NOW?

There MUST be another contributor? Just as measuring the total ice on a continent is way less certain than measuring the ice in your drink, precise measurement of global sea level is not the same as measuring out a shot of bourbon no matter how many times you claim to people that such measurements are "infallible". Infallibility is a stance of religion, not science. 

Of course, NASA could be wrong on this measurement and ice may being lost, or maybe it turns out that sea level is not in fact rising -- such is ALWAYS the case with actual science which is only called science because EVERY claim is "falsifiable", but never settled because of the problem of induction ... The Thanksgiving Turkey problem

Religion says that we live in a meaningful universe with a sovereign and all knowing God having ultimate and correct reasons and purpose for all, since he created it and us, it is perfectly reasonable that at least parts of it should be validly knowable by human minds. 

Science says that we have no clue on the knowability or repeatability of a completely random and capricious universe -- other than faith that it is knowable and repeatable. Which most scientists choose to believe for the same reasons that religious people believe in God ... "it makes sense to them", "it seems it HAS to be that way", "I feel it in my very core",  etc. Scientists are humans too -- their brains need a "reasonable story" (for them) to operate with so they naturally postulate a clockwork universe "just happened" if they decide that God is "too simplistic / imaginary". 

We can find "useful guesses that work over some domain of time and space" (hypothesis and theories), but like the turkey, we will never know what we don't know. There is no scientific reason to believe in "order", or even that what randomly selected or designed human minds happen to see as "order" is even meaningful -- unless we postulate some sense of "something" (meaning, order, rules, etc) beyond the physical artifacts that we perceive. 

We will never "prove" the existence or non-existence of "god" via science -- but we need look no further than AGW to know that man must have religion! 

BTW, my certainty in the Pack is a bit tattered this AM! 

No comments:

Post a Comment