Quote:
Originally Posted by Nate the great
No, I don't "believe" the science. Belief in the absence of verifiable evidence is religion, not science.
Your argument hinges on the temperature having increased. But as I showed in my previous post, the temperature data cannot be trusted. Since you cannot show that the temperature has increased, your arguments about anthropocentric global warming have no merit.
|
I think Nate has the distorted popular view of 'science'. No scientist worthy of the name would ever argue for an hypothesis "in the absence of verifiable evidence". Nate also seems not to understand the nature of evidence.
Climatology is an academic category, and the academicians involved in it contribute the gathering and interpretation of evidence in a written, supervised and organised manner.
That organised manner is a system that has been developed for centuries under standards carefully agreed by universities around the world. "Fugazied" refers to this system as "peer review". These academic 'scientists' work very hard even to get their reports taken seriously and published for this expensive scrutiny. The evidence they gather is often unprecedented, and dozens of poeple must be convinced before the debate starts. Even after this, debate is often furious and lengthy, continuing as has 'climate change' for decades.
This whole process is hindered by pressures from outside this system of "peer review", because the scientists are human and vulnerable to all the threats of human society, but the system itself is less corrupt than, say, politics, or journalism, because money, class, or politics won't get you into it, only a steady record of publication before an incredibly skeptical bunch of brainy people.
Not every self-proclaimed 'scientist' is one. I'm not, but I've seen enough of what some of them go through to have a bit more respect for them than I do for most of the windbags who have never known one and choose to rubbish everything they do.
Richard