Maggie's Farm

Neither does reality, which puts your vague contentions about science in some serious doubt.

If you cannot know reality you cannot know scientifically what reality is, whether in part or in the whole. So what do you know, and by what measure, Zach?

Or are you just citing "science" as a linguistic tool, hoping to ward off folks who know you got nothing? Because I assure you, science - the factual exploration and documentation of that portion of reality - shows no such thing as AGW.

What's been objectively established is that what can be purported* to be objectively established in favoring AGW is frequently corrupted. What's objectively established is evident fact disproving AGW.

Your assertion is therefore circular. Neither are objectively established.

*projected, demanded, camouflaged, asserted, lied, et al.

Back up: Are you claiming AGW is scientifically valid - is proved reality - or are you making claims that AGW is real because you can establish the theory that it should be real? Because I hope you can see the difference.

I theorize that comets are made from primordial ice, this based on observations early in the cosmological sciences. I establish an elaborate theory that supports my claim, publish the work, and gain peer acceptance. After all, it's the best we have.

Now, are comets made from primordial ice? It's a valid question because the very most recent direct observations of comets - observations unprecedented anywhere in the associated previous science - says they are not made from dirty ice, but from rock, and rock is neither water or primordial.

The same question applies to relativity: If relativity replaces the prior Newtonian view, and if relativity proves mathematically sound in a particular field, is the Universe actually relativitistic? This is another legitimate question because relativity and quantum mechanics have not merged, and findings suggest they never shall, leaving the "science" open-ended. The better translation is that the field is left open-ended because the science is incomplete. If it's erroneous it's not scientific.

By the way, neither of these examples - and scores and scores like them - are shrouded in controversy and known corruption, however they are cloaked in establishmentarianism until such time as new and mounting evidence becomes undeniable and another path is found. But AGW is fraught with corruption and a very visible trail of money.

The question remains, is AGW valid when the science has not and apparently cannot prove it and - despite its issues - only theory supports it, as if against some unknown future contingency where it could be conflated with, say, solar activity, the only driver of terrestrial thermodynamics?

How you use "science" more than alludes to an AGW agenda, which is not scientific. Science is as B Moe defined it: A process that when it fits its real definition has no inherent interchangeability with its practicioners. You can no more say that AGW is scientific than you can that Emeril Lagasse is a physical strawberry. Lagasse has views on food and practices his art, which is more than you can say for some AGW hysterics wielding "science".

You do know what the most topical narrative on science is these days, right Zach? That it's reached peak cronyism.

"Science" is under enormous attack as an institution - it's grant culture is corrupt. It's under enormous attack as a dogma - it's trajectory is highly politicized.

And it should be under attack as the cheap linguistic tool you've co-opted it into being: "Science" is a word that means almost completely the opposite of how you use it.

At any rate, there is no AGW. That is a fact gathered from the science, Zach..

Zoom, right over your head...