Remember me
▼ Content

Climate Change Science?


Climate Change Science?31-10-2015 01:07
Totototo
★☆☆☆☆
(117)
I'm opening this thread to analize this subject. Now, I know there have been other threads discussing Karl Popper's falsifiability and all that, but despite some good arguments against calling CC a science, I see some users still using that term. So my question would be why do you consider it a science? Where do we draw the line to define what's science, what's theory and what's speculation?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2015/02/falsifiability/

I leave this short article on falsifiability, which I found very interesting.
31-10-2015 01:42
trafn
ModeratorProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Hi Totototo,

As I've stated elsewhere on this website, I do believe that falsifiable models (FM's) do have a proper and useful place in science. In that regards, FM's are most useful when a field of science has a well established base with many knowns to its credits. When a scientific field has matured to this level, then FM's can provide a very rapid and accurate means of distinguishing valid versus invalid additions to that field's existing body of knowledge.

However, given climate change science is still in its infancy, there are still to many unknowns for FM's to be used effectively. Applying strict FM's to this field of scientific study at this point would only serve to kill it in its infancy. In that respect, isn't it interesting to see that the people who advocate for an FM explanation of climate change science also tend to be CC denialists.


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
31-10-2015 01:52
Totototo
★☆☆☆☆
(117)
Why do you consider it a science though? You already stated your stance on falsifiability in another thread.

Where do you draw the line? That's my question. What are the requirements for a certain subject to become a "science", it's own field of study?
31-10-2015 02:02
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
While not falsifiable by experiment, the theory behind anthropogenic global warming is eminently falsifiable by observation (in common with sciences such as geology and astrophysics). If, for example, the mean sea level were observed to stop rising over a time scale longer than effects due to natural variability (5 years, say), this would falsify AGW. QED.
31-10-2015 02:08
trafn
ModeratorProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Totototo - everything we now call science had its origins in other realms, most often as a side interest of a prominent religious figure from days gone by. Today's science of genetics is a perfect example of this, as Gregor Johann Mendel was an Augustinian friar who gained posthumous fame as the founder of the modern science of genetics.

Today, the scientific method in all its glorious forms can be found in most great universities world wide, given their colleges or physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, geology, etcetera. Perhaps the easiest way to tell if something is science based or not is simply to look at who is studying it. Personally, I don't see the Vatican funding billions of dollars of M2C2 research. However, I do see such a cumulative effort coming out the vast arrays of science departments world wide.

So, is climate change study a field of science? Well, science is as science does, and science studies climate change, so climate change is a science.


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
31-10-2015 03:36
Totototo
★☆☆☆☆
(117)
Surface Detail
falsifiable by observation

I didn't understand this part. Could you expand a bit on that?

@Tranf - I understand.
Tranf
easiest way to tell if something is science based

I never said said it wasn't science based. There are simply many unknowns, as you said, to call it a formal science.
The way Climate Change is referred as is not a small detail.
31-10-2015 04:21
trafn
ModeratorProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Totototo - I guess each person is free to make that judgment call for themself. As for me, I see thousands upon thousands of people world-wide who hold degrees in every known area of science, and they apply themselves to the study and understanding of climate change. That's more than enough to convince me that it is indeed a science. If, on the other hand, these thousands and thousands of people had be bakers, then I would have said that climate change was part of the culinary arts. However, they aren't, and so, in my mind it isn't.

That said, I think it's not unreasonable to be skeptical of any "new" discoveries as this field of scientific study is still very young. It is, however, progressing at an exponential pace, so keeping up with it may be tricky.


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
31-10-2015 06:12
Totototo
★☆☆☆☆
(117)
@Tranf - Of course there are thousands of scientists trying to understand what Climate Change is, it's a highly politicized and relevant subject right now. Phrenology was called a science once right?
I think I'm not expressing myself correctly maybe, but why treat the matter as if it had a falsifiable model yet to be proven wrong. Why not treat it as a theory? A possibility? I think that's my question. If you have any doubt about this question, ask here or pm me, however you feel more comfortable.
31-10-2015 06:19
trafn
ModeratorProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Totototo - I think it's okay to interpret it any way that makes sense to you. If you see it as a theory, that reasonable. I see it as a threat. That's reasonable too.

