How do you judge science as an outsider? You judge the correctness of the predictions made.
How has global warming fared on the accuracy front? Terribly. We were promised monotonically rising global temperatures for the next hundred years, and instead, they plateaued, then dropped, only ten years into the predictions.
As an outsider, the rest hardly matters. Why the predictions were wrong is something for the scientists to go work out. Explaining away the wrongness with "whys" doesn't change the wrongness, it only explains it.
If you think I'm wrong, show me the prediction from 2000 or so that actually matches what happened to the real climate. Show me the error bars that the global temperature is still within. (Most global warming graphs don't even have error bars, which itself is pretty telling.) As far as I know, you can't.
Explaining that failure doesn't change the fact of failure. If the last ten years is "mere weather", then the error bars should have reflected that.
That is how you judge science as an outsider. You may not understand materials science, but the bridges the materials scientists help build behave as they predict (mostly). You may not understand organic chemistry, but plastics behave as such people predict. You may not understand political science, but the real world only sort of acts as they predict, so their science is less reliable.
You may not understand climate science, but their predictions completely fail to come to pass. Fairly routinely, too. Make your conclusions about the validity of their science based on that. You don't have to be a climate scientist to do that. (As it happens, it is the same standard they should be using themselves, and the field's apparent refusal to do so is also very telling.)
(Where no predictions can be made, there is no science. Sometimes that's just the way it is; economics isn't going to be a very real science anytime soon. There's nothing wrong with that, there's only something wrong with according it the belief levels in the predictions made by the field that should be reserved for real science.)
Global warming is influenced by a multitude of contributing gases etc. Some of them can also cause cooling. Weather, being unpredictable of course screws up predictions. Also the oceans are taking a substancial amount of CO2 gases for instances which causes warming delays.
I agree with the error bars but climatology is not exactly a easy science if you have so many variables. Its not that we fully understand "just weather" yet.
Interesting question though, temperatures were constant for more or less 1 Mio. years (thanks ice-core probes for that information). Why suddenly in the last 100 years or so do we see a difference if you look in the timeframe of 1900 to now?
Even if I play your logic and go for a moment on your side and say ok who knows maybe the predictions are wrong. Does it makes sense to drive the Coal/Oil/Gas burning train? There is more waste coming from burning these than just CO2 you know.
"Interesting question though, temperatures were constant for more or less 1 Mio. years (thanks ice-core probes for that information). Why suddenly in the last 100 years or so do we see a difference if you look in the timeframe of 1900 to now?"
While the last decade may have peaked somewhat high, the fact that we are dropping back down would mean that other hypotheses such as "our proxy data isn't as detailed as we like" need to be considered.
"say ok who knows maybe the predictions are wrong."
No. The predictions aren't "maybe" wrong. I'm not hypothesizing. I'm looking out the window. (Metaphorically, that is, I'm looking at real observations.) The predictions are wrong. Right now.
"Does it makes sense to drive the Coal/Oil/Gas burning train? There is more waste coming from burning these than just CO2 you know."
This is terrible science. You're asking me to believe in global warming, because burning gasoline is bad. Why not... explain why burning gasoline is bad, then act on that, instead? Why not talk about ocean pollution or overfishing and act on them directly, instead? While climatologists are distracting us with computer-modeled chimeras, real problems are being neglected.
Start with the truth. Work out from there. That's science.
The graph with the Ice core probes are of course correct. Thanks for that.
"No. The predictions aren't "maybe" wrong. I'm not hypothesizing. I'm looking out the window. (Metaphorically, that is, I'm looking at real observations.) The predictions are wrong. Right now."
Who says that the cycle of change which we can actually see due to a slow response is not based on a window of 5, 10 or 15 years? Right now is an exception to the current trend?
How can we verify this? Wait and do nothing?
"This is terrible science. You're asking me to believe in global warming, because burning gasoline is bad. Why not... explain why burning gasoline is bad, then act on that, instead? Why not talk about ocean pollution or overfishing and act on them directly, instead? While climatologists are distracting us with computer-modeled chimeras, real problems are being neglected."
Sure, but just because I want to state that Global warming is true or not I have to eliminate all the other bad factors which are actually happening?
Give me one environmental benefit why Coal/Oil/Gas burning is good? I am curious. Even if global warming is false, at least helps us to switch to renewable energy which will be better in the long run.
Lets suppose we find out global warming is false. What is the damage done by following ideas to limit CO2 and pushing environmental awareness?
"Start with the truth. Work out from there. That's science."
Good point. Did you see the reasoning of Rahmstorf in the Video? Do you think his reasoning is flawed?
How has global warming fared on the accuracy front? Terribly. We were promised monotonically rising global temperatures for the next hundred years, and instead, they plateaued, then dropped, only ten years into the predictions.
As an outsider, the rest hardly matters. Why the predictions were wrong is something for the scientists to go work out. Explaining away the wrongness with "whys" doesn't change the wrongness, it only explains it.
If you think I'm wrong, show me the prediction from 2000 or so that actually matches what happened to the real climate. Show me the error bars that the global temperature is still within. (Most global warming graphs don't even have error bars, which itself is pretty telling.) As far as I know, you can't.
Explaining that failure doesn't change the fact of failure. If the last ten years is "mere weather", then the error bars should have reflected that.
That is how you judge science as an outsider. You may not understand materials science, but the bridges the materials scientists help build behave as they predict (mostly). You may not understand organic chemistry, but plastics behave as such people predict. You may not understand political science, but the real world only sort of acts as they predict, so their science is less reliable.
You may not understand climate science, but their predictions completely fail to come to pass. Fairly routinely, too. Make your conclusions about the validity of their science based on that. You don't have to be a climate scientist to do that. (As it happens, it is the same standard they should be using themselves, and the field's apparent refusal to do so is also very telling.)
(Where no predictions can be made, there is no science. Sometimes that's just the way it is; economics isn't going to be a very real science anytime soon. There's nothing wrong with that, there's only something wrong with according it the belief levels in the predictions made by the field that should be reserved for real science.)