Quote:
Originally Posted by IrlMike
Supposedly, since then we've had a period called the 'enlightenment' where scientific methodology shifted debate to consideration of facts, evidence, logical thought & balance of probability.
|
Okay, let's talk about the facts. When it comes to long term climate data, the basic facts are gas composition in ice cores. That's what we can actually measure.
To get from there to global temperature values (that's
global, despite the fact that this data all comes from areas that have been at freezing temperatures for as long as the ice has existed), we use... models. Tell me, how are those models developed? How are they validated? How do we know what sort of uncertainty to assign to those global temperature values? There is no lab that we can use to test these models. There are no experiments we can do to derive the complete set of fundamental principles upon which such models have to be based.
But this global temperature data, going back millennia, is what we're using as input data for yet more models that prove not only what the future holds, but who's at fault.
I'm not buying. This is not science, this is politics wrapped up in scientific guise.
Show me facts, evidence, and logical thought that proves me wrong.