As for FM's, their fallible also, as they're only as good as the data you enter into. All it takes is one little error, one little oversight, one wrong digit, and it no longer matters what the FM says: it's invalid. Given the complexities involved with climate change science, I don't think anyone will ever create a totally all-encompassing FM that can prove anything one way or the other.

For me, I could care less. I've studied and used science most of my life, and most of it without FM's. They're simply a tool, nothing more. Some people think differently than I do, though. Some people think FM's are the center of the universe. That's their world, not mine.

Consider this. If your house is on fire, does it really matter how the fire extinguisher works, as long as it works?


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!

Edited on 31-10-2015 06:20
31-10-2015 13:10
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
trafn wrote:
Hi Totototo,

As I've stated elsewhere on this website, I do believe that falsifiable models (FM's) do have a proper and useful place in science. In that regards, FM's are most useful when a field of science has a well established base with many knowns to its credits. When a scientific field has matured to this level, then FM's can provide a very rapid and accurate means of distinguishing valid versus invalid additions to that field's existing body of knowledge.

However, given climate change science is still in its infancy, there are still to many unknowns for FM's to be used effectively. Applying strict FM's to this field of scientific study at this point would only serve to kill it in its infancy. In that respect, isn't it interesting to see that the people who advocate for an FM explanation of climate change science also tend to be CC denialists.


Any model or prediction which is not falsifiable is not science.

Those who you object to are called scientists. They are applying the scientific method to the subject.
(*)

(moderator's note: this post has been edited because some of its content fell outside of this Sharing Ideas sub-forum guidelines)
Edited by trafn on 31-10-2015 18:42
31-10-2015 18:13
trafn
ModeratorProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Tim the plumber - thank you for joining Sharing Ideas.

In your post, above, you stated Any model or prediction which is not falsifiable is not science.

Gregor Johann Mendel was a German-speaking Moravian scientist and Augustinian friar who gained posthumous fame as the founder of the modern science of genetics.

Mendel is widely regarded as one of the foremost scientists of his day. He did his research long before Karl Popper proposed falsifiable models. Your statement, if true, would appear to reduce Mendel himself to the realm of non-science.

Additionally, you also stated (which, as moderator, I edited out the underlined part) Those who you object to are called scientists. They are applying the scientific method to the subject. You are incapable of this.

Here, you imply that I am incapable of using the scientific method. Yet, given that:

1. I hold a dual B.S. degree in Science Education and Psychology (Syracuse Univserity).

2. I was a volunteer research assistant in the Department of Psychology during my undergraduate studies at Syracuse University.

3. I was a paid research assistant in the Department of Chemistry during my undergraduate studies at Syracuse University.

4. I earned New York State K-12 teaching certification in physics, chemistry, biology, general science and general mathematics.

5. I've taught at the high school level, the graduate degree level, the post-graduate degree level, as well as the State medical re-licensure level.

6. I wrote a spectral-analysis technical manual for the fabric dying industry which was underwritten and distributed by both DEC (Digital Equipment Corporation) and ACS (Applied Color Systems).

7. I pioneered the use of computerized academic test-banking at what, in the late 1908's, was the second largest under-graduate educational institution in the United States (Miami-Dade Community College).

8. I have created new medical procedures such as sliding-scale titration of morphine and patient compliance coding for treating people suffering from terminal illnesses.

9. I have been published in peer reviewed science journals including The Journal of Organic Chemistry, Medical Hypothesis, and The American Journal of Pain Management.

10. I have written two books on AIDS.

11. I am an overall nice guy (did I also mention that I am humble, too?).

...I would question the accuracy of your statement. Granted, I may not be perfect at interpreting or applying the scientific method, but, then again, who is.


