mistermack wrote:Brian Peacock wrote:[Every proper scientists is an epistemological sceptic - they don't claim to know that which cannot be justified evidentially, and they don't accept claims, or expect other scientists to accept their claims, on faith.
My point re-stated.
That's why climate science in it's current state isn't proper science.
It doesn't even make accurate predictions. It actually can be made to predict anything and everything.
Just give the models a tiny tweak.
Scientific models are refined, or tweaked, all the time. New methodologies are developed, new data produced, new ways to process data are devised, and consequentially new hypotheses are generated and tested - rinse and repeat etc: that's why they call it Science folks!
What I think you're suggesting is that climate scientists, all climate scientists, or more specifically the overwhelming majority of climate scientists who endorse the view that humans are having an impact on the atmosphere, are proceeding from their conclusion, e.g: "This is what we think, now let's get out there and find/create the evidence to prove it." Essentially, you're suggesting that climate science is a corrupted and corrupting branch of Science; it is purely a kind of opinion-based, political, ideological enterprise. If this were so then climate scientists would indeed be involved in pseudo-science, and perhaps even a conspiracy the likes of which would make Galaxian's regular diatribes seem as very, very small potatoes. I guess the question is, on what information do you base this significant claim?
mistermack wrote:It's current state is utter bollocks. That doesn't mean it will stay there. But nobody should be wasting money at present, based on the predictions of climate scientists. So far, the record is 100% fail.
OK. That's your opinion, to which you are, of course, entitled. But again, on what information are you basing you claim about the parlous state of climate research and the ideological, pseudo-scientific convictions of climate scientists?
mistermack wrote:I will admit though, that their predictions of the past are very good. Well done everybody !!
I'll be gracious here and assume that this isn't meant to be taken seriously. Predictions are always forward looking, good science is a kind of prophecy after all, but it has to be said that we learn today about a system can also help us understand what went on yesterday.
For example, in the 1950s, when the effects of carbon from industrial emissions was found to be reflected in local tree rings methodologies were developed to gather similar data from older and older specimens - expanding to include the examination of wood from trees felled hundreds of years before, and then from trees buried in peat thousands of years ago. This kind of looking backward all helps to inform a wider, longer view of a system and, as I'm sure you'd agree, helps to generate historical bases by which to compare current findings.
Now, is all this research rendered dubious or fundamentally errant when tree ring specimens show a prominent rise in atmospheric carbon closely tallied with the rise and progression of industrialisation, or is the research secure but it has been misrepresented or misapplied or misappropriated by the opinion-based, politicised climate science community? Addressing these sorts of questions is important because this single sub-branch of scientific endeavour, examining tree samples to understand the state of the planetary atmosphere in times past and present, forms a small part of the jigsaw that goes to make up as much of the atmospheric picture as we have today.
In other word, general declaration as to your opinion about climate science are one thing, but to dispute the findings of scientists your have to dispute the methodologies and data of their science. Do you dispute the findings gathered from tree ring surveys, and if so on what basis: on the basis of flawed methodologies, or poor data, or even on the basis of the uncritical conclusions of other scientists who have examined the methodologies and data and then endorsed the findings?
Similarly carbon science is very robust as a field of study, and carbon chemistry has been incredibly well researched from the early 1700s onwards. The role of atmospheric carbon dioxide in insulating the planet from the cold vacuum of space has been understood since the mid 1800s and followed pioneering work in the early 1800s by Fourier and Pouillet to qualify and define the chemical mechanism known today as the greenhouse effect. Again, certain questions have to be addressed: do you dispute carbon science, do you dispute what science has to say about the planetary effects of atmospheric carbon dioxide, do you dispute the greenhouse effect, and if so on what basis?
You'll see what I'm getting at here I'm sure.
