4 ms·

Science is all about making testable predictions, you're way overconfident in your incorrect definition. Have you forgotten Einstein's theory relied on the tota

Science is all about making testable predictions, you're way overconfident in your incorrect definition. Have you forgotten Einstein's theory relied on the total solar eclipse and the resulting gravitational lensing of our star? He made a prediction and it was found correct, validating his theory. Unless you think Einstein is not a scientist?

macinjosh 7y ago
Please don't be reductive. Sure what you're calling a prediction is really just a hypothesis. What I am saying is that we are treating the hypothesis of climate change as fact before there is clear evidence that the predicted bad outcomes will actually occur. In Einstein's case we were able to make observations and conduct experiments that bore out the hypothesis. In the case of climate change this isn't possible. We don't have a second climate to use as a control. We don't have the capability to do experiments that accurately consider the infinite input and outputs that make up the climate as a whole. Science has its limits and they are mainly human. Tell me what experiment we can do today that accurately includes every aspect of our climate that proves doom is certain. If the best you can give is likelihoods or possibilities that is not a scientific fact so quit acting like it is and lets have a reasonable discussion. There are many, many things we can do to take better care of our climate but being alarmist and using fear to get the public on board with your politics is a categorically a bad thing.
- KnightOfWords 7y ago
  All informed decision making is made on the basis of probabilities. You're setting an impossibly and arbitrarily high threshold for action on climate change. The burden of proof is on you to explain how CO2 levels not seen for 3 million years won't have a major impact on the biosphere.

4 ms·

Science is all about making testable predictions, you're way overconfident in your incorrect definition. Have you forgotten Einstein's theory relied on the tota

by WhompingWindows 7y ago

macinjosh 7y ago
Please don't be reductive. Sure what you're calling a prediction is really just a hypothesis. What I am saying is that we are treating the hypothesis of climate change as fact before there is clear evidence that the predicted bad outcomes will actually occur. In Einstein's case we were able to make observations and conduct experiments that bore out the hypothesis. In the case of climate change this isn't possible. We don't have a second climate to use as a control. We don't have the capability to do experiments that accurately consider the infinite input and outputs that make up the climate as a whole. Science has its limits and they are mainly human. Tell me what experiment we can do today that accurately includes every aspect of our climate that proves doom is certain. If the best you can give is likelihoods or possibilities that is not a scientific fact so quit acting like it is and lets have a reasonable discussion. There are many, many things we can do to take better care of our climate but being alarmist and using fear to get the public on board with your politics is a categorically a bad thing.
- KnightOfWords 7y ago
  All informed decision making is made on the basis of probabilities. You're setting an impossibly and arbitrarily high threshold for action on climate change. The burden of proof is on you to explain how CO2 levels not seen for 3 million years won't have a major impact on the biosphere.