Ok, Paul's Alias 2, you win. It was a bad example, and the reason I picked her answer was emotional, because you kept picking on her. Someone came up with 1/10000, I have no idea how he got that figure, though.

Science is not opinion. Please look at the links for more information.

The important part is to carry out experiments to check any ideas that the scientist might have had. Note that an experiment is not running a computer simulation of an event it is checking out the real events.

Even then, you can never prove a theory right. You can only show that it does not fail. If no-one can make your theory fail then it can be made use of. If, later on, someone finds a case where the theory fails then we start to look for a new theory. We don't necessarily stop using the old theory.

As an example, Einstein created a better theory of gravity than Newton. We still use Newton's equations because they work in most normal cases. If objects are moving very fast then we gravitate (did you see what I did there?) to Einstein's equations.

Well, one could attempt to write out equations like that...but I'd be very dubious of them. If you changed the question to something quantitative, like "What is the probability of AGW causing a 25 C temperature rise?", then you might be able to come up with a quantitative study that answers that...although I still believe there would be really big error bars on your estimate.

There are people that attempt the sort-of coupled physical-sociological problems like the one posed, using techniques from nonlinear dynamics. I think the techniques are so new that there haven't been many tests performed on them.

If I were going to attempt something more than just a guess (which I put at about 1 in 10000), I would probably try to use something similar to Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA). The number I get would at least have an argument to back it up then.

>>I would put it somewhere in the same probability range as, for example, the sun unexpectedly going nova<<

OK, that is a nonsensical comparison since we have stellar evolution theory, reasonable definitions of phenomena, and observational data on one side and nothing like any of that on the other.

>> I have yet to see anyone acknowledge that one needs to wriee out and solve EQUATIONS to determine whether or not global warming will wipe out Man<<

Fair enough; that just means that we don’t know.

No, science is not just a bunch of opinions. However, there are times when opinion is called for. In the instance you cite, it is likely to be the pressure to say something for the press. In other instances, opinion is the basis for formulating a hypothesis that can be tested by the scientific method. Some people have difficulty separating opinion from logical conclusion.

In doing fieldwork, I have placed more stock in the opinions of experienced people (trappers, hunters, fishermen, and the like) than in the pronouncements of scientists without the field experience in that area.

Science, like life in general, contains a set of facts (objective knowledge) and a set of interpretations (subjective knowledge). Hypothesis and theories are interpretations of facts. Even a law in science is not a fact but rather an interpretation (albeit one which is highly unlikely to be incorrect).

So let's look at the definition of an opinion: "In general, an opinion is a belief about matters commonly considered to be subjective, i.e. it is based on that which is less than absolutely certain, and is the result of emotion or interpretation of facts."

So I would say, yes, science is indeed a bunch of opinions (interpretation of facts). There are many aspects of climate science which are uncertain (clouds, aerosols) and thus AGW is an opinion. This is supported by the repeated attempts for it to be presented as a majority opinion (i.e. the "consensus").\

_______________________________________...

Edit: I'll also add that the scientific method is a process which is intended to ensure that you get the most accurate possible interpretation of the facts (i.e. usually given an incomplete number of facts/observations).

Many of the science-class-flunking fossil fuel industry dupes here would like to believe that science is just a bunch of opinions, because then their stupidity is just one more "opinion" to discuss in the "forum" here for debating the "two sides" of AGW, the moon landings, the flat earth, and what the square root of 16 might be depending on whether a Marxist or a Rothschild is teaching math.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...