Comments on: Superfreakonomics Chapter 5: What Al Gore and Mount Pinatubo Have in Common http://enviroknow.com/2009/01/14/superfreakonomics-chapter-5-what-al-gore-and-mount-pinatubo-have-in-common/ The Politics of Sustainability Tue, 16 Mar 2010 04:06:39 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Mark http://enviroknow.com/2009/01/14/superfreakonomics-chapter-5-what-al-gore-and-mount-pinatubo-have-in-common/comment-page-1/#comment-4585 Mark Mon, 19 Oct 2009 11:30:52 +0000 http://enviroknow.com/thesource/?p=2692#comment-4585 Your first paragraph is true, as far as you go, which is not very far. Merely labelling a response as a "Debunking" is not proof that the response IS a debunking. You have stated the obvious. But you have also not proven that any of the actual points are NOT a debunking of Levitt & Dubner. Your second paragraph is irrelevant. It may or may not be true in this case but, you have not approached a single specific point to try and see whether this is the case here. Your third paragraph is simply incorrect. Science is about falsifiable hypotheses, rigorous testing and peer review. If one's method of inquiry is all about "assumption, interpretation and judgment" one is, quite simply, NOT DOING SCIENCE. Your first paragraph is true, as far as you go, which is not very far. Merely labelling a response as a "Debunking" is not proof that the response IS a debunking. You have stated the obvious. But you have also not proven that any of the actual points are NOT a debunking of Levitt & Dubner.
Your second paragraph is irrelevant. It may or may not be true in this case but, you have not approached a single specific point to try and see whether this is the case here.
Your third paragraph is simply incorrect. Science is about falsifiable hypotheses, rigorous testing and peer review. If one's method of inquiry is all about "assumption, interpretation and judgment" one is, quite simply, NOT DOING SCIENCE.

]]> By: Donna Laframboise http://enviroknow.com/2009/01/14/superfreakonomics-chapter-5-what-al-gore-and-mount-pinatubo-have-in-common/comment-page-1/#comment-4520 Donna Laframboise Fri, 16 Oct 2009 14:51:11 +0000 http://enviroknow.com/thesource/?p=2692#comment-4520 Opposing viewpoints are important and necessary in a democracy. But just because such viewpoints exist does not necessarily mean they amount to a "debunking" of an alternative perspective. Science of all kinds - but especially climate science - is incredibly complex AND poorly understood. This means that folks can approach any given topic from different scientific perspectives or specialties and can legitimately arrive at different conclusions. There is no single, magic, scientific answer that will tell us what to do about climate or anything else. Science is all about assumption, interpretation and judgment. Opposing viewpoints are important and necessary in a democracy. But just because such viewpoints exist does not necessarily mean they amount to a "debunking" of an alternative perspective.

Science of all kinds – but especially climate science – is incredibly complex AND poorly understood. This means that folks can approach any given topic from different scientific perspectives or specialties and can legitimately arrive at different conclusions.

There is no single, magic, scientific answer that will tell us what to do about climate or anything else. Science is all about assumption, interpretation and judgment.

]]>