- The claims of anthropogenic climate change are fraught with outlandish claims that never materialize, most likely due to narrative pushing and a desire to instill fear, to effect political control…
The claims may be outlandish, but they are also real, even if you are not hearing the realities. We are having ‘unprecidented’ temperatures, runs of high temperatures, wild fires, floods, ocean warming etc, all over the world. In many cases the damage already seems to be exceeding our capacity to repair, and people are being left homeless and farms have been close to destruction. However the MSM rarely bother to report this. If we are going to be allowed to make explanatory political hypiotheses, this may be because they want to reasure people so that the establishment can maintain its political and priofitable control, rather than risk everything in the uncertainty of major change.
- Only the truly insane would claim that climate doesn’t change
People do claim climate is not changing now, or that the change is out of our hands. Some claim it is too late to do anything. However, the claim that climate changes all the time, is a deliberate minimalisation. The current climate seems to be changing rapidly, and permanently, by normal geological standards. The rapidity of change increases climate and weather destablisation, and this makes a considerable difference to the ability of creatures and civilisations to adapt, and the system to revert to previous normal. That is why scientists are talking about a possible “6th great extinction”. World-wide extinction on the scale we seem to be heading towards is unsual to put it mildly. That’s why we only recognise 5 previous such events.
- The question is ultimately “how will climate change affect us”?
Yes, and the evidence suggests badly. Secure stable placed civilisation expects repetative conditions so as to adapt. When destabilisation occurs that does not happen. We need to stop disrupting the climate, so it can settle down.
- Are we headed into “hot climate” or “cold climate”? As far as I can tell, the science and observational data show strong evidence that this current interglacial period is about to end, and we will see a return of ice-age (increasing polar ice caps) conditions.
You are possibly right. Some people have argued (particularly in the 1970s) that the world should be heading towards an increasingly cold period, but we are not. No current data implies that. Temperatures are steadily rising. Glaciers and ice sheets are melting and declining. There is no evidence to suggest that a new ice age will happen anymore. If the ‘natural’ cycle was heading towards an ice age, it has been broken by increasing Greenhouse gas emissions. I don’t know of anyone in the climate sphere who is arguing that a new ice age is now likely. That was a hypothesis which has been abandoned. Although this hypothesis is often brought up to discredit scientists by showing they change their minds. Which we might hope would be the case when theories are not born out by evidence.
- Science theory MUST be reviewed against actual observational data. When observations fail to support a theory, we should assume a problem with the theory, and look deeper at the assumptions made. This is actually how scientific divides are closed. The end result should be either the abandonment of a false assumption, or improvements to the theory to achieve more realistic results.
Absolutely correct. The theory of climate change must be checked against observational data all the time. As you say that is basic to science. This observation has led to a considerably better understanding of the global climate system. For example, few people expected that the Oceans could absorb so much heat, so we now understand the ‘slow down’ in expected temperature rises. This is now back to expectations..
If the data was not matching expectations there would be a lot of relieved and excited scientists. Relieved becauset their observations would tell them we are not headed for eco-disaster (because of lack of approprate action by governments and corporations), and excited because their theories need to develop and there would be massive new research and publication opportunities. They might also be delighted that they don’t have to face interminable attacks for proposing that we are in danger.
- Climate science is not open to refutatory evidence, as can be seen by the way they dismiss objectors to the consenus.
My problem here is that the anti-climate change people in general do not seem to proceed by scientific method. Every prediction that I’ve seen them make, such as temperatures would return to normal, reef bleaching would stop rather than spread, has proven false so far. However there is no change in their ‘theory’ or rather assertions. Indeed they keep bringing points back which have been falsified repeatedly. I have never seen a climate change skeptick give an outline of the progress of skeptical science, explaining why they have been wrong, and how they have modified their theories. Not saying it does not exist, but I’ve never seen it. Whereas I see that in Climate science quite regularly.
When observations fail to support a set of assertions, like the propositions that climate change is no big deal, we should assume a problem with the assertions, and look deeper at the assumption that everything is fine. This is actually how scientific divides are closed, if everyone is playing by idea of being as accurate as possible about the world. If they are playing, a different game, such as maximising profit, there is nothing much can be done about resolving an argument. Ideally the end result should be either the abandonment of a false assumption, or improvements to the theory to achieve more realistic results, but that is rarely seen in climate denial.
Its easier to generate bullshit than argue for truth, because there need be no consistency.
Even the most highly regarded scientific theory may be falsified with observational data, or it may appear to be continuingly fruitful as with climate change theory and observation. But anti-clinate change does not care about falisification. It’s not about Truth but protecting the establishment from its own destructiveness..