- 28 Apr 2023 20:19
#15272574
Big Oil rolls that one out from time to time. It's BS. I've studied the history, philosophy and college level methods of science. There is plenty wrong with Big Oil, and basically nothing with climate science.
You keep flapping your gums about alternatives. There is science, and there is propaganda. The propaganda, what you call alternatives, did not survive peer review.
wat0n wrote:
The warming bit, if you mean measuring actual temperatures, does not rely on models or a climate theory. But pinning down the causes of the warming (e.g. is it due to higher CO2 concentrations caused by human activity?) does rely on theories, which can't actually be tested using proper experiments hence we use models and see if their predictions have come to fruition or not.
This may sound as unimportant but it's not if we want to have an accurate understanding of the science here.
Any temperature projections made by a model that is based on a different, non-mainstream theory.
I've seen some people claiming temperatures are rising due to changes in solar activity. If so, maybe model such system and then provide predictions of future temperatures based on it, allowing us to compare with the predictions from the mainstream models.
The mainstream scientists, right or not, have at least taken the risk of making forecasts, and they have been mostly in line with what we've observed. Have the proponents of alternative explanations done the same? If not, then they're all talk and talk is cheap.
Big Oil rolls that one out from time to time. It's BS. I've studied the history, philosophy and college level methods of science. There is plenty wrong with Big Oil, and basically nothing with climate science.
You keep flapping your gums about alternatives. There is science, and there is propaganda. The propaganda, what you call alternatives, did not survive peer review.
Facts have a well known liberal bias