On 15/6/19 6:07 am, Tim Streater wrote:
In article .com,
Keema's Nan wrote:

On 14 Jun 2019, Tim Streater wrote
(in t):

Since anyone disputing that climate "science" is "settled" gets threats
like those I mention above, I deduce that climate "science" owes more
to religion than real science.

Im not sure that I follow your logic.

Climate is not a hypothesis. It is a description of long term weather
parameters which prevail across certain regions of the planet.

Typically these parameters have been determined by data from 30
(preferably more) years of observation. You cannot prove a climate to
be untrue.

Areas of the globe might change from one climate description to
another, such as from Tundra to Cold High Latitude (or whatever the
current description happens to be) but the individual climate
parameters would remain.

Similarly, a Desert climate could envelop parts of the world which are
currently classed as Steppe or Savannah. However, if rainfall
increased in a Desert, that could become Steppe over the decades. That
would be true Climate Change - not the snowflake version which relies
on short term weather extremes to persuade the ignorant MSM that the
climate has changed.

What's a particular climate got to do with anything? Climate "science"
appears to claim that (1) the world is heating and that (2) this is
down to human activity.

(1) is ought to be a simple matter of measurement but there appear to
be those who say it is and those who say it isn't.

There is a very high level of agreement.

(2) is a matter of belief and is therefore a religious question.

Various correlations indicate human activity is the cause. Two factors
are involved - the burning of fossil fuels and the mass removal a CO2
sequestration devices, ie. trees.

Note that if you are a scientist who does not subscribe to this
orthodoxy, you won't get research grants and you will be lucky to get -
or keep - an academic position. Further, you'll be called a "denier",
just as Galileo was called a heretic.

A true scientist is a *skeptic* - skeptical about *everything*.

Yes, and the true scientists, aka skeptics, are convinced.

Is (2) above correct? How should I know, and how should anyone else. We
don't have a means of testing this hypothesis. It is therefore
unfalsifiable and is therefore not science. You can call it what you
like but not science, OK?



--

Xeno


Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)