But it is usually "settled enough".
Example? Gravity. If any says it's not settled science, they're kind of nuts. Anyone claiming some science isn't settled is just plain wrong. Quibbling about the details doesn't change the settled nature of the fundamentals.
By the same standard, criticizing flat-earthers is anti-science. It's not. It's common sense. Some ideas are just bad. Global warming denialism is in that category. Not because of politics, but because the hard data says so.The "deniers" label is anti-science itself because it suggests climate science is "settled," therefore anything outside the currently accepted norm is anathema. That puts a big damper on further research.
So, like mainstream climate science.The true scientific process gathers as many facts as possible and then forms a theory based on those facts.
And that's the chosen technique of the global warming deniers. At this stage, denialism is entirely religious in nature. And I can prove it.But, do you know what it's called when the conclusion is presented first and then facts are selected based on their support of the preconceived conclusion? It's called "religion."
Deniers, first describe your theory about what is driving climate now, then list what near-term hard data could disprove it (that is, realistic data that could be collected within a few years). If your theory isn't falsifiable, it's psuedoscience. And I've never had a denier meet the challenge. Denier beliefs aren't falsifiable, so they're not science.
In stark contrast, AGW theory could conceivably be falsified by many types of hard data, being that it's real science.
Last edited by mamooth; 06-25-2019 at 10:06 PM.
Gravity is a fact, not a conclusion. Don't you know the difference?
If AGW theory is scientific then according to modern science it must be falsifiable. Please explain to everyone how to falsify it. Tell us what AGW climatologists say about how it can be falsified specifically.
Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler
In quoting my post, you affirm and agree that you have not been goaded, provoked, emotionally manipulated or otherwise coerced into responding.
"The difference between what we do and what we are capable of doing would suffice to solve most of the world’s problems.”
Mahatma Gandhi
When Donald Trump said to protest “peacefully”, he meant violence.
When he told protesters to “go home”, he meant stay for an insurrection.
And when he told Brad Raffensperger to implement “whatever the correct legal remedy is”, he meant fraud.
War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.
That's kind of what the leaders in Gallileo's day told him about his theory that the earth was round. Preposterous, they said -- after all -- it wasn't in line with their "settled science."
This is a relatively new theory and one that has a good share of reputable skeptics. Comparing the theory to a tested science, such as "gravity," is a bit silly.So, like mainstream climate science.
It's religious on both sides. If you fail to see that, you're missing the greater picture.And that's the chosen technique of the global warming deniers. At this stage, denialism is entirely religious in nature. And I can prove it.
Okay, I'm starting to get the idea that you don't have a clue as to what the actual science is. On either side. You're just regurgitating the rhetoric you've been spoon-fed. The very fact that you call other scientists "deniers" reduces your credibility. As I said, the issue has become religious on both sides -- both sides have developed cult attitudes about it. Unlike you, I have no need to call anyone names like "denier" or "alarmist" because we already know scientists on both sides have made mistakes and have had to correct their data and projections.Deniers, first describe your theory about what is driving climate now, then list what near-term hard data could disprove it (that is, realistic data that could be collected within a few years). If your theory isn't falsifiable, it's psuedoscience. And I've never had a denier meet the challenge. Denier beliefs aren't falsifiable, so they're not science.
""A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul" ~George Bernard Shaw
Chris (06-26-2019)
For waltky: http://quakes.globalincidentmap.com/
"The Nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools."
- Thucydides
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote" B. Franklin
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
Sure. Newton's theory of gravity, modified a bit by relativity, is settled science. That's is inconvenient to the denier argument that there's no settled science, so you're trying to handwave it away.
I asked first. I'll take your mirror-trolling there as your admission that your beliefs are unfalsifiable, and thus pseudoscientific in nature.If AGW theory is scientific then according to modern science it must be falsifiable. Please explain to everyone how to falsify it. Tell us what AGW climatologists say about how it can be falsified specifically.
In contrast, I can name things that would falsify AGW theory, because it's actual science. Here are a few things, things that could be realistically measured within around a decade, that would falsify AGW theory.
A lack of rising temperatures over the long term
A lack of rising sea levels
A lack of stratospheric cooling
A lack of increase in backradiation
A lack of increase in specific humidity
Outgoing long wave radiation not decreasing in the GHG bands
A lack of an atmospheric CO2 increase
Showing CO2 doesn't really absorb IR
Showing a source for the added heat that wasn't known before
Showing climate has changed the same way in the past without human influence
Ah, so you didn't mean gravity but Newton's theory of it, which was modified drastically by Einstein, who predicted someone would come along and revise his theory. Science is not settled.
My beliefs are not science--nor are yours.
"A lack of rising temperatures over the long term" Then the warming hiatus for 16 years falsifies.
Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler
Peter1469 (06-26-2019)
Galileo was the first to say the earth was round? Really?
That bad history aside, scientists accepted Galileo quickly, as his data was good. It was the politically-driven religious fanatics, such as found in the denier cult, who rejected Galileo.
In science, the simplest theory that explains all of the observed data is the accepted theory. That's currently AGW theory. If you want to change that, present a better theory. Complaining that the accepted theory isn't 100.00000% proven isn't science, it's just complaining.This is a relatively new theory and one that has a good share of reputable skeptics. Comparing the theory to a tested science, such as "gravity," is a bit silly.
Then tell me. Describe what your theory is regarding what is driving the fast warming now.Okay, I'm starting to get the idea that you don't have a clue as to what the actual science is.
This is where deniers usually run, being that they don't have a theory of any sort. All they have is contrarianism, and that's on their best day.