Re: The Awesomesauce of Science
Reply #59 –
Why is your 'scientific purity' and expertise(?) in this matter better than that of the best scientific minds from around the globe who have been studying this for decades? And just how did you get to be such an expert on analyzing data and predicting climate change? Where did you study and what is your total number of years of experience as a professional in this field? Apparently, you think that the expert teams on this panel are all just being pigheaded (why?), when perhaps it's just the other way around--ever consider that?
In other words: "If you're not a priest, what allows you to interpret scripture?"
When I was young a focus of mine was Philosophy of Science; now that I'm old, having tried to keep up, I find myself still interested.
You pack a lot of BS into your extended "refutation" of my view… (Which you seem not to understand?
How quaint!) Care to support the predictions of any AOGCMs? Or their ad hoc explanations for their failures?
I certainly want such modeling to continue, to get better and better. But a political determination of their efficacy is — shall we say, verboten? (At least, counter-productive; if science is the aim…)
When James Hansen thought he'd explained the current atmospheric conditions of Venus via a run-away greenhouse effect, he knew he had a winning career path! (Have you considered his hypothesized dynamic for Mars?) And he did what many pseudo-scientists do: He fudged and dissembled…
And extrapolated to Earth.
(If you don't know the story of his 1988 congressional testimony — you're too uninvolved to have an opinion, unless you can read and defend his published work; which I doubt sincerely!
If Gavin Schmidt can't convincingly do it, I doubt you will get beyond "em, er, ah"…)Lots of scientific theories and models fail, but much is learned from failure--wouldn't you agree?
Not so often; no.
Wrong-headed theories have to be dynamited from their porticoes… If the pillars cannot stand on their own, they cannot support the awning…
But you -as an adherent to the scientific method- would… What? Exempt technocratic presumption, for the Greater Good?
Spoken like a true Progressive!
I don't know, James, what you really think about the 97%-consensus about CAGW (catastrophic anthropogenic global warming) . (I do know that you have no expertise that goes beyond blind faith; else you would have mentioned it, supported it, and argued for it vociferously.) If I disagree with most scientists, that means I'm wrong?
How is that different from enforcing Dogma…?
(Isn't science "about" what can be proved…?)
There is an old-fashioned way of viewing science: Hypothesis -> Theory -> Prediction -> Data. These constrain the enterprise: If the data don't support the predictions, the theory is wrong; and the hypothesis is ill-posed.
(I know that's complicated. Get used to it!)
When Sociology replaces Philosophy of Science, you get — people like you.Oakdale; you love to ruminate about irrational, or at least unlikely, worst-case outcomes. Do you ever even consider best-case possibilities or are those just too dull and unexciting for you? The sky is not falling my friend, much as you would like to say it is.
The Best-Case Scenario is — that poseurs and grafters and grant-glommers will lose their sponsors.
I presume -until you tell me otherwise- that you're against that.
I won't hold my breath…