First, a guest poster points out that ad-homenim attacks do not equate to 'settled science.'
Firstly, an amateur working as a clerk is just as able to present the truth as the most gifted professional. The truth is the truth no matter who presents it. The unwillingness of many main-stream “Climate Scientists” to engage with alternate viewpoints sets them apart from “Science”. To many the science is not settled, and needs a full open and honest public debate.
The comments in that post lead to another guest post regarding the nature of scientific theory itself(this is really cool, but it may take several read-throughs before it sinks in--at least, it did for me).
For the general public that does not have an objective scientific bend, how do you tell virtual reality from the real thing?
That’s a serious problem, actually. Hell, I have an objective scientific bend and I have plenty of trouble with it.
Ultimately, the stock answer is: We should believe the most what we can doubt the least, when we try to doubt very hard, using a mix of experience and consistent reason based on a network of experience-supported best (so far) beliefs.
Now, my own take on the matter, if you care what a dumb truck driver has to say about it.
Frankly, anyone who utters the phrase "the science is settled," has proven themselves to be an absolute moron. Science is never settled. Science is the continuing process of analyzing and attempting to understand the nature of existence. It means examining new evidence with an unprejudiced eye and following where it leads, regardless of whether the conclusions drawn are popular or not.
The science used to be "settled" that the Earth was flat, that evil spirits caused disease, that heavier-than-air flight was impossible, that man could never travel into space, that we could never break the speed of sound. If we'd accepted that 'science' as being 'settled,' where would we be now? Back in the Dark Ages, that's where, killing off all the cats because "they're Satan's minions that are spreading the Plague! The science is settled!" ...completely ignorant of the fact that the cats were killing the rats and mice that were the real carriers.
No, folks, science is never settled. God has created a truly awesome universe, with layers of complexity that we are only beginning to dimly comprehend. To think we know everything is to set ourselves up for, at the least, disappointment.
Off topic, I'm starting to figure out how the quote button functions now. A bit of a pain compared to how simple it used to be, but I'm making it work.
My take on AGW and ACC has always been the same. For a theory to be scientific, it must meet two criteria. 1) You must have reproducible results. Every test must show the EXACT same result. And no, computer models are NOT tests. If testing the theory shows zero temperature increase in the next 100 years and another test shows a 10 degree increase, and another shows a 5 degree increase, and a forth shows another 10 degree increase, that is NOT reproducible results. All 4 should have shown the same result.
ReplyDelete2) The theory must be able to be proven false. Because it just might be. Einstein's theory that the speed of light is the ultimate speed limit can be proven false just by finding something that travels faster than light. Have we? We're not sure, which is why we keep testing. But that is HOW you would prove Einstein's theory false.
So, how DO you prove the theory of anthropogenic global warming false? I'm not interested in the data. This is not a question of data; it is much deeper than that. It goes to the very core of what is and what is not science. As soon as knuckle-dragging liberal keeper of the environmental faith tells me HOW the theory of AGW can be proven false (and they have to stick to it!), that's when I will agree it's science.