1 a short guide to science
-
a short guide to ownership
and nuts and bolts of…You know what I mean. -
(2958) United Nations on Climate Change: “We own the science” - YouTube
The Royal Society is also part of the problem. Their motto of Nullius in verba means believe nobody’s word. In other words they say don’t believe what others say, test the science yourself. But of course they don’t necessarily comply with their own motto and now publish consensus rubbish which is a contradiction of the scientific method.
Another logical fallacy is called argumentum ad vericundiam. It means you base your argument on an appeal to authority as you have done here. It fails as a logical argument because it is simply creating a false source of authority on any subject - an elite group of so-called experts - a consensus. I can quote another group of experts with an opposite view and we are thus none the wiser.
I reiterate my basic scientific challenge. Quote me the proof that man-made emissions of CO2. cause global warming. You can’t. There are none.
2 Likes
Science doesn’t work that way, theories in science are not proved as are theorems in math or formal logic.
Perhaps I used imprecise language. I would like someone to quote me a peer reviewed scientific paper that unequivocally links human emissions of CO2 and associated ‘greenhouse gasses’ cause the world to warm and to obviously remove the effects of natural emissions of those gasses which far exceed human caused. It would be nice to know what amount of human CO2 emissions produce what temperature increase.
There is no such study.
On what scientific basis are we attempting to drive down those emissions with the expectation that global temperatures will fall as a result. If increased emissions cause warming as is the popular opinion here and worldwide, it follows that fewer emissions will cause cooling. Neither hypothesis has been validated.
With all the money thrown at ‘climate science’ over many decades now you would think that one lonely scientist would produce a paper that demonstrates the connection.
Note that much more efficacious ‘greenhouse gasses’ exist such as water vapour and clouds, but no effort is expended in reducing human emissions of water vapour in the atmosphere. I wonder why.
Science works by somebody making a hypothesis, creating an experiment or observations that will test that hypothesis and comparing his results with his hypothesis. If his results don’t support his hypothesis, it’s wrong. If his results agree, he should be able to predict further results and others using his method should be able to replicate his results and likewise predict outcomes. If they can’t replicate his results his hypothesis is wrong, disproved. Longstanding hypotheses gain credit status by withstanding attempts to disprove. Some become laws of physics.
You understand this. It’s simple.
We seem to have reached a consensus (an unscientific, even anti-scientific term) that the world is warming and that CO2 concentrations are increasing, hence one causes the other.
That’s piffle. The world can warm and cool from other causes, and that is obvious from proxy data from geology, ice cores, tree rings which show the world warmed and cooled without any humans or human emissions.
My point is simple. Why do we expend vast wealth to attempt to alter the earth’s temperature by insignificant amounts? What’s the proof (using that word in the sense that those expending vast resources - or forcing others to do so - need solid justification to do so) that the thing they are trying to change (CO2 concentrations) are the thing that’s causing the problem, and furthermore, that the benefit (largely unspecified) decades hence is worth the cost. Is there any proof that the actions taken so far and projected will actually fix the problem?
If the link between human emissions and temperature increases is so obvious, why can’t any scientist positively link the two that one causes the other.
1 Like
Maybe the same reason they can’t scientifically prove cigarette smoking causes lung cancer ?
This is not correct either, that’s not remotely how the scientific method works.
Here is a logical argument; my “elite group of experts” are much larger and smarter than yours. 
What else could have caused global warming at a rate never seen before during the last 175 years? Proof please.
Or are you denying that global warming is happening at all?:
Source: World of Change: Global Temperatures
PS> I know that it has been claimed there is a place somewhere in Outback Australia where nothing has changed the last 150 years. (Maybe they should change that broken thermometer)
I never said it was. I was demonstrating the fallacy of ‘consensus’ in scientific debates.
Not my problem. The onus of proof is on the one making the assertion. You assert unprecedented global warming, not me. You prove that yourself.
The scientific method uses the null hypothesis and the alternative hypothesis. My null hypothesis is that your unprecedented warming does not exist, and that any observation of warming is purely chance, or more likely, natural variation. I don’t have to prove that. You have to prove that unprecedented warming exists with your alternative hypothesis that global warming is caused by humans.
1 Like