“But Science”

Grandiose theories about what science is or how it should be does not mean much on a Climateball field. There are things we know well enough not to worry too much about them. Science is like that. Once we consider is as a mere extension of common sense, all should be well.

We need better contrarians. Ideally they should be coaxed into offering some kind of scientific output. If every contrarian compiled 90K of historical data from all over the world, they’d earn the right to their eccentric views.


The irony of those saying “believe science” or “believe scientists”


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

Beliefs. Science isn’t about beliefs
☞ Your model of science had currency in Parminedes’ time. But even by Plato’s time we knew that knowledge was true, justified belief.

Better. We need better science
☞ That requires more money. Are you suggesting that we should increase taxes?



Falsification. Speculation is not counted as hypothesis unless falsifiable—
☞ Here’s a guide to falsify AGW. If we accept falsifiability as a criteria for scientific theories, proofs don’t exist anymore.


Method. According to the scientific method—
☞ There’s nothing special about how we do science. It’s a mere extension of common sense.

Proof. Prove that—
☞ Confer to the IPCC reports. Empirical sciences have no means to ultimate settlement like a formal proof. We still have fairly well established results.

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


Settled. Science is never settled—
☞ “Science is settled” only means that the basic ideas are well understood. It certainly does not mean that climate science is definitive.

Skepticism. Remaining skeptical in the spirit of science—
☞ Incredulity has little scientific explanation or understanding to offer.

Tautology. Saying that AGW makes it too hot or too cold is never wrong
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.

{} Contingency.


2006-05; Piracy as a Preventor of Tropical Cyclones.

2010-01; A quick ‘n dirty guide to falsifying AGW.

Futher Readings

2018-05; Climate Science.

2017-04; Science and Pseudo-Science.

2015-11; Scientific Method.

2020-10; The Idea That a Scientific Theory Can Be ‘Falsified’ Is a Myth; Food for thought.