3 ms·

This is an inaccurate representation of science. > what science is at the core (i.e. making repeatable observations to establish fact) These "facts" are predi

This is an inaccurate representation of science. > what science is at the core (i.e. making repeatable observations to establish fact) These "facts" are predictions about what will happen in the future. Physics tells us what will happen to physical systems, e.g. our understanding of gravity tells us what will happen to a system of masses in the future. Chemistry tells us what will happen to chemical systems, e.g. our understanding of reactions tells us what will happen to interacting chemicals. Medical research tells us what will happen to your body and disease when some agent is introduced to the system. Climate science tells us what will happen to the climate, and it is based on the same concepts as the most fundamental and rigorous science: thermodynamics. If more heat enters than leaves a system, the temperature will increase. There is nothing unscientific here.

macinjosh 7y ago
> Climate science tells us what will happen to the climate, and it is based on the same concepts as the most fundamental and rigorous science: thermodynamics. If more heat enters than leaves a system, the temperature will increase. There is nothing unscientific here. The climate isn't that simple. It's unfathomably complex. There are an infinite number of inputs and outputs. What repeatable experiment can accurately and repeatedly recreate this? So your simplistic argument is just handwaving.
- johnmorrison 7y ago
  > There are an infinite number of inputs and outputs. No, there are a finite number of particles in a finite space making up the Earth's climate. > The climate isn't that simple. It's unfathomably complex. Nothing is simple unless you simplify it. A baseball is an unfathomably complex collection of billions of billions of particles interacting with the entire universe until you abstract it to a simple Newtonian point mass, but you'll still make all the relevant predictions to >99% accuracy. Global warming can be accurately modeled by a very simple system: There is the atmosphere, the ocean, the Earth itself, and the rest of the universe. Over any finite time period there is a simple real number change in the temperature of these 4 subsystems modeled by thermodynamics, and there can be no net change in temperature due to conservation laws. Can we predict these changes as accurately as we can predict simple Newtonian systems? No. But we can still predict them to a good degree of accuracy in the short term.
hackeraccount 7y ago
Science doesn't have a great history of predicting politics.

macinjosh 7y ago

> Climate science tells us what will happen to the climate, and it is based on the same concepts as the most fundamental and rigorous science: thermodynamics. If more heat enters than leaves a system, the temperature will increase. There is nothing unscientific here. The climate isn't that simple. It's unfathomably complex. There are an infinite number of inputs and outputs. What repeatable experiment can accurately and repeatedly recreate this? So your simplistic argument is just handwaving.

johnmorrison 7y ago
> There are an infinite number of inputs and outputs. No, there are a finite number of particles in a finite space making up the Earth's climate. > The climate isn't that simple. It's unfathomably complex. Nothing is simple unless you simplify it. A baseball is an unfathomably complex collection of billions of billions of particles interacting with the entire universe until you abstract it to a simple Newtonian point mass, but you'll still make all the relevant predictions to >99% accuracy. Global warming can be accurately modeled by a very simple system: There is the atmosphere, the ocean, the Earth itself, and the rest of the universe. Over any finite time period there is a simple real number change in the temperature of these 4 subsystems modeled by thermodynamics, and there can be no net change in temperature due to conservation laws. Can we predict these changes as accurately as we can predict simple Newtonian systems? No. But we can still predict them to a good degree of accuracy in the short term.

hackeraccount 7y ago

Science doesn't have a great history of predicting politics.