http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

"The Netherlands has asked the UN climate change panel to explain an
inaccurate claim in a landmark 2007 report that more than half the
country was below sea level, the Dutch government said Friday."

David Christainsen
Newton, Mass. USA

Meteorologist wrote:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

"The Netherlands has asked the UN climate change panel to explain an
inaccurate claim in a landmark 2007 report that more than half the
country was below sea level, the Dutch government said Friday."

David Christainsen
Newton, Mass. USA

The bureau that submitted the information gave the right numbers, but
the person that wrote the text goofed it, added two numbers, and
misrepresented the statement of the bureau.

Now the minister is crying shame and scandal "I can not run a business
with these scientists not telling the truth!" she shouted this week in
the news. I'm going to call her Jacqueline Uitkramer from now on.

The outcry itself is already remarkable, because the minister should
know that science itself will never result in the truth. The truth is a
non-existing word in science, just as a judge or a jury will not find
the truth in most court cases.

Yet the truth word is a deeply ingrained buzz word for all black and
white thinkers on this planet, it includes creationists, communists and
climate change deniers.

Science will at best give you an opinion which has been verified and
tested. But once there is new evidence then the existing theory is
easily replaced.

Now some theories have not changed in a few centuries, so we think they
are right.

Newton's laws are still valid, but for extreme situations there is a
replacement theory called general relativity.

How do you interpret this in the black and white world where there
statements can only be true or false?

In reality most scientific theories are just like verdicts in a court
case, most of them stay as they are and only a few of them are reviewed
because of new evidence.

Global warming by greenhouse gases is one of those court cases, science
will probably will not change its opinion here because the evidence is
overwhelming.

The situation is probably best compared with the OJ Simpson trial where
the verdict was that he is not charged with murder although the evidence
is overwhelming.

The replacement court case became a civil one where OJ lost all his assets.

What will be the replacement court case after climategate?

Q


--
The difference between us and the Titanic is the band.

On Sat, 06 Feb 2010 10:16:26 +0100, Roving rabbit
wrote:

Meteorologist wrote:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

"The Netherlands has asked the UN climate change panel to explain an
inaccurate claim in a landmark 2007 report that more than half the
country was below sea level, the Dutch government said Friday."

David Christainsen
Newton, Mass. USA

The bureau that submitted the information gave the right numbers, but
the person that wrote the text goofed it, added two numbers, and
misrepresented the statement of the bureau.

Now the minister is crying shame and scandal "I can not run a business
with these scientists not telling the truth!" she shouted this week in
the news. I'm going to call her Jacqueline Uitkramer from now on.

The outcry itself is already remarkable, because the minister should
know that science itself will never result in the truth. The truth is a
non-existing word in science, just as a judge or a jury will not find
the truth in most court cases.

Yet the truth word is a deeply ingrained buzz word for all black and
white thinkers on this planet, it includes creationists, communists and
climate change deniers.

Science will at best give you an opinion which has been verified and
tested. But once there is new evidence then the existing theory is
easily replaced.

Now some theories have not changed in a few centuries, so we think they
are right.

Newton's laws are still valid, but for extreme situations there is a
replacement theory called general relativity.

How do you interpret this in the black and white world where there
statements can only be true or false?

In reality most scientific theories are just like verdicts in a court
case, most of them stay as they are and only a few of them are reviewed
because of new evidence.

Global warming by greenhouse gases is one of those court cases, science
will probably will not change its opinion here because the evidence is
overwhelming.

The situation is probably best compared with the OJ Simpson trial where
the verdict was that he is not charged with murder although the evidence
is overwhelming.

The replacement court case became a civil one where OJ lost all his assets.

What will be the replacement court case after climategate?

Q

When 8 million people cram into an area that
is below sea level, it is worse than land being below
sea level, are there enough boats for 8 million?