The Green Party dilemma

First off, that's not correct. The 97% number was a fabrication. But even if it was, science isn't an opinion poll.

Can you find me a reputable body of scientists that doesn't agree with AGW? Say a reputable university for example?

You need independently reproducible evidence.

Models developed independently tend to agree with one another.

If a group of people who would lose their careers for non-compliance submit to a dogma, that says nothing about the truth of the dogma.

Now why would that happen? Either there's a global conspiracy amongst all science faculties to suppress these criticisms, or those presenting them are crackpots. Linus Pauling types. Which sounds more likely?

Could be because I don't give the scientific method a pass when you want me to.

Scientific method: You form a falsifiable hypothesis, then try as hard as you can to disprove it. If it holds up you might be on to something.

Climate science meets that criteria.

Some form of independently reproducible experiment demonstrating that their beliefs have some basis in reality. You know, the scientific method.

What do you want explicitly? A parallel Earth in a pocket dimension where we can speed up time and see the evolution of the system with our own eyes? A TARDIS with which to travel into the past and future to collect first hand climate data?

1) We have a lot of data. Monitoring stations are plastered all over the land and sea.

2) We use that data and our knowledge of physics to construct computational models. The study of numerical methods gives these models their computational credibility

3) We look at the results. Some of the free variables are tweaked so as to back-predict historical data as accurately as possible.

Where's the unscientific bit?

/r/Anarcho_Capitalism Thread Parent Link - i.redditmedia.com