Re[10]: [at-l] another stove question

[nealb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (William Neal)]

Ah, but little grasshopper, I mean little owl, there are no abosolute
truths.  There are only "theories" that are right so often we accept them as
truths.

Granted some "truths" (such as gravity) are true
99.99999999999999999999999999999...9 percent of the time that we accept them
as true.  But until they are proven true in each and every possible case in
the past, present, and future, they are not "absolutely" true and thus
absolute truth is impossible.  And thus, almost any "theory" has a certain
amount of "positive" possibility and a certain amount of "negative"
possibility.  Though I tend to not believe the Flat Earth theory.

Sorry, but I just recently explained to an excited friend why I would refuse
to be a witness at a trial: They were excited because they had been called
as a witness by the prosecution.  And I explained that I do not believe in
swearing to tell "the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help me God."
I would make a very poor witness.

William, The Open Turtle
-- I think I know I exist, but do you exist? --

-----Original Message-----
From: greyowl@rcn.com [mailto:greyowl@rcn.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 1:21 PM
To: Jim and/or Ginny Owen
Cc: ellen@clinic.net; shane@theplacewithnoname.com; at-l@backcountry.net
Subject: Re: Re[10]: [at-l] another stove question


I am going to weigh in on this one.  I have tried to hold my
tongue, but I must finally say a word or two.  Ex-president
Reagan, when asked about the theory of evolution stated "It
is only a theory"  The error of his statement is that a
theory is based on facts (observations) and explains these
facts and can be used as a predictive tool.  So the theory of
flight is only a theory, but fortunately it holds ups 99.99%
of the time.

There are a number of hypothesis about global warming and
they are currently being tested.  The facts are that the
average temperature of our wonderful planet is increasing.
The amounts of greenhouse gases are increasing.  The average
temperature is increasing faster than what has been predicted
by several models.  So we are in the data collection mode at
this time.  Some of this data is coming from NOAA, some from
NASA as well as other government and acedemic sources.

One of the more intreging hypothesis that I heard is that the
earth is moving out of a realitive dusty spiral arm of our
galaxy into an area between the arms where there is little
dust.  This results in more radient energy from the sun
falling on the earth.  There is some geological data that
supports this hypothesis.  In the end the global warming
model will contain a large number of factors and will take
years to test and then years to see how well it predicts
future events.

So the real question is do we do nothing or do we take steps
to decrease greenhouse gases, the only factor that we have
control over?  There are valid points to each side of this
argument and I believe that we should do the latter.  I can
use the scientific literature to support my argument that one
should take action now.  I can present to you a rational and
logical argument.  On the other hand you could use the
scientific literature and make the argument that we don't
have to do anything at this time.  I hope that in the next
couple of years we start to get more and better data, but it
may take the next hundred years before we have a definitive
theory.

As an aside.  I took a science coure in my University's
Philosophy department.  The average lifetime of a theory
before it is discarded or radically modified is 10 - 15
years.  Eventually we get it right.  But one of the great
truths in science is that there are now right or wrong
answers to problems of this magnitude.

Dr. Grey Owl