Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?

[Red Arrow]

Actually no, that's not how it works.

Actually, it is and you show it below.  Someone (or group) did not believe the data or the explanations were sufficiently accurate and proceeded to find a better explanation.   I hope we are not arguing semantics. 

Generally accepted scientific theories are improved upon or thrown out all the time. That's how science moves forward.

Yep.

Newtonian gravity was accepted for centuries, and was then thrown out by relativity.  Geocentric cosmology was an accepted scientific fact for 1500 years with models that could predict where the planets would be (scientific observation, data, and the ability to predict), it fell apart as we gained more knowledge and its predictive ability started to fail and was replaced, replaced again, and finally reached where we currently are (the religious push back didn't start until the model started to fail, and our current model has known flaws related to general relativity so it will eventually be replaced again). Stable earth was replaced with plate tectonics. Static universe replaced with expanding and then accelerating universe. Young earth (20-40 million years, not the biblical young earth theory) was scientific fact until the mid 1800s.  The nature of light. Dalton's atomic theory. And on and on and on.

The Nobel Prize in physics this year was awarded to a group who proved that gravity moves in waves, as opposed to a previously explanation of a mechanical force.

You are not chastised for proving science wrong, you gain international scientific acclaim at the highest levels.

This is where the (in my opinion) religion of man made global warming/climate change is failing. There is ridicule for anyone challenging man made global warming/climate change. This forum is a prime example.  I doubt many of us here are first hand experts in this field.

But there is a difference between proving science wrong and shouting "no no no no no" in the face of overwhelming data.

Agreed.

If someone has data that disproves a scientific theory they will be met with skepticism and scrutiny,

As they should be.  A scientific theory is more than someone's hunch.

but if the data checks out they will handsomely rewarded.

If they can be given an objective chance.

It's easier to tear down a theory than come up with a new one. 

Yep

So attack all the scientific facts you want, they could all be wrong.  But unless you are preeminent expert in the field, the odds are that the consensus is more accurate than you.

To paraphrase one of my EE professors at TU, the odds do not guarantee anything.

Unless, of course, there is a vast global conspiracy...

I don't buy into that.

(I need to start just cutting and pasting into this thread)

Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Except for the real world...

[Red Arrow]

Both of those concepts,  a flat earth and it being at the center, were never science-based.  Flat earth basically pre-dates all science, and the earth being at the center was religious dogma.

Centuries from now, our descendants may laugh at what we call science.

Edit: dang autocorrect.
 

[Red Arrow]

Even with this cold snap it looks like January and February will be warmer than average for Tulsa.

A few more decades and the average will increase, thereby reducing the apparent intensity of the heat waves.

[cannon_fodder]

Your entire argument can be summed up as:

Science can be wrong, therefore my idea is just as good as a proven scientific theory.

And that's not how it works.  I'm sorry I failed to explain it yet again. The shortest possible version:  if you refuse to accept a conclusion in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence, you probably never will.

Now go out there and publish a paper proving it wrong and collect your Nobel prize!  Or, I guess, quietly accept the possibility that the ridicule may be deserved.

[erfalf]

Your entire argument can be summed up as:
And that's not how it works.  I'm sorry I failed to explain it yet again. The shortest possible version:  if you refuse to accept a conclusion in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence, you probably never will.

Now go out there and publish a paper proving it wrong and collect your Nobel prize!  Or, I guess, quietly accept the possibility that the ridicule may be deserved.

You know as well as I there is a significant amount of evidence that potentially disproves this theory, which in my opinion, seems to mean just about anything. It's so big and unwieldy as to be almost impossible to disprove. It' just that for the most part those people are castigated as "deniers" or whatever. That's a real unscientific community thing to do, but you know that's what happens.

Weather is complicated. Climate is even more so. They can't even create models to test their hypothesis. How do you create such a model. There are too many variables.

[swake]

You know as well as I there is a significant amount of evidence that potentially disproves this theory, which in my opinion, seems to mean just about anything. It's so big and unwieldy as to be almost impossible to disprove. It' just that for the most part those people are castigated as "deniers" or whatever. That's a real unscientific community thing to do, but you know that's what happens.

Weather is complicated. Climate is even more so. They can't even create models to test their hypothesis. How do you create such a model. There are too many variables.

-Opinion paid for by Koch and Exxon. Or is it Conoco? Where do you work exactly?

[erfalf]

-Opinion paid for by Koch and Exxon. Or is it Conoco? Where do you work exactly?

