Quote Originally Posted by poop
1. I dare say I have a better knowledge of what science is than google or wikipedia.
So you get to define words based on your expertise?

Tomorrow for all we know 2+2 could equal 5
This is a ridiculous thing to say. The only way 2+2=5 is if we change the symbol for 4 into 5, or if we're listening to too much Radiohead. I learned what 2+2 was by counting pictures of apples at school. There are two apples. Now there are two more. How many are there? Not fucking five, and there never will be five, unless someone put three more there instead of two.

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.
Very few people understand climate sceince. I'm not pretending to be one of them. Are you? I don't claim to undertsand what it can and cannot predict with accuracy, I'm saying that until it can make some sort of predictions that we can observe to come true, and until we can eliminate other potential sources for the results, then there is a clear distinction between maths and climate change.

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.
Right, this is a bit more like it. I realise there are issues with "my" standards in this regard. However, all I'm saying is that we should not be presenting climate change as factual. I'm not saying we shouldn't act. I'm saying we should be honest about it, because when we're not, for some of us at least it compromises the trust we have in the integrity of science.

If they say "it's probably happening and we'd be stupid not to act", I'd be in agreement. When they say "it is happening and we're going to act", then I question how they know it's happening, and question why they're using language such as "know" rather than "think" or "probably".