"The good thing about science is that it’s true whether or not you believe in it." - Neil DeGrasse Tyson A Scientific Theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that has been repeatedly tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment. In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge. Using this definition means that we can treat Scientific Theories as THE explanation of the world around us until another theory replaces it. It also means that many things science deniers claim are "theories" are not SCIENTIFIC theories as defined above. Creationism is not a theory. The World Wide Flood of the book of Genesis is not a theory Anti Vax is not a theory Things designated as a SCIENTIFIC theory is not a "guess". It is something that has been developed after YEARS of testing and I can guarantee you that some anonymous internet poster is not going to disprove a SCIENTIFIC theory because they read an article on some apologist website or the Twitter post of a vaccine conspiracy theorist.
Works well for things like Newtonian physics. But you've also proven (I'm sure inadvertently) that things like COVID vaccines (hey, you brought it up) are certainly NOT settled science since they haven't been proven. Another one of the current big lies is "climate change" for the same reason. Basically doesn't stand up to any kind of experimental rigor and is truly a danger to all humanity. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/02...-lindzen-happer-co2-coalition-paper-released/
Willard Anthony Watts (Anthony Watts) is a blogger, weathercaster and non-scientist, paid AGW denier who runs the website wattsupwiththat.com. He does not have a university qualification and has no climate credentials other than being a radio weather announcer. Watts is on the payroll of the Heartland Institute, which itself is funded by polluting industries.
Please re read the definition of a scientific theory. A scientific theory NEVER becomes a "scientific fact" that is because you are referring to two different kinds of information. A fact is an observation. Things dropped relatively close to the earth surface fall with an acceleration of 9.8 m/sec^2. This has been observed over and over and over. The formula g=GM/r^2 allows us to calculate the value of g. A scientific theory is a model used to explain observed facts. The Theory of Gravitation is the model used to explain these facts. (There are other models too, such as Theory of General Relativity that explain it in greater detail) The continued claim that "A scientific theory isn't scientific fact" just shows a complete misunderstanding of how science works.
That's a lame excuse for not reading the paper he referenced. Shows that whole post was just the usual politically progressive baloney.
Who said I didn’t read the article? But whether I read it or not doesn’t change the fact that the website is run by someone with no climate credentials who is on the payroll of an climate change denier organization.
The fact that you're sold on that whole "climate change denier" BS (trust me, real scientists like the ones that wrote the paper know that) says simply you're just an amateur science hack pretending to understand what you're talking about.
I suppose what really annoys me about statements made by the OP are that they are intentionally dishonest. The geologic record of our world lays open for those who can read it. One only has to be willing to read it. And when we do, we discover that what our "science" has produced is pretty inadequate as an explanation. For those of us to do try at least to consume the facts out there, there are some unsettling (to say the least) facts that have residual evidence left in the geologic record. So, for example, the evidence of an event that is perhaps 10800 BCE that indicates that suddenly, and I am not referring to gradual melting over a lot of time, but suddenly, the ice sheets melted. We have and can still see the scars on the plane from around the globe that demonstrate that something catastrophic did in fact happen around that time, and that the amount of flooding that would have engulfed the planet was ~400 Ft of sea level rise in about less than a year. So, instead of simply looking at the written or oral history of the peoples of the world, science has berated us into being skeptical, but only for these kinds of facts. Can science yet explain why suddenly, the ice melted? I mean they still haven't offered ANY explanation as to why the ice sheets from the last ice epoch melted at all, let alone tried to explain the physical record the geology of our planet has recorded for us. Climate change is a glaring example of how the OP jus undercut the narrative. We aren't supposed to have faith in religious stories, but we are supposed to have faith in their stories? Really? And why should we. Neil believes that we're going to have an extinction event in the very near future. He believes that because he suggests his math is precise enough to inform us of the impending impact from an asteroid that is going to kill the world. You can view his discussions that are cataloged on youtube for example of him saying exactly this. So, it is somewhat ironic that the OP used Neil as an example of how science refutes or otherwise better informs than catastrophism which is obviously is also a part of. Oh well. Neil has a way. And he should, at some point, recognize that he has to consume his own rhetoric, and be just as mindful that what he sells isn't distinguishably different than other marketers of "truth".
You went from "The good thing about science is that it’s true whether or not you believe in it." to 'I believe in credentials' quite fast.
I do understand what I am talking about. But I will also be the first to state I am NOT a scientist. I don't do "research" on climate change because I am not equipped to do research on climate change. What I can say is that the overwhelming (OVERWHELMING) majority of climate scientists say that climate change is real and that human activity is driving it. So who am I, a non scientist, supposed to trust? A guy who paid for a internet domain name and is paid by people who have a financial interest in denying the science of climate change or the OVERWHELMING majority of climate scientists?
Yet you're failing to take into account the financial interests of climate scientists who would be virtually unemployable without a scare story to get government research money. I won't even go into how often their predictions of doom have failed to materialize. Of course, all of that is accessible to even non-scientists. What might be more obscure is mathematical issues with relying solely on modeling for something as immensely complex as the climate with an almost infinite number of degrees of freedom producing false correlations out the wazoo which renders the conclusions useless without any actual hard experimental data to verify the modeling conclusions. Which, according to climate scientists, is impossible to provide. Face it, "climate deniers" actually have science on their side.
You have any kind of "proof" of the so called "financial interest" of the climate scientists? I keep hearing about this but I have not seen any actual proof (or even evidence) of it.
What other line of work are they qualified to do? It's not like a physicist who can be employed in private industry. They're solely reliant on government grants to feed their families. That's a very significant financial interest.
1. You haven't proved that going against the prevailing climate change science would endanger their job. 2. Scientists are employed by the private sector all the time. 3. Who is paying the anit climate change scientists? I'm sure they could get a job there.
1) When climate change is eventually accepted as fraud, their job will no longer be needed and their government funding, as well as their jobs, will simply go away. 2) Some scientists are employed by private industry. Folks like physicists, chemist's, biologists, etc. have skills that are useful in a number of industries. The best a climate scientist can hope for is to work as a TV weatherman. 3) In my direct experience, the most anti-climate change scientists would be physicists. And again, they work in the oil industry, automotive, and lots more.
1. You don't understand how science works. Science is not dependent on a result. If Relativity were suddenly disproved tomorrow it wouldn't invalidate physicists who work on Relativity. 2. Wrong. Any corporation that depends on weather prediction (especially long term predictions) have reasons to hire climatologists. Agriculture, aerospace, even financial institutions employ climatologists. 3. Great, the most anti climate scientists aren't even climate scientists. You realize that does not help your case don't you?
I don't need help with my case. The laws of proven Newtonian physics doom the whole idea of climate change. It's only a matter of time before the whole charade collapses. The Supreme Court decision in WV v. EPA was the first ***** in the armor. And for your information, I'm an automotive engineer by trade. The idea that I don't understand science is as laughable as it is insulting.
It's not laughable given your takes on this issue. As you have provided, there are climatologists who deny climate change (small minority) so being trained in science (even climatology) does not make immune to the BS of climate denialism. But just for funsie, please explain..in your own words...How Newtonian Physics dooms the idea of climate change.
Apparently you can't read. I never said anything about "climatologists" who deny climate change. Of course they don't. It's how they make a living. What I did say was physicists, you know (maybe not) real scientists. And the proof is fairly simple. We know (or at least I know and have known since about 6th grade) That earth's atmosphere is about 79% nitrogen and 21% oxygen. CO2 comprises about 0.04% of the atmosphere (other "greenhouse gases" significantly less). So for "climate change" to be true, 0.04% of the atmosphere would have to be warming the other 99.96% of the atmosphere. That would be roughly equivalent to trying to warm up a full bathtub with 4 ounces of boiling water. Thermodynamics says that ain't happening. Now how about you prove that it is without referring to some dumb IPCC report? Funsie enough for you?
Plenty of funsie. Your idea of what causes (and how CO2 plays a part) climate change is so flawed it is jaw dropping. CO2 is greenhouse gas. Do you know what that means? It means it works like a greenhouse. It traps heat that would otherwise escape through the atmosphere. During the day sunlight warms the earth with eltromagntic radiation (light) of various wavelengths. At night the earth releases that heat back into the atmosphere in the form of infrared radiation. It just so happens that CO2 Is a reflector of infrared radiation. So heat that would otherwise escape is reflected back instead. More CO2 the more infrared radiation reflected back the higher it drives the temperature. That is how a greenhouse works.
Greenhouses are enclosed in glass. In what possible way is CO2 (a gas for the technically naive) like glass (a solid). And what is it specifically about the CO2 molecule (which is pretty much like virtually every other gas molecule) that reflects infrared radiation. And so much radiation being only 0.04% of the atmosphere?
It is the position of the electrons in the atoms making up the CO2 molecule. Atoms can absorb radiation. This takes the form of moving the electrons to a different energy state. But the exact energy that can be absorbed is determined by the particular electron energy state of the atom/molecule in question. CO2 absorbs photons in the 2,000 to 15,000 nm (nanometer) range. Infrared photons are in the 700 to 1,000.,000 nm range thus putting the range CO2 will absorb in the range that IR exists. Oxygen and Nitrogen on the other hand absorb photons in the 200 nm range which is in the ultraviolet range. Thus IR does not interact with those atoms. Once the electrons are excited by the absorption of the photon they will spontaneously emit the photon back at the same wavelength but usually on a different vector. That means an IR photon moving from the ground to the sky that gets absorbed can be re-emitted back in the direction it came. It is these longer length photons that cause things to heat up. It doesn't matter how much CO2 is in the atmosphere. Increasing the amount causes more IR radiation to be trapped raising the temperature. Think of it like a wall with a bunch of holes in it. When you aim a fire hose at the wall a certain amount of water is just going to pass through the wall. Cover up any of those holes (even just a small number) that just means less water is going to get through the wall. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has been rising since the dawn of the Industrial Age and the increase has been accelerating. Currently the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is over 400 ppm (parts per million) and that is the highest level in human history.
Your premise is objectively wrong. Let me ask you: if something is proven wrong, does that mean that, up until that point, it had been correct, or had it actually been wrong, the whole time? Assuming that you will acknowledge that it is the latter, that disproves that we can safely assume that all scientific theory is accurate, and not just a "theory." True facts cannot be disproven; if they are, that means, ipso facto, they had only been theories (which can be proven wrong). There is much more to be said on this subject; various dimensions of it, to explore. But it is more conducive to an organized debate of unambiguous ideas, if we take it, one step at a time (plus, your response should prove entertaining). So, here is the first level of the argument, needing resolution: your thesis on the nature of all scientific belief-- hey, it was you, who'd used that, (in my mind) over-generalization-- versus mine: namely that anything that is, in the future, proven false, had not been true, in the first place.