Financial Services? Reality...

[cannon_fodder]

Kindly point me to the research.  There are three or four well known "skeptics" who get all the talking gigs, providers papers for industry, and policy statements for certain PACs --- but they are always debunked when analyzed.  That's why they are derided, not because they disagree (think of anti-vaxxers, flat earthers, etc.).  I'm well aware of faults and gaps in the theory (even gravity has significant gaps), but I'm not aware of sound evidence that "potentially disproves this theory."

It wouldn't be hard to disprove at all. The theory relies on biology, archaeology, chemical analysis, astrophysics, and climate specialists.  You could attack the data about CO2.  Attack the climate data.  Attack the chemistry or physics of C02 as a greenhouse gas.  There are tons of pieces to the theory that could be destroyed.... but haven't been. 

I fully understand skepticism about modeling the affects, but that is actually easy to test.  Build a mathematical model, run a sim based on historic data... compare result with actual historic data.  Being science, all of the models and the associated testing is available to critique - start here:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

But rather than presenting the evidence that disproves the theory, or showing the flaws in the theory, deniers tend to just say the theory has flaws or say the models suck or can't be tested.  The beauty of science is all the data is there and its published.    The denial requires cherry picking data or misstating facts.  Time and time again someone has declared it disproven...time and time again it isn't so.

Basically, at this point those that still refuse to believe the science never will.  There is no amount of data or proof that will change their minds. 

[heironymouspasparagus]

You know as well as I there is a significant amount of evidence that potentially disproves this theory, which in my opinion, seems to mean just about anything. It's so big and unwieldy as to be almost impossible to disprove. It' just that for the most part those people are castigated as "deniers" or whatever. That's a real unscientific community thing to do, but you know that's what happens.

Weather is complicated. Climate is even more so. They can't even create models to test their hypothesis. How do you create such a model. There are too many variables.

Oh, please...  eyes rolling back in my head as far as they will go....  Step away from the Fake Fox News!!   You keep saying you don't "partake" but then you quote the script line by line, word by word....

[Red Arrow]

I fully understand skepticism about modeling the affects, but that is actually easy to test.  Build a mathematical model, run a sim based on historic data... compare result with actual historic data. 

I am not inclined to spend my time, however, my late uncle (died about 8 years ago) was quite interested and had the time as he was retired.  One of the items he found at that time was exactly what you propose but you wouldn't like the results.  The models could not "predict" what had already happened.  He was a pretty sharp cookie and understood things like integrating effects over the entire globe and not just concentrating on a few test areas.  He was also smart enough to reject garbage data and analysis.  Sometimes "you" need to dig a bit deeper than published consensus opinions.

I know it's "convenient" that he is no longer with us for me to check on his sources.

[erfalf]

Oh, please...  eyes rolling back in my head as far as they will go....  Step away from the Fake Fox News!!   You keep saying you don't "partake" but then you quote the script line by line, word by word....

I hope for you sake you realize that if the world does not comport to your views that it is not some fake fox news. You are no better than the child molester you mock daily in this regard.

I'm sure you are absolutely right and there is not a shred of evidence out their that nothing else in this entire universe could be impetus for weather & climate on our little planet.

I'm sure not a shred of evidence has been published (that can be found by Google) that claims that the giant ball of fire in the sky plays a larger role in our climate than Co2.

That's the thing. The CO2 theory is a tested theory. But there is more than one theory that has yet to be totally debunked. And the likelihood of one being correct does not even exclude any other from being correct. As I mentioned (as was mocked for), our planet's climate and weather are rather complex. So complex that we really can't even tell what is going to happen a few days from now. But I'm sure you guys are smarter than I am cause you read some stuff on the interwebs. That also is what turns people against a theory. Self-righteousness. It's a big turnoff.

[Conan71]

I'm well aware of faults and gaps in the theory (even gravity has significant gaps), but I'm not aware of sound evidence that "potentially disproves this theory."

 

"Gravity...not just a good idea, it's the law!"

[Red Arrow]

"Gravity...not just a good idea, it's the law!"

There is no gravity.  The earth just sucks.

[heironymouspasparagus]

I hope for you sake you realize that if the world does not comport to your views that it is not some fake fox news. You are no better than the child molester you mock daily in this regard.

Wow!   So now following the very next step of Fake Fox News - when there is no reply beyond the first sound bite, resort to name calling..!!   You got it mastered !!

And calling ME a child molester...wow!  That is a new low on this board.