I can’t believe these are the best questions for Climate Scientists.
- How do they apply the scientific method in climate science?
In particular, I’m concerned about the need for scientific skepticism.
“Scientific skepticism is a vital element in the scientific process, ensuring that no new hypothesis is considered a Theory (capped T) until sufficient evidence is provided and other scientists have had their chances to debunk it. Even then, all of science is always considered a “good working model” and the “best understanding we have at the present time.” No scientific idea is ever considered “the final word,” nor the Word of God. It is always assumed that someone, somewhere is out to disprove the current theory.”
This is the perspective that I have concerning most of your answers. My concerns with the “dogma” have more to do over the harm. Very little harm (outside of increased number and length of heat waves) have been documented. there are many theories presented, such as “Climate change will increase extreme weather.” There is little evidence to support that statement, which is why we should be skeptical. At the very least, the weather changes are minimal.
Another problem of the model is the range of estimates. TCR could be any where from ~0.8 to 7.2. It’s hard to justify any decisions with that sort of uncertainty. The press uses statements like, “The temperature could be as high as … “ Which is just fear mongering.
Climate science, as relayed in your post (and, in general) becomes more of a pseudo science. As described by rational wiki:
“Pseudoscientists have discovered an obvious way to ‘cheat’ the scientific method. It goes like this:
- Pick a personal belief that you already ‘know’ is true, but for which you want ‘proof’.
- Perform some related observations or experiments, and note the results.
- Generate a hypothesis that shoehorns said results into your personal belief.
- Falsely claim that your personal belief predicts the particular results, and that the observations/experiment confirmed your suspicions.
This is a blatant perversion of the scientific method, but to someone not versed in science, fallacies, or psychology, it might seem similar enough to be accepted as legitimate.”
The reason why pseduoscience is effective is due to lack of skepticism.
Statements like these make me angry — “Continuing to believe otherwise is delusional, simply delusional. There’s no room for doubt. I kind of feel sorry for anyone who can’t see that.”
This is a pseudoscience statement, not a scientific statement. There is no room for dogma in science