Climate Change denial vs History

The Scientific Method is based on falsification. The Scientific Method results in one correct answer. What is the Climate Sensitivity to CO2 ??

 

WTF are you even talking about?

 

Telling.

 

The Scientific Method is based on falsification

That's an asinine statement

 

It's an accurate statement. Do your homework.

 

It's the view of ONE guy. Popper

Many contemporary philosophers of science and analytic philosophers are strongly critical of Popper's philosophy of science.[10] Popper's mistrust of inductive reasoning has led to claims that he misrepresents scientific practice.

Bartley in 1978 claimed,[11]

Sir Karl Popper is not really a participant in the contemporary professional philosophical dialogue; quite the contrary, he has ruined that dialogue. If he is on the right track, then the majority of professional philosophers the world over have wasted or are wasting their intellectual careers. The gulf between Popper's way of doing philosophy and that of the bulk of contemporary professional philosophers is as great as that between astronomy and astrology."

— W. W. Bartley in Philosophia 6 1976
Rafe Champion said,[12]

"Popper's ideas have failed to convince the majority of professional philosophers because his theory of conjectural knowledge does not even pretend to provide positively justified foundations of belief. Nobody else does better, but they keep trying, like chemists still in search of the Philosopher's Stone or physicists trying to build perpetual motion machines."

— Rafe Champion "Agreeing to Disagree: Bartley's Critique of Reason" 1985

• David Miller,[13]

What distinguishes science from all other human endeavours is that the accounts of the world that our best, mature sciences deliver are strongly supported by evidence and this evidence gives us the strongest reason to believe them.' That anyway is what is said at the beginning of the advertisement for a recent conference on induction at a celebrated seat of learning in the UK. It shows how much critical rationalists still have to do to make known the message of Logik der Forschung concerning what empirical evidence is able to do and what it does."

— David Miller "Some hard questions for critical rationalism" 2011

 

A good read on what Deniers are doing

https://philosophynow.org/issues/104/Climate_Science_and_Falsifiability

 

My post??? You're funny!

Either that, or you are still trying to impress somebody by throwing words around like "Scientific Method", "Popper", "Kuhn"... regardless of the fact that they don't fit.

 

Next time you go to a book signing, why don't you bring that up? Ask them if they believe the environment is more important than human welfare... Don't just make assumptions! Making assumptions, instead of asking honest questions, is what makes science denial so widespread on the right.

 

So, apart from stating the obvious over and over, do you have anything to contribute to the Climate Change debate?

If not, then we're wasting our time with you.

I'm glad you noticed. I do so to underline that I'm not talking about a change in the climate.but a whole Climate Change Theory.

You did notice it was capitalized. But failed to understand why. You have a lot of catching up to do before you can pretend to contribute anything to this debate.

 

You are the one stating the obvious over and over.

You fail to understand that climate change is not a theory.

 

It's the view of everyone who truly understands the scientific method. Do your homework focused on understanding the scientific method instead of scouring the internet to find criticisms of Popper.

 

qqqqqqqqq

The consensus is that I will die if someone shoots me in the head with a gun... I believe that consensus and many others. But if you do not, we can run a test

 

That's correct. Claiming that D's are smarter than R's is devoid of the scientific method.

 

That happens organically in the Q & A sessions. No assumptions are necessary.

 

NOT the people mentioned above AFM.

So apparently it doesn't pass the "Popper Test"

 

Those three guys in the last 40 years do not mention the scientific method and the concept of falsification on which the scientific method is dependent.

 

Here...So the reader can see what we're discussing

 

Yes, three guys in 40 years with no mention of the scientific method and falsification.

 

They're TALKING about that very subject

 

Actually your example is NOT a consensus, it's proven theory with the experiment you cited. Feel free to proceed and have someone record the results.

 

Thanks for the information.

 

Useless information. Our planet is not a stagnant environment

 

Ok. So you have your homework for the next Q & A session, then.

 

Where - there is no mention of the scientific method and falsification.