Each of us has to apply that to ourselves as well as other posters. Any point in science really needs to be backed by those experts working in that field.
Your main point and my main point are obviously two different points. I do not deny science, but I do have doubts about the scientific validity of IPCC governed WG1 consensus reports used as the basis to promote WG2, WG3 and TIF agendas. You, apparently, hold some interesting opinions regarding what is and isn't science. Again, let's look at a specific example, that of a fission chain reaction. It is a scientific theory and hypothesis that has been completely proven. You however, assert that it is a theory that was accepted before there was "something that could be called proof". By this statement, I can only conclude that you are unqualified to assess what is and isn't science. The first proof of the theory of critical fusion chain reactions was an atomic pile built by Enrico Fermi at the University of Chicago. Given your choice of username, I recommend that you continue to read more and give this Pulitzer Prize Non-Fiction Winner a go: The Making of the Atomic Bomb, by Richard Rhodes.
I am still waiting for you to backup your assertion that there are improvements in efficiencies that are low hanging fruit. And although I am not a fan of the Koch brothers meddling in politics given their strong libertarian leanings, Charles Koch has three degrees in engineering from MIT. What do you have Mr. Climate Scientist? Link to your Wikipedia page Bio?
Well, there certainly is opportunity for doubt, especially when it comes to "agendas". Policy is going to be informed by science with objectives of slowing and enduring climate change, and it's going to have to include the world. So, when it comes to policy it's likely to look suboptimal from any single point of view. The Paris agreement was pretty smart if you ask me. It managed to get indivial countries to commit to concrete objectives. Unfortunately, America decided to ignore its commitment. But a number of countries are not doing that - which is clearly a win. Imho, there is a gray area between pure science and engineering. That kind of gray area can be found in medicine and other fields, too. Solutions are found based on science, but the objective is a working product and working products are not proof. I'd point out that essentially every cell phone has engineering that depends on relativity theory for location infomation. And, it works!! But, that does NOT prove relativity theory. Some of the largest, most central questions in physics have to do with relativity theory as it doesn't play well with quantum machanics in some very important ways. So, with particle physics the tool is QM. But, in the large, the tool is Einstein. And, the reason is that they give different answers. Engineers accept relativity theory because it is the best we have today, NOT because there is proof. Again, engineers are not the same as scientists, as they only need to get close enough. They aren't seeking nor do they need some sort of proven truth. In the case of climate change, I would suggest we don't have any theory as accepted as relativity theory and I don't believe that kind of sureity is available in climatology, either. The question with climatology is whether we choose to ignore what we have learned. And, waiting for "proof" IS choosing to ignore what we have learned. Unfortunately, this nation has a great track record with ignoring what we have learned, and we're moving in THAT direction, not in a direction of respecting science and engineering.
Let's stick with what is and isn't science, eh? For example, has the theory of nuclear fission been proven true? How about another, shall we? Some say, that babies are brought to the house by storks. Others, biologists among them, have come to believe that babies are only conceived as a result of coitus. Proven truth, according to your arguments, is unattainable. Accordingly, the sun, the moon and the stars could still be circling the earth? We just don't know? We're communicating with this technology, but, it could be fairies, gnomes and elves? Science denial...
We have models for how lots of things work. But, those models are usually not theories. The theory we have on the movement of planets and stars is the theory of relativity. And, the theory of relativity IS under serious challenge as quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity do NOT agree. You can't just come up with a model that seems to be reliable and then call that a theory. With theory, there must be a deep understanding of how the process works. That a model seems to reliably predict the future is barely evidence.
This isn't "science denial". The problem I'm pointing to is that of waiting for "proof" - which is just one possible choice in how to be informed by science. imho, science has to be viewed as a process of ever increasing knowledge. There wont be "proof" in climatology that will look any better than the gradually decreasing size of error bars and slight improvements in predictive models. Being informed by science means listening to the best information we have to date. Waiting for "proof" is sheer nonsense. We don't even have that for the theory of relativity. Today's knowledge in climatology is FAR AND AWAY justification for taking immediate and significant action both in slowing warming and in moves to reduce various impacts of the warming that we can no longer slow. Ignoring what is known about climatology in the hope of "proof" IS science denial.
