For those interested in the snowpack, it sucks this year. Maybe it is due to anthropogenic climate change, or maybe not. You can find a detailed monthly discussion from NOAA ( i.e. http://www.cbrfc.noaa.gov/wsup/pub2/...on/current.pdf
), but of course, it is based on models, and those models are wrong. It is also possible that the current predictions about runoff are all just part of a vast conspiracy of scientists who don't want us to have fun on the river this year, so you should probably just ignore it and head down to the Salt for an epic rafting trip this spring.
For those interested in climate change: this is all so very stupid. Anyone who wants to believe that anthropogenic climate change is a conspiracy can find all of the links that they want from sheisty websites and post them here. Posting links to well respected scientific organizations and media sites is not likley to change their minds. After all, we all have the ability to use google. I believe that this all comes down to a problem our society has with science communication.
So, to clear a few things up:
Science does not dwell in terms of absolute truth, truth is the realm of philosophers and mathmatitions. However, good science can be highly predictive.
Models, whether mathematical, physical, or conceptual, by definition are incorrect. However, a well constructed model can be highly predictive.
A very high degree of certainty should not be necessary for people to change their behavior when danger is possible. For instance, if you belive that there is a 20% chance that your car will explode into a fireball if you drive it to work today, that should be enough to convince you to take an alternative method of getting to work, even if it is less convenient than your car.
When it comes to anthropogenic climate change, one side has a clear motivation to manipulate the issue, the other does not.