[late]

The warming bit, if you mean measuring actual temperatures, does not rely on models or a climate theory. But pinning down the causes of the warming (e.g. is it due to higher CO2 concentrations caused by human activity?) does rely on theories, which can't actually be tested using proper experiments hence we use models and see if their predictions have come to fruition or not.

This may sound as unimportant but it's not if we want to have an accurate understanding of the science here.



Any temperature projections made by a model that is based on a different, non-mainstream theory.

I've seen some people claiming temperatures are rising due to changes in solar activity. If so, maybe model such system and then provide predictions of future temperatures based on it, allowing us to compare with the predictions from the mainstream models.

The mainstream scientists, right or not, have at least taken the risk of making forecasts, and they have been mostly in line with what we've observed. Have the proponents of alternative explanations done the same? If not, then they're all talk and talk is cheap.

Big Oil rolls that one out from time to time. It's BS. I've studied the history, philosophy and college level methods of science. There is plenty wrong with Big Oil, and basically nothing with climate science.

You keep flapping your gums about alternatives. There is science, and there is propaganda. The propaganda, what you call alternatives, did not survive peer review.

[Pants-of-dog]

If we assume the theory of anthropogenic climate change is a hoax, what is the goal?

In terms of how much change has been made to society because of this theory, this theory is largely ineffective as a social mobilization tool.

[wat0n]

Big Oil rolls that one out from time to time. It's BS. I've studied the history, philosophy and college level methods of science. There is plenty wrong with Big Oil, and basically nothing with climate science.

You keep flapping your gums about alternatives. There is science, and there is propaganda. The propaganda, what you call alternatives, did not survive peer review.

Propaganda or not, it's up to them to provide a reproducible model and their predictions, isn't it?

I mean, plenty are also conspiracy theorists who won't believe you just for saying the models are peer-reviewed. But predictions are predictions, you can't argue that I think.

So to those who don't believe mainstream climate models, can we see your own and their out-of-sample performance?

If we assume the theory of anthropogenic climate change is a hoax, what is the goal?

In terms of how much change has been made to society because of this theory, this theory is largely ineffective as a social mobilization tool.

I think a better understanding of the climate is by itself a valid goal.

[late]

Propaganda or not, it's up to them to provide a reproducible model and their predictions, isn't it?

I mean, plenty are also conspiracy theorists who won't believe you just for saying the models are peer-reviewed. But predictions are predictions, you can't argue that I think.

Models are a little different. What you want is refinement, as a rule. Like I said, the science has been consistent since the 70s. One way they get that is adding data, ancient ice samples, tree rings, new instruments, for example.

What I said is that you've been scammed by Big Oil propaganda.

[wat0n]

Models are a little different. What you want is refinement, as a rule. Like I said, the science has been consistent since the 70s. One way they get that is adding data, ancient ice samples, tree rings, new instruments, for example.

What I said is that you've been scammed by Big Oil propaganda.

What I described is simply how science works. It is possible, always possible, for a new theories to be successful in radically changing our views about a topic, if the models based on them perform well OR they are experimentally confirmed with several properly designed experiments.

So, how have I been scammed by anyone? I am the one who brought up a source showing climate models seem to be performing reasonably well in predicting future temperatures.

It's up to the global warming skeptics to provide their own predictions just like the mainstream climate scientists did. If they can't, then they're all talk and as I said talk is cheap.

[late]

What I described is simply how science works.

Thanks for the laugh.

https://www.amazon.com/Scientific-Perspectivism-Ronald-N-Giere/dp/0226292134/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3E16O4R86X1MC&keywords=ronald+n+giere&qid=1682784496&sprefix=ronald+n+giere%2Caps%2C123&sr=8-1

[wat0n]

I don't see how that book disproves anything.

[late]

I don't see how that book disproves anything.

As a rule, science doesn't deal in proofs...

The problem is quite simple, you believe BS because that is what you want.

[Truth To Power]

If we assume the theory of anthropogenic climate change is a hoax, what is the goal?

That depends on who is perpetrating it, and why. I can think of a few possibilities, but I don't claim to know, or to understand their strategy. Offhand, I'd say only the US government has the power and reach to pull it off, but I'm just a little guy. I don't know.

In terms of how much change has been made to society because of this theory, this theory is largely ineffective as a social mobilization tool.

OTC, it has already made fuel a lot more expensive. Maybe the oil companies are behind it. Think about it: they know supply and demand are both very inelastic, and supply is easier to control than demand. It's an ideal set-up to profit from an artificial shortage.

[Pants-of-dog]

That depends on who is perpetrating it, and why. I can think of a few possibilities, but I don't claim to know, or to understand their strategy. Offhand, I'd say only the US government has the power and reach to pull it off, but I'm just a little guy. I don't know.

OTC, it has already made fuel a lot more expensive. Maybe the oil companies are behind it. Think about it: they know supply and demand are both very inelastic, and supply is easier to control than demand. It's an ideal set-up to profit from an artificial shortage.

So the US government is pulling some complicated hoax in order to pass almost no laws and also weaken treaties devoted to mitigation of climate change.

That seems odd.

[Truth To Power]

So the US government is pulling some complicated hoax in order to pass almost no laws and also weaken treaties devoted to mitigation of climate change.

That seems odd.

Not compared to the cluster-f**k of US foreign policy since WWII.

[Pants-of-dog]

Not compared to the cluster-f**k of US foreign policy since WWII.

The fact that the US may have made similar futile efforts in other areas does not change the fact that climate change has been a poor motivator for social change.

[Truth To Power]

The fact that the US may have made similar futile efforts in other areas does not change the fact that climate change has been a poor motivator for social change.

Because they are not related.