You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
6

[–] Donbuster 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

Right, but, if you were taking a course in say, physics, it is assumed that, for purposes of the course, you accept that 1+1 equals 2. If you disagree that one and one is two, that's fine, but don't derail the entire course because of your belief; if you want to debate the concepts that lead us to conclude that the sum of one and one is two, or debate the relevancy of the assumed solution to the discussion of arithmatic, then you should take a course in number theory. This is no different from how any other university is structured. If no course was able to progress without first proving beyond a doubt all of the evidence the content relies on, nothing would be taught, both because nothing can be proven true in science (only proven false), and because the body of material that encompasses for even physics is incredibly vast. Climatology is applied physics and statistics and chemistry and a dozen other fields. Nothing would ever get done. As such, we accept that, for our courses to be productive, we must declare certain things outside the direct scope of the course to be true for the purposes of discussion, as they have done here. All this email does is warn students of this concept, and state that this is not the appropriate course for discussing such concepts, which makes sense, as, according to the course code, this is a humanities course, NOT a course in climatology, meteorology, or environmental science. All that this email is is an attempt to allow students to make a more informed decision about participating in the course, and hopefully allow the course to better stay on topic.

0
0

[–] repoman ago 

I think there is reason for concern when entire fields of study that have great influence upon policymakers are built upon foundations short of the irrefutable bedrock of logic. For an example of why this can be dangerous, I invite you to learn more about Keynesian economics.

AGW has a mountain of circumstantial evidence to be sure, but it's far from being proven an empirical fact such as claiming that the sun will rise in the east. Until indisputable mathematical proofs exist for AGW (which is nigh impossible for such a complicated system as global climate), it should not rise to a level that puts it beyond debate. It's fine not to spend time debating it in that course, but I hope the professors are at least disclaiming that AGW is a very strongly-supported hypothesis and that those taking it must to some extent "believe" the AGW conclusions based upon the preponderance of evidence.

As for me, I think the whole debate is pointless since we cannot possibly cease and reverse the damage we necessarily inflict on the climate through industry, mining, agriculture, forestry, fishing, etc - we HAVE to do those things to feed and shelter ourselves. I think we are better served to invest our collective intelligence in finding ways to thrive in the face of climate change which no matter what we do is inevitable. Unlike the dinosaurs, we have thumbs and supercomputers to help us in that regard.

0
1

[–] oedipusaurus_rex 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

... an empirical fact such as claiming that the sun will rise in the east

The sun doesn't rise in the east. The earth spins towards the east.

To deny anthropogenic climate change is to either deny the fact that light interacts with matter, or the fact that we are changing the chemical composition of the earths atmosphere. You can legitimately debate the amount of change, but to say that the change isn't happening is to ignore fact.