"An abridgedversion is as follows.Observation -> hypothesis ->...

"An abridgedversion is as follows.
Observation -> hypothesis -> testing ->analyse results -> conclusion. You then can go further with replicationstudies to confirm if the initial findings are correct/accurate."

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.


“So, what are the specific points of climatechange science you don't accept/are sceptical of?

· Do you not accept that the sun emits short wave radiation that passesthrough our atmosphere?

· Do you not accept that this radiation bounces off the earth and turns tolong wave radiation?

· Do you not accept that this long wave radiation is trapped by CO2 (andother GHG) and causes them to vibrate and heat up?”

and manymore...

All ofthose properties existed 100 years ago. 500 years ago. A million year ago. A hundredmillions years ago. In all that time, heat and CO2 fluctuated wildly (and often not even in lockstep) but neverexperienced a runaway effect. That literally proves that negative feedbacksoutweigh positive feedbacks and therefore the climate change thesis is fundamentallyflawed. You might argue that, at some point, we might fall outside a “range ofsafety” and do in fact get a runaway effect but you would need to show that thecurrent situation is unprecedented in terms of CO2 and/or temperature.

And by “unprecedented”I mean in all of Earth’s history. You can’t do that. Nobody has ever suggestedwe could. Instead people say “ignore history and just pretend that this time it’sdifferent!”

“Seriously, again with the incorrect assertions!GO FIND A SINGLE QUOTE FROM ME SUPPORTING LOCKDOWNS! I HAVE NOT MENTIONED THEMONCE HERE. AGAIN, WHAT HAS THIS GOT TO DO WITH CLIMATE CHANGE! Like Holy Sh*tdude.”

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

“Can you find me a source that shows a 99%correlation between people who say "trust the science" and people whothink men can get pregnant?”

It’s closeenough. I doubt there’s more than a handful of people that believe the latter but don’tbelieve the former.

“I don't think those numbers are correct. Andagain, what has this got to do with the science of climate change, please stayon topic.”

It has everything to do with the fact that you think you know something aboutscience but you actually know nothing – and everything you think you know iswrong.

“If you watch the video I posted above, you'llnotice I align with the creator of the video. I dont care what politicians,greenies, "zealots", protestors etc etc think or say. I care aboutthe science. Climate zealots (whatever they are) dont make scientificpredictions.”

See aboveyour feeble and nebulous definition of “science”. You have no idea whatseparates climate “science” from say, astrology.

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

“So, like I said. Address the science, not themedia, or politicians, or greenies or whatever. The scientists and sciencecannot be held responsible for what the media/politicians etc all say. Justbecause the media/politicians etc get it wrong, doesnt mean the science iswrong.”

The “science”is only called science because the media, politicians etc say it’s true. Ifthey didn’t, you would say exactly what I said above – that the climate alwaysfluctuates and negative feedbacks outweigh positive ones so there are strong limitsto how much changes in CO2 can change the climate. That is the logicalposition. It only appears invalid to you because the world has bullied you intobelieving nonsense.

“This isn'ta question on the science of climate change. You need to define what you meanby evil, establish that they refuse to make sacrifices, define what you mean byclimate change zealots etc. Again, what has this got to do with the science ofclimate change. Go ask a philosopher professor or a sociologist.”

I defined it precisely. If theTeals/Greens gave up all electricity and any hydrocarbon product I would say theyare not objectively evil. Wouldn’t make their positions valid, just not evil.