On the Epistemology of Science.

I have been enjoying the nearly-universal contempt of all who discuss the great Global Warming and Climate Change bar-fight.

The debate seems evenly split into two parallel camps of ignorance: Those who insist that Anthropogenic Global Warming is a scientifically-proven fact, and those who insist that Anthropogenic Global Warming is a provably false idea.

None seem eager to explore my suggestion - that it is proven to be unknowable. Perhaps it is occurring. Perhaps not. But the question cannot be resolved by analysis, no matter how passionate and willful.

Since few will accept that assumption, few will proceed into the next question - what should we do, faced with a serious but unknowable problem? This possibility frustrates people, and the shooting of the messenger is usually what results.

Finally, the economist's argument - even assuming it is true, how much, how quickly, how far? The "let's do something" crowd seems to proceed down the unstudied assumption that some response is better than none.

The question of Anthropogenic Global Warming is a great test of the rationality of the human species. But we are all C- legacy students, regrettably.