[helene_t]

hrothgar, on 2011-May-31, 08:51, said:

I don't recall anyone claiming that AGW is a "Yes /No" issue.
For that matter, I don't think that anyone claims that any scientific hypothesis is a "Yes / No" issue.

It strikes me as absurd to frame AGW as a yes/no issue. OK, one could frame questions the answer to which could be yes or no, for example "will the average land surface temperature of the world in 2050 be more than 2 degrees© higher given unchanged emissions than it would be given zero emissions?". But here I just chose the numbers 2050 and 2 arbitrarily, and also one could ask questions related to other climate descriptors than just average land surface temperature, or one could ask about other scenarios than the ones given. For example what would happen if we reduced methane emissions but not altered CO2 emissions etc etc.

But there are plenty of other scientific disciplines in which yes/no questions do come up. "Does a neutrino have a rest mass?", for example, was an open question not so long ago.

[blackshoe]

Screw Mars. That's the Martians' problem, so long as my taxes aren't going to fix their problem.

[luke warm]

cherdano, on 2011-June-06, 05:41, said:

Maybe it's a complicated question with many possible answers, but the only correct answer is a simple "YES"?

helene_t, on 2011-June-06, 07:03, said:

It strikes me as absurd to frame AGW as a yes/no issue.

evidently, "absurd" is in the eye of the beholder