“But Science”

We could say just about anything about it.


[MELISSA] The irony of those saying “believe science” or “believe scientists”

[SUMANTRA] Much less than destroying the planet, climate change isn’t even a settled science.

[GALILEO MOVEMENT] The so-called ‘settled science’ was settled before IPCC science started.

[BOB] Scientific knowledge, then, is always in a state of flux; there is simply no such thing as “settled science”, peer reviewed or otherwise.

Objections and Replies

(Chaos) Climate is too chaotic to be sure of—
Reply. Seasons still follow one another. Think of climate like a horse in an hospital: one expects things to be OK in the end, but we don’t know what’s going to happen next.






(Proof) Prove that
Reply. Confer to the IPCC’s reports. Empirical sciences have no means to ultimate settlement like a formal proof.

(Replication) The first requirement of science: replication—
Reply. You’d be surprised. Unless you are wishing for an earth holodeck?

(Settled) Climate science is not settled
Reply. If science was settled the way you suggest, there would not be any scientific paper to publish. There are things we know well enough not to worry too much about them. “Science is settled” only means that the basic ideas are well understood.

(Tautology) Saying that AGW makes it too hot or too cold is never wrong—
Reply. All you got to show is that AGW would stabilize weather.



(Exploit) Your search engine should give you pages of contrarians whining about “but settled” without any real source to the claim. I have yet to find a clear, stable source. So the first move should be to ask contrarians to source their claim.


Futher Readings

2015-11. Scientific Method.

2017-04. Science and Pseudo-Science.

2018-05. Climate Science.