mistermack wrote:Concordance of evidence is the easiest thing to arrange. It's called cherry picking.
You can't get a concordance of evidence by cherry picking. You get it by gathering
all of the data and matching it for the most likely solution. Cherry picking directly contradicts the idea of concordance because you would be leaving out some or other evidence.
mistermack wrote:Science is a very mushy concept. Mathematics is a very precise part of science. Physics is a very precise science generally, but does involve uncertainty. Weather science is very imprecise, but can make reasonably accurate predictions, which become far less accurate, with each day into the future that you try to predict. But it does have some history, of predictions coming true, and improving with time.
Climate is more predictable than weather. Will the climate be warmer or colder in the Summer in the Northern hemisphere when the Earth is tilted toward the Sun? Yes. It will. What will the weather be next year on June 21st in Cork, Ireland? Who knows?
mistermack wrote:Climate science is brand new, in comparison to all of these, and makes no predictions that everyone agrees on.
Climate science is not brand new, it was discovered CO2 is a greenhouse gas in the 1820s by Fourier, and it was first suggested an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere could cause a rise in global temperature by Arrhenius in 1896. Both of these guys were physicists. Not that the newness of a science says anything about its veracity. I mean really. WTF?
It makes predictions that the World will get warmer (it is and has been since the 50s when scientists really started talking about it). It made predictions that ice sheets would melt (they are, to the tune of over 160 million cubic feet per year). That there would be more droughts (true). And more frequent and extreme weather (also true). These are the predictions that are generally agreed upon.
mistermack wrote:Every Tom Dick and Harry makes his own predictions and twiddles his own models.
Go on then. make one.
mistermack wrote:And the early models have all been proved disastrously wrong.
Nope.
https://skepticalscience.com/Hansen-198 ... vanced.htm
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... al-warming
mistermack wrote:In short, it really doesn't qualify as a science yet. It's a field of study. But makes no useful verifiable predictions.Give it time, and it might eventually get somewhere useful. If it ever allows scepticism back in. Like proper science does.
Bullshit. It is as science as any other and it is sceptical by nature. You're not a sceptic. You're a denier with your fingers in your ear as your dismissive attitude towards people and blogs that don't toe your bias proves. You haven't even countered a single thing posted. Just rejection. And yes. I fully predict that you will reject the articles I posted without any real rebuttal. You're just as predictable as climate.
Libertarianism: The belief that out of all the terrible things governments can do, helping people is the absolute worst.