And a J.D. is like getting another Bachelor’s, but with a law thingy major!
I award you no points. And may God have mercy on your soul.
1 Like
I agree with you here regarding the predictive nature of climate science. The inherent problem with this is simply due to the fact that there is only one experimental group to work off of (there is only one earth) and one cannot set up a control group. For example if I need to test how a certain additive affects a coating or polymer I can set up a control group without the additive and then numerous experimental groups with different concentrations of the additive. We can’t do that with the earth and CO2. Also what makes it even more difficult is that there a many variables regarding the climate, geological factors, atmospheric conditions, etc., that climate scientists have no control over that can impact this science.
Like to continue, but work is intervening. Let me just add that I also don’t think we should throw our hands up, as my post may have implied. I do think that climate earth is well enough understood to forecast trends–but trying to pin down a year or a decade doesn’t seem realistic. Most of the variables are known to some degree of uncertainty–I think!
Catch y’all on the flip side.
OK. I finished grading my lab reports ahead of schedule. So here’s some philosophical ■■■■■■■■■ If you want certainty, science is not your game. Science is not about proof, it is about falsification. There is nothing exact about science. All science is based on measurement, and all measurements are uncertain. There is no such thing as an exact mass. But that doesn’t mean that science doesn’t work. It works incredibly. Climate science is no different than any other kind of science, except there are concerns about future climates and what impacts that may have on our lives.
While I side with the specialists, I still don’t know what that means for our lives. Will sea level rise affect low-lying cities? Well yeah, probably. Go figure, I live in New Orleans. We are not going to get any sympathy the next time stuff happens, right?. Will warming affect our agricultural resource base? Yeah, probably. Will weather patterns change? Well, probably.
Is this the end of the world? Probably not. That doesn’t mean it’s not important. And there’s another reason a transition to renewable energies is urgent. To whit, fossil fuels are finite. They are freaking fossils. They are concentrated stored sunlight and they are not coming back. It’s all about the sun.
I’m with you there as well. Even on a practical matter putting the climate concerns aside, fossil fuels are not renewable and will at some point be exhausted. In that regard alternative energy sources will have to be a big part of the equation.
This is false. A scientific theory can never be proven. Performing repeated experiments lend further support to validate the theory, but never “prove” the theory. It takes only one irreconcilable observation to invalidate a theory and it’s simply impossible to test an infinite number of possibilities, hence theories can never be “proven”.
Well thats not accurate at all.
Scientific evidence either supports or refutes a theory or hypothesis. In the case of AGW, there is plenty of evidence to support the theory of AGW. The AGW theory states that we will experience rapid increases in global surface temps. We are. The theory states the oceans will warm. They are. It states that ice sheets and glaciers will shrink and see less snow cover. That’s occurring. There an abundance of evidence ot support the theory. Why do you think 97% of scientists agree 
Of course you can… eventually. We know that additional CO2 loading to the atmosphere contributes to increased temperatures… well, because thats how greenhouse gases work. They trap heat that is trying to escape back to space. Since we are one of the largest contributors, then clearly excluding that significant amount form the equation would undoubtedly result in cooling. But I say eventually because of how long CO2 lingers int he atmopshere… it can persist anywhere form several decades to a few centuries. Meaning, even if we cut it all off tomorrow, temps would continue to rise due to the CO2 that persists afterwards.
To state there’s no evidence to support the AGW theory is beyond foolish… a statement like this only confirms that you’re wildly out your realm in understanding the scientific method. You don’t have to agree with the theory, but the supporting empirical evidence is undeniable.
Scientific laws basically describe observations made during experiment, and can be used to predict certain phenomena. But scientific laws don’t explain “why”… there’s no explanation, just a summary of observations.
Everyone can calm down now scientists in British Columbia have come up with a solution to remove carbon from the air that’s cost effective. No need for government intervention - everyone should be happy 
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/science-environment-47638586
Carbon Engineering says that its direct air capture (DAC) process is now able to capture the gas for under [$100 a tonne]
With its new funding, the company plans to build its first commercial facilities. These industrial-scale DAC plants could capture up to one million tonnes of CO2 from the air each year.
That all depends on the theory. For example very early on there were many theories about the planets of our solar system that have been tested with the use of later technology. In many ways various aspects of atomic theory are now considered facts. Although I assume that your point would then be that as experiments validate something that the falls out of the theoretical and is accepted as fact.
So the globe never gets warmer?
Well, yes and no. A theory can still never be proven. A theory simply provides a valid explanation for the phenomena observed. But theories are composed of facts gained from observation.
So, you begin by developing a hypothesis that is tested with observations to support the hypothesis. You then continue the experiment, further testing the hypothesis until you accumulate enough evidence to develop a theory. Through this method, facts related to the phenomena are used in support of the theory. Facts don’t ever change. But theories are simply an explanation of the facts. Additional experimentation may discover more facts related to support the theory, meaning the theory evolves, but is never “proven”.
But I fully acknowledge that outside of scientific circles, the term theory has a very different meaning and people commonly think theories are “proof”.
Well said. This is a good explanation.
Do you not understand the word “cycles”?
Do you not understand that global warming is fact?
Answer my question and I will answer yours.
What about cycles?
