[chrisco255]

The process of the scientific method involves making conjectures (hypotheses), deriving predictions from them as logical consequences, and then carrying out experiments or empirical observations based on those predictions.[5][6] A hypothesis is a conjecture, based on knowledge obtained while seeking answers to the question. The hypothesis might be very specific, or it might be broad. Scientists then test hypotheses by conducting experiments or studies. A scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable, implying that it is possible to identify a possible outcome of an experiment or observation that conflicts with predictions deduced from the hypothesis; otherwise, the hypothesis cannot be meaningfully tested.[7]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

[rosser]

It's interesting that you chose to wiki-splain the scientific method in response to ... what? The notion of anthropogenic climate change? The accusation of being a denier?

Whatever, the reason that's interesting is that an increase in the frequency and severity of "anomalous" weather events is, in point of fact, one of the chief falsifiable predictions of the climate scientists whose work you dismiss.

Everyone always points to the hyper-specific, obviously catastrophic, missed predictions for which, e.g., Al Gore is probably most infamous as a failure of the models [0], when one of the main things they actually, specifically, said would (would, not could) happen, as more energy was added to the atmosphere ... is happening.

[0] The thing about those predictions, which I think the people watching in good faith assumed (on the basis that they were, you know, explicitly thusly disclaimed) is that they were known worst-case, hypothetical for illustrative purposes kinds of deals — which, yes, was a terribly dumb move, given how those predictions were taken, and have been pilloried since.

EDIT: Footnote and phrasing.

[chrisco255]

"It's interesting that you chose to wiki-splain the scientific method as some sort of refutation of ... what? The notion of anthropogenic climate change? The accusation of being a denier?"

When you discuss and learn about a complex scientific topic (such as climate change), do you seek to understand it on a deep level, or do you seek to over-simplify things? Do you accept that you could be wrong about your hypothesis about how the world works? Do you accept that even experts are often wrong about complex systems, such as nutrition, psychology, gravitational physics, etc. That's what the null hypothesis of the scientific method is all about.

So framing someone as a denier is pretty loaded and has an air of righteousness that betrays the spirit of science in general, would you agree? You could be wrong. I could be wrong.

Science is messy. Sometimes a centuries old theory is overturned by new revelations. Climate science is far from settled and far from mature.

The climate is a complex, multivariate system. The earth's climate is affected by axial tilt, precession, solar magnetic activity (which itself is influenced by complex internal double dynamo thermal activity), cosmic ray activity (which itself varies in relation to where our solar system is in the galaxy), low cloud cover albedo, snow cap albedo, earth-sun distance, total solar irradiance, 6 greenhouse gases of varying composition (the most important one being H2O), ocean-atmospheric interaction, trade winds, El Nino and La Nina oscillations, volcanic activity and aerosol content (driven by volcanic activity and exacerbated by cosmic rays which can cause cloud condensation nuclei to form in the low atmosphere and cool). The sun goes through solar cycles with periods of 8-11 years, 22 years, and long minimums sometimes lasting decades with little to no magnetic activity, happening every couple of centuries.

We still don't know how all of those variables (and that list is by no means exhaustive) interplay to create the climate. But to pluck out CO2, a trace gas of quantity roughly 0.04% of the atmosphere, and to over-exaggerate its effect on the system and to alarm people into believing that the planet is in danger as a result, is quite an extraordinary claim that does not align with the actual data. My hypothesis (and others) is that the solar cycles and the interplay between clouds, ocean, sun, and cosmic rays have much more to do with the resulting climate than anthropogenic CO2. Of course, I could be wrong. But then again, so could you. The framing of someone as a denier comes from a place of insecurity...not from a place of truth-seeking.

"Whatever, the thing is, an increase in the frequency and severity of "anomalous" weather events is, in point of fact, one of the chief falsifiable predictions of the climate scientists whose work you dismiss."

Which specific predictions? Because the IPCC predictions have been off for the past two decades, as far as global temps go. The closest model to predicting the pause in temps over the roughly 2000-2014 years was the INM-CM4. Droughts aren't new (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_Bowl), hurricanes aren't new (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1932_Bahamas_hurricane), and we've only had satellite observations of the planet since the 60s, and weather data didn't really advance until beginning in the 70s (which was the coldest decade in the 20th century).

Yes, we have warming since the 70s, that much is true. We also have been going through a solar modern maximum that is just now beginning to decrease. What percentage of the CO2 is anthropogenic and what percentage of CO2 is natural, being exhaled by the oceans as the planet warms? What amount of IR energy can CO2 retain and how does it compare the complex cooling and warming effects of H2O on the atmosphere? This we still don't know. We still have a high degree of uncertainty about the climate system. The true denier is the one who fails to admit that.

[rosser]

(Aside: your comment was dead, probably because it spent a while just saying "Test post". I've vouched for it, but I have plans for the evening and will be stepping away, not having read your revision.)