5 ms·

No. Science works by replacing theories over long periods of time if new convincing evidence is presented. People had enormous confidence that Newtonian physics

No. Science works by replacing theories over long periods of time if new convincing evidence is presented. People had enormous confidence that Newtonian physics was true UNTIL a better model proved to be more accurate (relativity). There is no problem with 100% consensus in science. There are still accepted methods to change the system when new ideas are actually better. So has "humans cause climate change" gained trust over time, based on more and more evidence. It is the closest to truth we can be. It is perfectly plausible that a better theory may arise, but it's incredibly unlikely. We must accept it as fact until that time (which may happen centuries from now, or even never). Edit: the only reason articles like this exist... Is because people somehow can't believe the climate change is real and man made, and closer to truth than the previous theories about how the climate works. Because unlike relativity vs Newtonian physivs, math is not enough to show the validity of the process.

darkmatterrat 5y ago
> People had enormous confidence that Newtonian physics was true UNTIL a better model proved to be more accurate (relativity). There is no problem with 100% consensus in science. There are still accepted methods to change the system when new ideas are actually better. Newtonian Physics is a fine model as long as the speeds are not relativistic. Relativity was not the "replacement" and Relativity and Quantum Mechanics do not mesh at all. If I am a Mechanical Engineer, I would not be applying Quantum Mechanics of Relativistic Theories. I would be applying classical theories. > So has "humans cause climate change" gained trust over time, based on more and more evidence. It is the closest to truth we can be. It is perfectly plausible that a better theory may arise, but it's incredibly unlikely. We must accept it as fact until that time (which may happen centuries from now, or even never). In the soviet union there was an idea of Lysenkoism was the accepted by it was politically expedient to do so. Those that didn't agree I would imagine had to leave the Soviet Union. In the same vain many people think that much of the agreement is politically motivated. I have no idea of how true that is. However telling people "well we all agree, shutup" will heighten suspicions not lower them. That is an extreme example. However there was many times when many scientists all "agreed" because it was politically expedient or because other ideas were pushed out of the consensus due to various factors e.g. the Scablands is one such example: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/adventure/article/channeled-scablands https://www.nationalgeographic.com/adventure/article/channel... Telling me that 99% of all scientists agree doesn't mean much when there is plenty of times where scientists in the past all agreed on the wrong thing. I definitely think the climate is changing, but I am wrong to be suspicious when I am just told "well everyone agrees and shutup"? > Because unlike relativity vs Newtonian physivs, math is not enough to show the validity of the process. Neither is it for Relativity, Quantum Mechanics or Newtonian physics. People have verified the theories through experimentation. e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experim... They flew an atomic clock around the world twice to prove special relativity.
- laserbeam 5y ago
  Replaced might be the wrong word. I fully understand the usefulness of using the Newtonian model at non-relativistic speeds. It's a good enough approximation. Regardless, relativity gets you basically the same results at those speeds (assuming flat spacetime and all that jazz). It fully supersedes Newtonian physics in terms of accuracy and better describes our world. Newtonian physics is not "wrong", it's just slightly less correct. My argument is not about the cause of climate change being humans. I believe that to be true, or at least closer to truth than any previous understanding we had about the climate... but that's not my point. My point is that there is precedence in science where 99% of scientists were wrong, or better said "more wrong" than today. Yet, there was still a path to get closer to the truth over time. I have NO problem with 99% or 100% of scientists being in agreement, because we have proved over our history that we are capable to course correct in this field. There are countless other examples of cours correction in history, Galileo and Darwin, and as you mentioned quantum physics to name a few. Relativity was just the first example that came to mind.
sintaxi 5y ago
> It is the closest to truth we can be. Not at all. We currently only fund the study of "human effects on climate". If you want to do studies on climate that consider factors other than humans there is no funding available for that - and that is not being hyperbolic that is literally how it is. The conclusions of studies are a direct result of the funding apparatus. If we want to get to the truth we have to fund anything that helps us understand the climate better, especially all the things that don't involve humans such as planetary and solar system cycles, cataclysms, geothermal cycles and planetary flex.
- tsimionescu 5y ago
  Please stop spreading these lies or misinformation. These have all been studied, but they do not correlate with the events. The only phenomenon that fits the data we have is man-made carbon emissions. Could it turn out that quantum gravity is responsible for global warming? In principle, yes. Should we fund a new study that checks? No.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  Can you provide evidence for these claims? I've read about effects of the solar cycle, for example.