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!

Edited on 31-10-2015 18:53
01-11-2015 02:41
Totototo
★☆☆☆☆
(117)
I've studied and used science most of my life, and most of it without FM's

Science that was already established, right? Science yet to be proven wrong.

Mendel is widely regarded as one of the foremost scientists of his day. He did his research long before Karl Popper proposed falsifiable models. Your statement, if true, would appear to reduce Mendel himself to the realm of non-science.

I thought Popper coined the term, but falsifiability was inherent to the nature of a statement. Correct me if I'm wrong.
01-11-2015 02:55
trafn
ModeratorProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Totototo - all science is yet to be proven wrong. We have a saying in medicine that goes like this: "Given the entire body of medical science we have today, we can rest assured that half of it is wrong. Unfortunately, we do not know which half." In other words, there is always room for improvement. If anything, when used incorrectly, FM's might give you the false sense of security that you actually do know everything there is to know. I have a personal saying:

When you are 100% certain is when you are most likely 100% wrong!
(a trafnism!)

As to my comment about Mendel, I am just trying to say that science was being conducted quite successfully long before Popper came up with FM as the golden standard for delineating science from non-science. This is not to say that FM's are of no use, but that they are not the end-all and be-all of determining if science exists.


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!

Edited on 01-11-2015 02:58
01-11-2015 08:35
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Totototo wrote:
I'm opening this thread to analize this subject. Now, I know there have been other threads discussing Karl Popper's falsifiability and all that, but despite some good arguments against calling CC a science, I see some users still using that term. So my question would be why do you consider it a science? Where do we draw the line to define what's science, what's theory and what's speculation?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2015/02/falsifiability/

I leave this short article on falsifiability, which I found very interesting.


Hi totototo,

It might help if more people are aware of the history of climate change science. It's not a 'new science'.

Professor Spencer Weart made the contents of his well-referenced textbook published by Harvard University Press freely available on the American Institute of Physics website:
http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674031890

Link to the Summary: A Hyperlinked History of Climate Change Science

Here is the table of contents:
https://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm#contents

Many aspects of 'climate change' science are falsifiable. While we don't have other planets we can experiment with, it might help if more people were aware of the falsifiable hypotheses of the basic 'greenhouse' effect and human caused enhanced 'greenhouse' effect for starters.



Edited on 01-11-2015 08:37
01-11-2015 16:10
Totototo
★☆☆☆☆
(117)
@Ceist - Interesting read. I will check that website.

Many aspects of 'climate change' science are falsifiable.

What aspects are falsifiable?

it might help if more people were aware of the falsifiable hypotheses of the basic 'greenhouse' effect and human caused enhanced 'greenhouse' effect for starters.

Can you provide a link or if you have the time explain how it is falsifiable and what could prove the hypothesis to be false? I would appreciate it.
01-11-2015 16:45
trafn
ModeratorProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Ceist and Totototo - I agree with Ceist that GW can be traced back about 1/2 a century now to the 1970's (I think) when the phrase was first coined. When I say it's a new field of scientific study, I'm only saying so relative to areas like chemistry and physics which have histories that go back hundreds of years.

Also, there are some area (subsets) of climate change science where FM's can be used effectively, but what I'm referring to are people like IBdaMann who want to use FM's to globally prove whether or not climate change science as a whole exists. I don't think climate science has matured far enough to tackle "big-picture" questions about it just yet.


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
02-11-2015 02:21
Totototo
★☆☆☆☆
(117)
@Tranf - Yes, I think you are right about GW term. It was in the early 70s.




Join the debate Climate Change Science?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
About the damage that Obama did to science.16014-12-2019 04:51
Argument against AGW science314-08-2019 20:51
Objectivity of Environmental Science109-08-2019 02:13
Still No Climate Change Science1111-07-2019 04:23
Trump Administration's Attempts to Limit Climate Change Science 'Like Designing Cars Without Seat128-05-2019 20:13
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact