Big Sky Cairn

Jeff grants me a lot of ground when he agrees that global warming can never be proven and he’s right that scientific method does not seek to provide absolute proof.

Of course, Cody is right that these models can’t be proved true. That Cody thinks this is a relevant point reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of science. The scientific method doesn’t prove things. It provides evidence (it can disprove hypotheses, of course). There’s always uncertainty.

In fact, I would take this a step further and say that absolute proof is counter-scientific because a central tenant of a legitimate scientific theory is falsifiability. This is the crux of my argument, which Jeff misses: my point isn’t that catastrophic global warming can’t be proven it’s that it cannot be disproven.

If a theory can explain all possible data - even mutually exclusive data like more and fewer hurricanes - that theory is scientifically meaningless.

I think I understand why Jeff misunderstood me though - the two axioms that he discussed are an enthymeme with a missing point. The payload of the science point is falsifability. The payload of the faith point is provability. If belief in faith and belief in science were mutually exclusive, Jeff would have correctly identified a weakness in my arguments. However, there is an unstated axiom: That because science cannot prove anything beyond all doubt, it also requires faith - faith in the scientific method itself to produce accurate information about our world.

Faith is omnipresent in questions of science. A scientific matter is also a matter of faith. But that because the theory of global warming cannot be falsified, it is removed from the realm of science and rests solely within the scope of faith.

That is where my assertion - that the belief in catastrophic man-made climate change - relies on faith because it is not based on science. Here, Jeff has an interesting definition of faith - probably shaded by his feeling toward the normal application of faith: religion.

[Faith] means belief regardless of evidence.

Here again, I have to disagree. Faith should be defined as believe without evidence. Faith regardless of evidence is willful ignorance. Too often, intellectuals arrogantly think that they can disprove matters of faith - scientifically disprove the existence of God, or establish the beginning of life. Here, they are putting their faith - yes faith - into scientific positivism.

Faith is an important part of the human experience. It allows us to act in a world that we cannot completely comprehend. That faith, for some, is a sign of weakness is an unfortunate byproduct of judging the object of faith by the worst of the people who have it.

In fact, I would take this a step further and say that absolute proof is counter-scientific because a central tenant of a legitimate scientific theory is falsifiability. This is the crux of my argument, which Jeff misses: my point isn’t that catastrophic global warming can’t be proven it’s that it cannot be disproven.

I’m just responding to what you said. You said it was faith to believe in things not proven by the scientific method. You can’t avoid that by pointing out the fact that your axioms make other points.

I didn’t miss your claim that global warming can’t be disproved. I made the point that we can test the models against past data and future data as it comes in. They can be shown to be wrong.

The list you cite is pure laziness. The effects of rising temperatures are complex and they aren’t the same in every part of the globe. Take, for example, the two articles in that list that say glaciers are both retreating and growing. If you actually read the one about glacial growth, you’ll see that they explain that the location of certain glaciers means effects of rising temperatures can cancel out others. If you generalize enough you can find all sorts of apparent contradictions. Apparent being the key word.

You were pretty careful in your ‘guess the decade’ post to avoid claiming that global cooling was the scientific consensus in 70s, which happens to not be true, so I know you know the difference between media reports and what scientists actually say. So if you can find any examples in the scientific literature of truly mutually exclusive effects of global warming, you’re welcome to bring them up.

That because science cannot prove anything beyond all doubt, it also requires faith - faith in the scientific method itself to produce accurate information about our world.

That’s not faith. The accuracy of the scientific method has been demonstrated again and again. The very fact that we’re having this conversation means that it works.

Here again, I have to disagree. Faith should be defined as believe without evidence. Faith regardless of evidence is willful ignorance.

Maybe that’s how you think of it, but that’s pretty clearly not broad enough. There are people who put their faith in the Bible and their belief in God above science in areas where they accept that science generally applies. These people exist and aren’t uncommon.

Too often, intellectuals arrogantly think that they can disprove matters of faith - scientifically disprove the existence of God, or establish the beginning of life. Here, they are putting their faith - yes faith - into scientific positivism.

I presumed you were better than to trot out the “people who criticize faith have faith themselves” argument. How about you provide an example of someone using faith (I don’t mean explicitly, of course) to try and disprove the existence of a god?

Faith is an important part of the human experience. It allows us to act in a world that we cannot completely comprehend. That faith, for some, is a sign of weakness is an unfortunate byproduct of judging the object of faith by the worst of the people who have it.

Oh please. Your entire point to calling global warming faith is to attack those who accept it.

I’d like to have you explain where you think faith is necessary. I think you’re applying it too broadly (which is ironic in that your definition is too narrow). I don’t claim to be able to prove everything I believe, but I do think I have decent reasons.

So what data would disprove global warming? It doesn’t even have to be real data, it could be falsifiable data, such as an actual levitation ability that would falsify gravity?

If the earth cooled 2 degrees in the next century would it disprove global warming?

Of course not, because ALL data is “variability” in AGW theory so ALL data confirms the theory whether it gets hotter colder or stays the same. This is why AGW is not a scientific hypothesis.

**it could be hypothetical data

rsjvg wqnmr gydipf ezoyfxjbs eokvx ouvmnih txumh