Climate Change, page-10

"All of thiscould refer to anything from astrology to eugenics to phrenology to Lysenkoism oreven something completely ridiculous like virology or climate “science”. Youneed to come up with a definition that excludes *all* of the things you want itto, and *includes* all the things you want it to. It’s ok if there’s somedegree of fuzziness, but the above definition can’t be used to separateanything from anything."

Sorry, not sure how I missed this, but I forgot the "prediction" part. The purpose of testing, analysing, and replication studies is to get a better understanding and a better predictive end goal. You cant get accurate predictions from astrology, ergo astrology is not scientific. So, of course there will be degrees of uncertainty (or fuzziness as you call it) but that doesn't disqualify the procedure.

"All of those properties existed 100 years ago. 500 years ago. A million year ago. A hundred millions years ago. In all that time, heat and CO2 fluctuated wildly (and often not even in lockstep) but never experienced a runaway effect. That literally proves that negative feedbacks outweigh positive feedbacks and therefore the climate change thesis is fundamentally flawed. You might argue that, at some point, we might fall outside a “range of safety” and do in fact get a runaway effect but you would need to show that the current situation is unprecedented in terms of CO2 and/or temperature."

Correct, the physics has remained the same. It did however reach equilibriums at both ends, snowball earth on one hand, and hothouse periods where temperatures were much warmer than today and extinction followed. In fact, CO2 hasn't been this high for at least 3 million years (https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-earth-082420-063026)
Do you consider that to be unprecedented? it certainly is unprecedented for humans.
Currently the scientific literature suggests that the positive feedbacks are outweighing the negative feedbacks (https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_TS_FINAL.pdf)
Can you show me a source that says the opposite? or are you just asserting something without evidence again?

The video below offer some good breakdowns for your points

"90 per centof people and 100 per cent of climate change zealots did. We both know you did."

Another assertion without evidence so I'll ignore this from now on.

"It’s close enough. I doubt there’s more than a handful of people that believe the latter but don’t believe the former."Another assertion without evidence so I'll ignore this from now on.

Simply post a source and prove me wrong, happy to be proved wrong.

"See above your feeble and nebulous definition of “science”. You have no idea what separates climate “science” from say, astrology.

And whilst you claim to be a “moderate” relative to the Teals and Greens, the fact is that, like I said many times – you believe in climate change because they have shifted the Overton window so much that people like you get bullied into believing in its central thesis. Unlike them, you’re not disgustingly anti-human, but you are an intellectual coward so you pick a point where you agree with the fundamentals of their claim but try to make it sound “reasonable” to yourself."

Science: The systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation,experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained.

I don't believe in climate change, I understand the science and accept the conclusions, stop saying I believe in it as if it is based on faith. I am telling you right now that it is not the case. Again, you claim I was bullied into believing - with no evidence of this being the case (another assertion, so I'll ignore this point from now as well).

"The “science” is only called science because the media, politicians etc say it’s true. If they didn’t, you would say exactly what I said above – that the climate always fluctuates and negative feedbacks outweigh positive ones so there are strong limits to how much changes in CO2 can change the climate. That is the logical position. It only appears invalid to you because the world has bullied you into believing nonsense."

Incorrect, the media and politicians get a lot of it wrong and as I mentioned I don't take anything they say as gospel. More assertions, no sources to back up claims.

"I defined it precisely. If theTeals/Greens gave up all electricity and any hydrocarbon product I would say they are not objectively evil. Wouldn’t make their positions valid, just not evil."Cool, this is a political and sociology point, that don't particularly care about. Once again, politicians, those in the media, celebrities get plenty wrong, but just because they get things wrong, or that you think that makes them hypocrites or whatever, it doesn't mean that the scientific conclusions are wrong.

Do yourself a favour, watch a couple of those videos, they do a very good job at explaining the scientific findings (much better than I can).
But as I mentioned, show me your sources of information that confirm what you are saying is an accurate representation of reality. Show me a scientific paper that confirms what you're saying. At the moment, all your saying is a bunch of assertions, without evidence, and then a weird political tangent which is off topic. A debate about the science of evolution doesn't go into the sociology debate about whether it should be taught in schools or whatever. You keep going on about "Well, you've been bullied into believe this, and you think men can get pregnant!!" which is getting tiresome and ridiculous. So, pose some actual genuine questions.