darkmatterrat 5y ago

> People had enormous confidence that Newtonian physics was true UNTIL a better model proved to be more accurate (relativity). There is no problem with 100% consensus in science. There are still accepted methods to change the system when new ideas are actually better. Newtonian Physics is a fine model as long as the speeds are not relativistic. Relativity was not the "replacement" and Relativity and Quantum Mechanics do not mesh at all. If I am a Mechanical Engineer, I would not be applying Quantum Mechanics of Relativistic Theories. I would be applying classical theories. > So has "humans cause climate change" gained trust over time, based on more and more evidence. It is the closest to truth we can be. It is perfectly plausible that a better theory may arise, but it's incredibly unlikely. We must accept it as fact until that time (which may happen centuries from now, or even never). In the soviet union there was an idea of Lysenkoism was the accepted by it was politically expedient to do so. Those that didn't agree I would imagine had to leave the Soviet Union. In the same vain many people think that much of the agreement is politically motivated. I have no idea of how true that is. However telling people "well we all agree, shutup" will heighten suspicions not lower them. That is an extreme example. However there was many times when many scientists all "agreed" because it was politically expedient or because other ideas were pushed out of the consensus due to various factors e.g. the Scablands is one such example: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/adventure/article/channeled-scablands https://www.nationalgeographic.com/adventure/article/channel... Telling me that 99% of all scientists agree doesn't mean much when there is plenty of times where scientists in the past all agreed on the wrong thing. I definitely think the climate is changing, but I am wrong to be suspicious when I am just told "well everyone agrees and shutup"? > Because unlike relativity vs Newtonian physivs, math is not enough to show the validity of the process. Neither is it for Relativity, Quantum Mechanics or Newtonian physics. People have verified the theories through experimentation. e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experim... They flew an atomic clock around the world twice to prove special relativity.

laserbeam 5y ago
Replaced might be the wrong word. I fully understand the usefulness of using the Newtonian model at non-relativistic speeds. It's a good enough approximation. Regardless, relativity gets you basically the same results at those speeds (assuming flat spacetime and all that jazz). It fully supersedes Newtonian physics in terms of accuracy and better describes our world. Newtonian physics is not "wrong", it's just slightly less correct. My argument is not about the cause of climate change being humans. I believe that to be true, or at least closer to truth than any previous understanding we had about the climate... but that's not my point. My point is that there is precedence in science where 99% of scientists were wrong, or better said "more wrong" than today. Yet, there was still a path to get closer to the truth over time. I have NO problem with 99% or 100% of scientists being in agreement, because we have proved over our history that we are capable to course correct in this field. There are countless other examples of cours correction in history, Galileo and Darwin, and as you mentioned quantum physics to name a few. Relativity was just the first example that came to mind.

sintaxi 5y ago

> It is the closest to truth we can be. Not at all. We currently only fund the study of "human effects on climate". If you want to do studies on climate that consider factors other than humans there is no funding available for that - and that is not being hyperbolic that is literally how it is. The conclusions of studies are a direct result of the funding apparatus. If we want to get to the truth we have to fund anything that helps us understand the climate better, especially all the things that don't involve humans such as planetary and solar system cycles, cataclysms, geothermal cycles and planetary flex.

tsimionescu 5y ago
Please stop spreading these lies or misinformation. These have all been studied, but they do not correlate with the events. The only phenomenon that fits the data we have is man-made carbon emissions. Could it turn out that quantum gravity is responsible for global warming? In principle, yes. Should we fund a new study that checks? No.
wolverine876 5y ago
Can you provide evidence for these claims? I've read about effects of the solar cycle, for example.