We do have models for how lots of things work. Unfortunately, we do not yet have one for predicting the weather, although the current state of the art provides forecasts that are generally accurate for 3 to 5 days. However, according to the mode of argument you've chosen to use in our discussion here, the accuracy of weather forecasts proves nothing of our understanding of weather. Have I got that right? I somewhat have to question your education or experience in any form of natural science or engineering if you think that any model is possible without a corresponding theory. *** Regarding heaven revolving around the Earth, my point, according to your arguments with me in this thread, is that science is of such little value in delivering proof, that for all we really know, the universe does in fact revolve around the Earth. However, rather than concede that science has proven many many many aspects of a wide variety of natural sciences by experimentation, theoretical formulation and prediction followed by further experimentation, you have overwhelmingly asserted in our discussion that science has proven nothing. Instead you choose to deflect and attempt to discuss relativity and how it is threatened by quantum mechanics. I do not know enough about them to argue the point, and, I suspect, neither do you. As you yourself so eloquently put it:
Having a model that works reasonably well is not proof and it's also not a theory. Also, accuracy with climate has the advantage that it is an issue of change over a period of years - not invalidated by weather arriving today instead of tomorrow. The point is that we have a lot of knowledge WITHOUT there being some covering theory or some "proof". The thing I oppose is the idea of waiting for "proof". We don't even have proof for the theory of relativity. I don't know of any proposed climate change theory. And, that is NOT an excuse for ignoring the best knowledge we have today.
Indeed, you know nothing of science and nothing of the science of climate change, by your own admission, and yet you passionately support the IPCC, Paris accords, Kyoto agreements, etc.... Fine by me, quit claiming it's based on science when you so clearly have no clue what science is, at all, even with respect to AGW....
You need better lies... It's not up to him, it's up to climatologists, and they aren't the ones drowning in propaganda.
Why bother then? It's your thread and OP after all, isn't it? Unlike you or @WillReadmore , @skepticalmike actually brought some substance to this thread. A shame you don't have the ability to do so....
I learned about this in a math modeling class at university in the 80s. I have to be polite, I suppose, but there is no reason whatsoever to take a deluded fool seriously.
How quaint, a class.... Charlie Koch has a master's in ChE and Nuclear engineering from MIT, and you had a class.....
Koch's CV has zero relevance. Back in the early days, the climate denial was laughably crude. He would send people to retirement homes and get senile scientists to sign a form saying they didn't believe in AGW. What hasn't changed over the years is that he's a lunatic that does propaganda because he's an oil guy.
Meanwhile, in the current debate on your own thread you offer nothing of substance to support your assertion that there are efficiencies waiting to be exploited, countering any of my complaints about the lack of water n the IPCC assessments, blah, blah, blah....
Yes, you don't like my message, but that doesn't mean my message is false or unimportant. Climate change will NOT provide anything that can be called "proof" in a scientific sense. Also, there isn't going to be a theory of climatology in the scientific sense. There ARE theories in thermodymamics and other fields that are important in climatology. Today, climatology provides overwhelming evidence of human caused climate change that will be stupendously expensive for humans. That evidence has grown steadily over the last 30 years. Statistically speaking, there really aren't any climate related scientists who doubt the importance of human caused climate change. Pretending that we should wait for "proof" instead of acting on our very best knowledge is just plain NOT acceptable. It's this idea of "wait for proof" that I am absolutely and totally opposed to. And, the reason is that it is a totally ficticious objective and because of the level of knowledge of climate chage that is available today from scientists in the field from around this entire world.
Lennart Bengtsson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lennart_Bengtsson https://klimazwiebel.blogspot.com/2013/03/lennart-bengtsson-global-climate-change.html https://electroverse.net/the-list-s...with-the-current-consensus-on-climate-change/
