If consensus is agreeable to you, fine. — Neri

Yes, the overwhelming consensus of climate scientists -- like the overwhelming consensus of any scientific field -- should immediately tell a layperson something about the world.

For example, that perhaps their few hours of research and citation of two relatively obscure articles may not undermine the entire field, that the field has probably considered many of these "discoveries," and that maybe -- just maybe -- they don't really have a clue about climatology, but have approached the field in an attempt to undermine it for emotional reasons -- reasons usually tied to religious or political belief.

These ideas should at least cross one's mind.

Or go on believing that you've cracked the code. Whatever floats your boat. In which case you'll have a seat with the flat earthers, creationists, holocaust deniers, and 9/11 truthers.

Around the middle of the 20th century, many assumptions in meteorology and climatology considered climate to be roughly constant. While scientists knew of past climate change such as the ice ages, the concept of climate as unchanging was useful in the development of a general theory of what determines climate.

(Wikipedia)

This is what it was when I took the course in the late 1950s. By the 1970s this attitude had begun to change. Now, atmospheric science encompasses the physics as well.

Time to consider tidal energy to desalinate sea water along the west coast and pipe it to Las Vegas and Phoenix. The diminishing Colorado River is overburdened. Time to remove those ridiculous stilted houses on the beaches of the Gulf of Mexico. Time to sell your condominium on the seventeenth floor overlooking Biscayne Bay. Plan ahead, people, don't count on being able to significantly change the weather.

Xtrix,

Centuries of experience in the law have taught that expert opinions are a very low grade of evidence. Popper, the greatest philosopher of science of the 20th Century, has shown that unfalsifiable opinions are no part of the scientific method. This means that climatology is only pseudo-science. The disposition of some climatologist to falsify their data only emphasizes this point.

In the western world, the doctrines of Neo-Marxism are treated by some as a kind of religion. Chief among these doctrines is anthropogenic climate change. Those who question this “religion” are personally attacked--as many of the posts herein have amply demonstrated. However, the truth has a surprising way of showing its face.

Anyone who takes the trouble to read the various opinions of climatologists will realize that the code cracks itself.

Centuries of experience in the law have taught that expert opinions are a very low grade of evidence. — Neri

OK. So...

Popper, the greatest philosopher of science of the 20th Century, — Neri

...an expert with an opinion...

has shown that unfalsifiable opinions are no part of the scientific method — Neri

...so being an expert his evidence is very low grade. Ok, so you are arguing that we not trust Popper. Cool. So if Poppers' ideas shows...

This means that climatology is only pseudo-science. — Neri

...then climate science is real science. Nice.

:cheer:

Banno,

Philosophy is not science, yet, by a process of strict logic, it may tell us what science is and is not. This is the philosophical problem of demarcation. Popper tells us that falsification and not verification gives logically irrefutable truth. A very simple example of the logic of falsification follows:

(1) Take the proposition, “All swans are white.” Note that this is a categorical statement. It is either true or false. There is no middle ground.

(2) For centuries, the proposition was believed to be true, for no one had ever encountered a swan that was not white. Yet the proposition cannot have been called unquestionably true, for no one knew what the future would hold regarding swans of a different color.

(3) Black swans were discovered in Australia. This falsified the proposition, “All swans are white.” There is no way the proposition can now be true. It has become absolutely false for all time.

NOTE: THIS IS NOT A MATTER OF OPINION BUT RATHER OF PURE IRREFUTABLE LOGIC.
However, this holds true only for categorical propositions. Pooper tells us that such statements are the backbone of science, for only categorical propositions are falsifiable.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Section 3. The Problem of Demarcation) presents a somewhat more technical explanation:

“Popper accordingly rejects the view that induction is the characteristic method of scientific investigation and inference, substituting falsifiability in its place. It is easy, he argues, to obtain evidence in favour of virtually any theory, and he consequently holds that such “corroboration”, as he terms it, should count scientifically only if it is the positive result of a genuinely “risky” prediction, which might conceivably have been false. In a critical sense, Popper’s theory of demarcation is based upon his perception of the asymmetry which, at the level of logic, holds between verification and falsification: it is logically impossible to verify a universal proposition by reference to experience (as Hume saw clearly), but a single genuine counter-instance falsifies the corresponding universal law. In a word, an exception, far from “proving” a rule, conclusively refutes it.”

You have first failed to define what a swan is. Without first doing so, then it's not that "all swans are white" rather, it is "swans are white." Thus, any similar bird that is not white is not a swan. This forces us to first define "swan." Is a swan defined by it's genetic make up, inter-breedability, color, etc.? It is clear that not all swans are white if "swan" is defined by a character other than white. But if white is the defining character, then NOTE: THIS IS NOT A MATTER OF OPINION BUT RATHER OF PURE IRREFUTABLE LOGIC. A black bird is not a swan.

Thus, you must step back in time, BEFORE your thee step process, and first find agreement on fundamental premises. Only then may you go forward with disagreement.

