Maggie's Farm

OneGuy: I am shocked to discover that the climate change fraud is corrupt.

Anthropogenic global warming is strongly supported. A number of independent lines of scientific evidence indicate that the Earth's surface will warm ~2½-4°C per doubling of atmospheric CO2. See Sherwood et al., An Assessment of Earth's Climate Sensitivity Using Multiple Lines of Evidence, Reviews of Geophysics 2020.

OneGuy: Exactly!! That's exactly how it's done.

If you mean science based on empirical evidence, then yes.

indyjonesouthere: Its a government funded narrative to justify more elitists scamming the taxpayer.

Notably, you ignored the study.

indyjonesouthere: Here is a study on the polar ice melt that rebuts the other studies by ice melt experts.

How Contrarians View Global Warming

indyjonesouthere: I still want to see that climate model and what is in it.

The cited study doesn't depend on complex climate modeling, but is based on empirical evidence. They show from a number of independent lines of scientific evidence that the Earth's surface will warm ~2½-4°C per doubling of atmospheric CO2. See Sherwood et al., An Assessment of Earth's Climate Sensitivity Using Multiple Lines of Evidence, Reviews of Geophysics 2020.

indyjonesouthere: They have created a climate model, and it appears, one that omits considerable data.

The study compares three independent lines of evidence to constrain estimates of climate sensitivity.

indyjonesouthere: The Milankovitch cycle is a better model and incorporates long term cyclical climate changes.

Milankovitch cycles predict a slight cooling trend, not the warming trend that is observed.

indyjonesouthere: Humans have been adapting to climate for thousands of years and through ice ages and rapidly rising ocean levels.

Most of that time didn’t involve megacities. But humans are very adaptive. Their greatest gift is being able to project into the future, especially with modern science.


That’s what the science shows.

DeGaulle: a small rise in temperature over centuries from a known decline in temperature associated with the pre-industrial era

Gee! What will those climate scientists come up with next?!

DeGaulle: does not confirm the truth of the models which predict more warming.

The evidence for anthropogenic warming includes the basic physics of heat, which have been known for over a century. The current warming trend is anomalous for any time in the last 24,000 years. See Osman et al., Globally resolved surface temperatures since the Last Glacial Maximum, Nature 2021.

DeGaulle: Science does not show what is true. It is reality that determines whether the science is true.

That seemingly defines science as distinct from reality. Science is the process of testing hypotheses against observations.

Nor does pointing out that scientific findings are always considered tentative act as an argument against any specific scientific finding. That requires more than waving at "Tranny/gay science" or "Jüdische Physik," but actually looking at the data.

indyjonesouthere: You normalize perversions and yet try to justify that normalization as "science".

Huh? The topic is climate change. But sure. Wave your hands at Jüdische Physik Tranny/gay science.

“The fact that we live at the bottom of a deep gravity well, on the surface of a gas covered planet going around a nuclear fireball 90 million miles away and think this to be normal is obviously some indication of how skewed our perspective tends to be.” -- Douglas Adams

indyjonesouthere: Never trust the science.

Well, that's just silly. That vast majority of improvements in the human condition are due to science. (You will note that Vox's quotes concern medical science. And yet, while there is no cure for cancer, survival rates have improved considerably.)

Humans are subject to all sorts of biases, personal and intrinsic. They struggle for recognition. They stubbornly hold on to positions that have been shown to be inconsistent with the evidence. But the advance of science doesn't depend on the perfection of the individual scientist or of the society within which they work. Science advances by consistently comparing hypothesis with observation and by the creativity of people in the scientific pursuit.

indyjonesouthere: The vast majority of improvements to human life are due to engineers.

Good example. Engineers apply science. That contradicts your admonition to "Never trust the science."

indyjonesouthere: Engineers apply proven science.

So, your claim to "Never trust the science" was wrong.

indyjonesouthere: No. I trust the engineering.

You can’t trust engineering without trusting the science that underlies engineering, because engineering is the practical application of science. And a lot of science may not have practical applications, but that doesn’t make it any less true. The Earth moves regardless. Your admonition to “Never trust the science” is misplaced.

indyjonesouthere: Your admonition of trust the science is suicidal.

Except we never said to always trust the science. All scientific findings are considered tentative, not proven like a mathematical theorem. Indeed, as George E. P. Box noted, all models are wrong. But there is a relativity of wrong.

Scientific confidence depends not just on observational tests of specific hypotheses, but the intertwining of different areas of research. So, evolutionary science and geological sciences inform and support each others findings, just as satellite observations and ground based observations provide independent measures of the warming trend of the Earth's surface. Ultimately, all scientific fields overlap with one another.

Newer science, however, will tend to have less support, especially when they push the frontiers of observational science. Consequently, it is reasonable to be more skeptical of newer findings, especially if they contradict long established findings. However, skepticism is not the same as rejection.

What that means for our discussion is that you may claim that a particular scientific findings is wrong, but to support that claim takes more than just saying, "Never trust the science." It requires grappling with the details of the specific area of research.

--

Asimov, Relativity of Wrong: "when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."