Claims that the "the science isn't settled" with regard to climate change are symptomatic of a large body of ignorance about how science works.
The first thing to understand is that there is no one method in science, no one way of doing things. This is intimately connected with how we reason in general.
[...] Those who demand the science be "settled" before we take action are seeking deductive certainty where we are working inductively. And there are other sources of confusion.
One is that simple statements about cause and effect are rare since nature is complex. For example, a theory might predict that X will cause Y, but that Y will be mitigated by the presence of Z and not occur at all if Q is above a critical level. To reduce this to the simple statement "X causes Y" is naive.
Another is that even though some broad ideas may be settled, the details remain a source of lively debate. For example, that evolution has occurred is certainly settled by any rational account. But some details of how natural selection operates are still being fleshed out.
(Score: 2) by turgid on Friday September 16 2016, @12:16PM
Way to miss the point, Socrates-dude. In this case "proved" means statistically significant and the hypothesis agrees with experimental observation etc. If you're dealing with non-scientists you have to be very careful with your choice and use of language
If you're dealing with scientists, you also have to be very careful with your choice and use of language. They enjoy the odd game of pedantry and belittling the stranger.
What a delightful world we inhabit, truly a paradise for the ignorant and obnoxious.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 1) by anfieldsierra on Monday September 19 2016, @12:00AM
statistically significant and the hypothesis agrees with experimental observation
Another part of the scientific method you've conveniently forgotten about the hypothesis is that it must be a falsifiable hypothesis. In the AGW world, there is no evidence possible which will falsify the theory that man is responsible for the majority of climate change and that any such change will be detrimental to the planet.
It's not science. It's politics and religion dressed up to appeal to the masses. AGW has the appearance of a scientific theory with none of the substance to actually make it one.
(Score: 2) by turgid on Monday September 19 2016, @06:50AM
How is it not falsifiable? Does Exxon shoot you if you try?
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].