4 ms·

"Science is not about consensus. Science is what can be tested and thus demonstrated." - ThomPete above ThomPete on this page is, it seems, holding people to i

"Science is not about consensus. Science is what can be tested and thus demonstrated." - ThomPete above ThomPete on this page is, it seems, holding people to impossible standards and then complaining that they're not met. I have no idea what they mean "If someone want to convince me...they need to explain to me what scientifically demonstrated consequences of climate change...won't we be able to deal with 50-100 year from now." .. "There is no shortage of speculated outcomes. What there is a shortage of is demonstrated outcomes" A shortage of what?! One is supposed to demonstrate the future somehow, or give a deductive proof, or something? What would count as evidence that events predicted by scientists will occur? I'm not sure. Nothing, it seems. It seems any prediction or forecast about almost anything can equally be called 'certainly not scientific', 'politics masquaraded as science', 'speculations...not scientifically demonstrated' etc etc. I guess the probability of asteroids hitting the earth is independent of the stuff happening here, of human plans and actions, so can't similarly be accused of being politics in disguise. But most issues on this planet - all the other ones I can think of - aren't of that kind.

ThomPete 8y ago
One is supposed to at least entertain the idea that there is no consensus about "the sky is falling" claims we see in the media and pushed by politicians. So no I am not holding anything to impossible standards I am simply saying that currently none of the consequences of climate change are things we can't deal with. And yes predictions or forecast about almost anything can equally be called not scientific which would be a welcome change compared to the discussion we have today where bogus claims like "i believe in science" or "97% of scientists" agree are being used as ways to shut down any dissent from the catastrophist interpretation of the actual data.

ThomPete 8y ago

One is supposed to at least entertain the idea that there is no consensus about "the sky is falling" claims we see in the media and pushed by politicians. So no I am not holding anything to impossible standards I am simply saying that currently none of the consequences of climate change are things we can't deal with. And yes predictions or forecast about almost anything can equally be called not scientific which would be a welcome change compared to the discussion we have today where bogus claims like "i believe in science" or "97% of scientists" agree are being used as ways to shut down any dissent from the catastrophist interpretation of the actual data.