Restoring the Scientific Method and Saving Civilization

[Ethereal]

Until climate science became a political thing, many in the traditionally hard sciences said climate science was not a hard science.

"climate science" is so vague as to be largely meaningless, and that is intentional, as NIXON pointed out earlier. The "climate" could entail any number of specialties and sub-specialties, from physics to mathematics to computer science to chemistry. Claiming "expertise" in something as large and as complex as the global "climate" requires an astounding level of hubris.

[Ethereal]

The entire climate religion is based on an assumption that their model of the global climate system is largely complete. If that were true, then they'd be able to predict climatic variations with real precision and consistency. But, of course, they can't. And if they really believe the science is "settled" or "settled enough" (lol) as Mamooth claimed earlier, then why do they keep asking for research money? What is there to research? The science is "settled", right? All that is left to do is take action - no further research is needed.

[Peter1469]

"climate science" is so vague as to be largely meaningless, and that is intentional, as NIXON pointed out earlier. The "climate" could entail any number of specialties and sub-specialties, from physics to mathematics to computer science to chemistry. Claiming "expertise" in something as large and as complex as the global "climate" requires an astounding level of hubris.

And add in what you noted earlier about not being able to really apply the scientific method to much of what climate scientists work on. Computer models are not it.

[mamooth]

And add in what you noted earlier about not being able to really apply the scientific method to much of what climate scientists work on. Computer models are not it.

Absolutely wrong. Experimentation is how the scientific method works, experimentation by observation is one way of doing that, and climate science passes that test with flying colors. It makes predictions, we watch, the predictions come true, the theory is supported.

Where deniers faceplant is when they claim that experimention by lab experiment is the only valid sort of experimentation. Nope, that's nonsense, and it shows how little they know about science.

[mamooth]

The entire climate religion is based on an assumption that their model of the global climate system is largely complete. If that were true, then they'd be able to predict climatic variations with real precision and consistency.

No, totally wrong. A lack of perfect knowledge does not mean no knowledge.

But, of course, they can't. And if they really believe the science is "settled" or "settled enough" (lol) as Mamooth claimed earlier, then why do they keep asking for research money? What is there to research? The science is "settled", right? All that is left to do is take action - no further research is needed.

So according to your standard, there's no point researching gravity further, since it's settled science.

Your standards are remarkably stupid. Unless you'd like to claim that basic gravity knowledge -- that things fall down -- isn't settled science.

[mamooth]

You are among the worst science deniers on the board.

Hardcore cultists will generally proclaim that everyone outside of the cult is denying reality. We see it with antivaxxers, scientologists, flat earthers, global warming deniers, all of those types.

[mamooth]

What experiment can be run that would falsify man-made global warming? Describe it.

The earth gets cooler.

Or here's one. We do a lab experiment that shows CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.

I can keep going on. I will, once you address the question you ran from. What would disprove your theory of denialism? If you can't provide examples, that proves you're just embracing a purely religious belief.

WTF are you babbling about right now? Do you even know?

In order to pull off the condescending act, you have to actually be intelligent. That means I can do it, but you can't. You sound butthurt when you try.

While you're raging, think of what could disprove your denialist religion.

[mamooth]

Well in my lifetime, Hard Climate Science has told me that by now I would be able to walk from Muskegon MI to Milwaukee WI, and then that Holland, Grand Haven and the lakeshore towns would be under water by now. and then that I could walk across the dried up lake again, and then that the homes on the lakeshore would be washed into the lake?

Suuuuuuuuure it did.

In 1978 Time magazine told us that the Climate professionals said there would be a coming ice aga. and Al Gore told us we would all be dead by now?

So you're teling us you go by media hysteria instead of science. And we should take you seriously ... why?

[mamooth]

I was wondering how humans caused the end of the first ice age?

Typical denier failiure of logic. "Climate changed naturally before, so humans can't change climate!"

That's every bit as nonsensical as saying "Forest fires were caused naturally before, so humans can't cause forest fires!".

[Peter1469]

Wrong for the reasons stated above.

Absolutely wrong. Experimentation is how the scientific method works, experimentation by observation is one way of doing that, and climate science passes that test with flying colors. It makes predictions, we watch, the predictions come true, the theory is supported.

Where deniers faceplant is when they claim that experimention by lab experiment is the only valid sort of experimentation. Nope, that's nonsense, and it shows how little they know about science.