Riley,

The essence of the matter is set forth in the Sanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Id.) as follows:

“it is logically impossible to verify a universal proposition by reference to experience (as Hume saw clearly), but a single genuine counter-instance falsifies the corresponding universal law.”

This matter is set forth in considerable detail in my OP as follows:

“We can also employ our reasoning powers to formulate general causal rules that we say can be used to predict future events. This is induction. However, it has long been known that there is a serious problem with induction.

“When we see a repeated conjunction of two events in all of our current experience, we say that the first in time was a necessary condition for the occurrence of the second. We say that the first caused the second.

“However, because it is not possible for us to experience all things, this leaves open the possibility that the future may show that the conjunction was not really one of cause and effect.

“This means that, although we are justified in believing that a conjunction consistently experienced indicates a relationship of cause and effect, we cannot say with certainty that such a relationship exists through all time. In other words, we cannot really know if generalizations are true. Therein, lies the problem.

“The question arises: Is science moving us in the direction of truth? In this connection, the Twentieth Century philosopher, Karl Popper had a remarkable insight. He tells us that if a scientific hypothesis is specifically categorical in its essential features (is sufficiently risky), it leaves itself open to falsification by appropriate experimental data. In such case, the falsity of the proposition would be certain and final.

“If any hypothesis cannot be falsified in this way, it is not science. If it were otherwise, there would be no end to the “confirmations” one may claim to support any hypothesis. This is why so-called confirmation is not the test of science, for one can always imagine some kind of corroboration, leaving us with only opinions pro and con but no certain knowledge.

“Thus, it is only falsification that can claim certain truth, for the falsity of a scientific hypothesis is derived not by induction but by deduction. The force of logic supports it.

“Accordingly, we can never be certain that a scientific hypothesis is true, but we can be certain that it is false. Yet, we are justified in believing that a hypothesis is true if it has strong predictive power and has not, thus far, been falsified.

“However, justification does not equal certainty, for all justified beliefs must be considered provisional. To put it differently, we should leave our minds open regarding the truth or falsity of any scientific theory.

“Popper advises that only falsification moves us in the direction of truth, for knowledge is always a work in progress.”

I suggest you read the above material with a view to comprehending it.

only categorical propositions are falsifiable — Neri

?

Riley,
I might have added the obvious fact that the generalization I gave as an example was the categorical proposition, “All swans are white” and not the proposition, “Swans are white.” The latter statement is not categorical for it includes white swans but does not exclude swans of any other color. Thus, it is an example of a generalization that is not subject to falsification and spinnable into as many confirmations as there are colors in the discernable palette. As such, it is hardly an example of Popper’s thinking.

I might have added the obvious fact that the generalization I gave as an example was the categorical proposition, “All swans are white” and not the proposition, “Swans are white.” The latter statement is not categorical for it includes white swans but does not exclude swans of any other color. — Neri

The modifier "all" is not unlike the modifier "some." Without the modifier, the contention that swans are white would mean that any bird that is not white could not be a swan. I stand to be corrected, as I have not yet had my coffee and I'm shooting from the hip here.

“it is logically impossible to verify a universal proposition by reference to experience (as Hume saw clearly), but a single genuine counter-instance falsifies the corresponding universal law.” — Neri

Nothing I said runs afoul of that.

I suggest you read the above material with a view to comprehending it. — Neri

All your longwinded Popper stuff does is point out the logic of not relying upon anecdote. Just because something is X a jillion times does not mean it will be X on a jillion + 1. And one time that it is not X, discounts the notion that something is always X. That's first year logic, and a subordinate corollary to my long winded thoughts on "A" but I don't want to start over on that with you. I'll just cede the floor. But for any who have followed my ravings on this issue, this is a simple part of my point regarding burdens of proof, self-evidence and proving negatives.

Oh, and when you want me or another poster to know you are talking to them, use the feature that provides for notification. I simply happened upon your responses to me and could very easily missed them. Not that it matters, I guess.

Centuries of experience in the law have taught that expert opinions are a very low grade of evidence. Popper, the greatest philosopher of science of the 20th Century, has shown that unfalsifiable opinions are no part of the scientific method. This means that climatology is only pseudo-science. — Neri

:lol:

There you have it, folks. Don't bother with climate science: some internet guy says it's all "pseudo-science."

Evolution? Also pseudo-science -- at least according to Creationists. Equally relevant.

Those who question this “religion” are personally attacked--as many of the posts herein have amply demonstrated. — Neri

You're not "questioning" anything. You've showed up with a viewpoint, and your offered evidence is laughable.

I think climate denial should be attacked, generally. Because there's no "questioning" or good-faith effort to understand anything.

:up:

Don't bother with climate science: some internet guy says it's all "pseudo-science." — Xtrix

Atmospheric science includes the climate and is more respectable.

"Popper, the greatest philosopher of science of the 20th Century"

:lol: