Quote:
Originally Posted by oil pan 4
If it's not open for debate then it's not science.
The only parts of science that are not open for debate are scientific laws.
|
Newton's *Theory* of Universal Gravity was superseded over a century ago.
Laws can be rewritten too.
-
I suppose it is more accurate to say: The consensus is very strong amongst those who actually study the field and who understand it.
-
I used to be a skeptic, until just a few years ago. But the more and the deeper I read into the literature, looking at all the research into other factors that deniers keep bringing up (solar cycles, heat island effects on weather stations, satellite orbital decay, lowering sea levels in selected areas, blah blah), the more I realized that the case was pretty tight, and that insane amounts of cherry picking were needed to oppose it.
I like arguing these things because it forces me to research and evaluate evidence. So far, no smoking gun for the anti, lots of bullets for the pro side.
Could there be a paradigm shift that overthrows the current state of climate science?
Quite possibly. More and more advanced computer modelling and analysis are increasing our understanding of climate systems every day.
Will it come from deniers posting conspiracy theory videos on YouTube or long rants misinterpreting and misrepresenting the science?
No.
-
In the end, the real... and only... question we should be arguing about is whether we have the capability to scrub carbon from the environment to fine-tune greenhouse forcings (because such an ability would help us greatly, whatever the current trajectory of global temperature is)... and whether we have the ability to transition to non-scarce energy resources within the next century.