M3DVQ wrote:As you say, science is never settled and if a better scientific model comes along it eventually replaces the old one
Indeed, but one doesn't go around shouting "the sky is falling" or the "science is settled" just because one has a preliminary "model". For sure come up with a model, make predictions with it, and test to see if stands the test of time, that is the scientific method, and if it holds up take action on it. That is NOT what has happened.
M3DVQ wrote:You can't just say you don't believe a theory to be correct and call it science. You have to actually find the problems with it. Real scientists welcome that because it helps refine our understanding.
.
I don't see anywhere that I have written I don't believe it so it can't be science. My objection is that I do not see that a true scientific method has been applied in this instance. I can't see any evidence that the proponents of anthropological warming have taken into account the objections of thousands of well regarded scientists.
I have been studying the published evidence, as far as possible, since I have retired (7 years) and have concluded that the case for anthropological global warming (or climate change if you prefer) has been ideologically, rather than scientifically, driven.
M3DVQ wrote:Lots of scientists can't get papers published.
That is a frivolous argument and you know it. I am talking about well respected scientists who have had no previous problem with having papers published and are suddenly, and mysteriously, hitting a brick wall.
M3DVQ wrote:Often because they have no scientific merit.
That is obviously NOT a criterion any more or we wouldn't have this anthropological climate change nonsense in the first place.
M3DVQ wrote:Papers which take positions against the consensus do get published but none of the alternative theories to explain climate trends have stood up to scrutiny or gained any real support.
Oh dear, that I am afraid, I take to be a VERY subjective comment.
M3DVQ wrote:Global Warming isn't a "threat"
Agreed.
M3DVQ wrote:it's a process that can be measured.
Agreed, that's why the ICCP chair has conceded that there has been no significant warming for the last 17 years.
M3DVQ wrote: Future predictions based on long term models could be called a threat and they are only predictions. The effects to humans are both under and overstated by different people but the fact that there are differing views on how warming may play out in the future don't automatically make all the other measurements and observations disappear.
Conceded, but all good scams are based on at least a skerrick of truth.
M3DVQ wrote:I don't know what it's like over there but the mainstream media seem to give equal or greater weight to anti climate change stories over here.
Well I admit I only read the BBC site - that is certainly biased towards the "alarmist" point of view.
I can certainly report that here, the mainstream media is almost entirely biased towards the "alarmist" point of view, although there are a few dissenters who then get appropriately vilified for their efforts.
Thankfully, we have had a change of government here which has committed to bringing at least some sanity into the debate, alas I fear they will not go anywhere far enough.