What is the “science”? What does the word science mean to you? It is an attempt to figure out what makes things work and after that how can we use that information. We have all benefited from science.
Someone once wrote, “Their models aren’t perfect.” I agree. “Would you say their models are wrong because they weren’t 100% accurate?” Yes, indeed I would say their models are not only wrong if not 100% perfect but the very concept of a model marks their conclusions as inaccurate. That does not mean the model does not have some usefulness. The results from a model need to be taken with a pound of salt. I do not base my future existence on the results of a model.
Continuing with the quote, “To say that ‘all models are inherently wrong’ is to admit a lack of understanding as to the purpose and complexity of what models are and how they are used.” Au contraire, to say that ‘all models are inherently wrong’ is to demonstrate a deeper understanding of modeling, the complexity of some models and how they are used. To be impressed with the complexity of a model does not give the model any more or less credibility. Those that use the results of modeling are but human. Would you not agree? They are subject to all of the weaknesses of the human experience. I do not worship someone because they claim to be a scientist. Can you list the qualifications of a scientist?
I disagree that,” Scientists are fundamentally truth-seekers.” You and I agree that there are bad scientist. Not only because they are not good at their trade but because they fall pry to all the weaknesses common to the human race.
Take the example that “oil companies’ scientists actually told their management that burning gasoline would contribute significantly to warming the Earth. This reporting was in the 1960s, 70s, and the 80s. Yet, we are still walking on the very planet that they said would be “significantly” warmer. It has been 60 years and we have not reached the point of no return. In my opinion a non-existent point. If that won’t convince some, nothing will. Faith in “science” is just that, faith. God bless them all.
A suggestion (worded as an absolute) has been given that, “There is no political or monetary motivation for climate scientists and those who are sounding the alarm of our climate emergency.” Really?
I will share 2 fundamental truths I picked up while studying at UC Davis.
First, “Food is not grown to feed people.” Close your mouth. Then why is food grown? It is to make money. If the farmers don’t make money, they will not grow food. Perfectly understandable. This takes nothing away from the farmer and I am so very thankful for what they do for their money.
Second, “Research is not conducted to solve problems. It is done to make money.” I learned that for a “scientist” to be recognized they had to produce technical papers and have them published. They could not make a living as a scientist unless they did. If you are in that position it is imperative that you find a project (problem) that needs solving. If you work for Shell oil you strive to meet the companies needs. That is how you make your money. Do not try to convince me that “There is no political or monetary motivation for climate scientists and those who are sounding the alarm of our climate emergency.” I might add, this is your climate emergency. You own it. You take refuge in it.
Again, the following statement has been presented as truth, “They (scientist) are trying to save humanity. Climate models (accurate and imperfect like weather models) and actual data show that our Earth is warming significantly…” The motivations of scientist are as varied as any you will find anywhere and they are far from always being pure. Did the writer mean inaccurate and imperfect like weather models? Or are they suggesting that a model can be accurate but imperfect? Weather models is a very good example.
The claim, “Our earth is warming “significantly” yet the term significant is never defined. 1 to 2 degrees centigrade is arguably insignificant. It is mind boggling to me just what do “they” mean by the Earth’s temperature. Perhaps it is the average temperatures over the last 140 years? Or as suggested in a NASA article they are only using 29 years of data to define normal. And they do not even go back to before the industrial revolution. “GISTEMP is a widely used index of global mean surface temperature anomaly — it shows how much warmer or cooler than normal Earth’s surface is in a given year. ‘Normal’ is defined as the average during a baseline period of 1951-80.” https://tinyurl.com/NASA-article
This article goes as far as to say the accuracy of temperature measurements is accurate to within 0.05 degrees Celsius. Have you ever laid more than 2 thermometers next to each other? The variation can be as much as 3 degrees Celsius and that is all at the same location.
Enough, by someone’s own admission they do use Wikipedia. I am sure they consider their references and have a working knowledge of a subject to decide whether the article may be accurate followed up by their own research. Only a reasonable person would. And they do the same when visiting a “…science and truth based websites.” Interesting they break out science and truth into 2 different categories. They are not always mutually exclusive characteristics.
I am sure you would agree with me that because something is on the web does not make it the truth, nor a lie. Good, it is lunch time.
Please, do look at the science.
Phil Shafer , Quincy, CA