Is Global Warming a Hoax?

[OngBonga]

(and a healthy dose of maths)

Maths isn't theory though. I don't theorise that 5*2=10, I can state it as fact. If we can't rely on our understanding of maths, then science will collapse entirely. Astronomy is a poor example. We can make predictions, and observe them coming true. For example, solar eclipses.

You say "your definition" as though I pulled it out of my arse... I didn't, I googled "science".

the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

"observation" is an interesting word. I can "observe" the sky and say it is blue. When we talk about "blue", is this science or philosophy? How can we know that we both see the same colour when we see "blue"? Science can't tell us if we perceive blue the same, but it can tell us if we're looking at the same wavelength of light.

Science can't yet do this with climate change. We're taking a bunch of assumptions based on probability, mashing them together, and calling this "consensus". I don't like it. That's not science, it's philosophy. I'd like it more if they were honest about what it is.

There was a time where "consensus" would argue in favour of a flat Earth. Newton's gravity was "consensus" until Einstein came along. Atom means "indivisible". When scientists all nod their heads in agreement, it doesn't mean they are right.

Theories are never confirmed; they can only be disconfirmed.

This from wikipedia...

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed, preferably using a written, pre-defined, protocol of observations and experiments.

Climate change does not meet the criteria of "repeatedly tested and confirmed". There are a lot of "theories" that do stand up to the ultimate test of science. At this point, they cease to be "theory" and become "fact". Climate change isn't there yet.

[Savy]

Maths isn't theory though.

It's literally nothing but theory.

[OngBonga]

It's literally nothing but theory.

Alright well then we're defining "theory" differently. I don't even care who's technically right, there's a distinct difference between the "theory" of mathematics, and the "theory" of string theory, to throw an example out there. Mathematics is incontrovertible fact, to steal mojo's phrase.

Climate change is incontrovertible fact.

Again, we're just being technical about language here. I'm obviously not talking about ice ages and stuff, and neither is anyone else.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Again, we're just being technical about language here. I'm obviously not talking about ice ages and stuff, and neither is anyone else.

This whole thread has been an excellent example that once we nail the technical language, the actual state of affairs on these topics is much easier to parse.

Further:
In science, semantics makes all the difference in the world. The findings (statements of prediction) shown by scientific process are, by design, specific statements.

E.g. If you say, "the wheel spins because a force pulled on its edge," then I probably know what you mean, but that statement is false.
Forces do not cause motions, forces cause accelerations. Additionally, forces cause linear accelerations; torques cause angular accelerations. The sentence clearly means angular motion in using the word "spins." So it's false on 2 accounts.
Again, I probably know what you meant, but I'm guessing. If we're facing misunderstanding between us, then you can't rightly claim to have clearly stated your thoughts.

[Poopadoop]

Maths isn't theory though. I don't theorise that 5*2=10, I can state it as fact. If we can't rely on our understanding of maths, then science will collapse entirely. Astronomy is a poor example. We can make predictions, and observe them coming true. For example, solar eclipses.

You say "your definition" as though I pulled it out of my arse... I didn't, I googled "science".



"observation" is an interesting word. I can "observe" the sky and say it is blue. When we talk about "blue", is this science or philosophy? How can we know that we both see the same colour when we see "blue"? Science can't tell us if we perceive blue the same, but it can tell us if we're looking at the same wavelength of light.

Science can't yet do this with climate change. We're taking a bunch of assumptions based on probability, mashing them together, and calling this "consensus". I don't like it. That's not science, it's philosophy. I'd like it more if they were honest about what it is.

There was a time where "consensus" would argue in favour of a flat Earth. Newton's gravity was "consensus" until Einstein came along. Atom means "indivisible". When scientists all nod their heads in agreement, it doesn't mean they are right.



This from wikipedia...



Climate change does not meet the criteria of "repeatedly tested and confirmed". There are a lot of "theories" that do stand up to the ultimate test of science. At this point, they cease to be "theory" and become "fact". Climate change isn't there yet.

1. I dare say I have a better knowledge of what science is than google or wikipedia. I've studied philosophy of science. And I'm a scientist. So sorry, but quoting these sources as authorities doesn't impress me. And you (they) are still wrong in how you (they) define science.

1a. I'll say it again: you can never confirm a theory, you can only disconfirm it. This is well known as the problem of induction and goes back to Thomas Hume. If 2+2=4 today and has been so every time it's been tested, that is convincing evidence, but it is not proof. Tomorrow for all we know 2+2 could equal 5, and if it does the theory would be disconfirmed.

2. You don't understand climate science yet you claim to understand what it can and can't predict with accuracy. Arguments based on ignorance aren't worth much.

2a. If you hold climate scientists up to your standards of scientific rigour of testing and 'confirmation', then there is no way to prove AGW except by waiting until it's shown to be too late to do anything about it. That is a stupid stance to take, and thankfully not one shared by many people.