Maggie's Farm

If it is not impossible in principle to determine if humans are changing the climate, are you saying it is possible practically? Computer models? Good luck with that!

I'm not sure I understand you comment on "settled science". Are you saying science is tentative by definition... up to a point? And then it become "settled"? It seems to me you can say that about simple facts such as whether the Earth is still or revolves around the Sun, but the "why" question may always be subject to refinement. Sometimes the "refinement" redefines what was thought to be verifiable.

You state the premise is untenable but offer no evidence nor do you offer an alternative. I suggest that when somebody argues in such a manner, their argument is untenable.

As for models, Newton's theory of motion is not a computer model but is based on observation and mathematics (calculus, actually). You're comparing apples and oranges.

Computer models are subject to the skill and perceptions of the programmer. Computer models have been used to develop a theory. Those models have evolved over time (hopefully to be more accurate) and as they evolve, their predicted temperature rise has fallen. The early ones didn't even account for water vapor. Those models have never been thoroughly back tested. Given known data from the past, have they ever predicted known data from the more recent past? Not to my knowledge.

As for reviewing the literature, all of that is suspect. It has been shown that the reviewers to AGW studies were cherry picked and no skeptical climate scientists were allowed to comment. Given that atmosphere at East Anglia and their propensity to politicize the research and researchers (even to the point of admitting that they had to "hide the decline" in temps over the last decade and that one "researcher" was almost glad when a prominent skeptical scientist, John Daly, died), I have very little faith in the current AGW literature. All that is not even to mention the past history of climate changes that had no human involvement, the serial predictions that end up not happening (e.g. increased hurricane activity, no snow, etc.). You can really tell a fake theory when any event proves it - even those that run counter to its predictions - and when the proponents are prepared to lie (e.g. declining populations of polar bears).

It would be refreshing for AGW scientists to treat it as a THEORY and not a fact. At that point a real scientific investigation can proceed. I'm not holding my breath.

I'm not sure who "we" are in your post... And I'm still not sure how you (since you used "we") can control for the millions of variables that go into a climate, but then that's part of the deal isn't it. We're supposed to trust the modelers. To say that Newton's theory of motion is as valid as a computer model is not even silly. As I said, and you don't dispute, that the climate models cannot predict accurately from a known past to a known more recent past. If they can't do that then they are by definition not valid whether they are independently and empirically validated. Who validated them and how?

You are correct. A theory is a conceptual framework. That would mean it is subject to verification. It is not necessarily fact and someone who disputes the hypothesis behind it is not necessarily a charlatan. However, a "scientist" who claims another is a charlatan because he disputes the hypothesis of an unverified theory is a charlatan.