You only remember the advancements made in those fields in the last 100yrs, but e.g. antibiotics have used in some form by Ancient civilizations. The FIRST ever climate model build less than 100yrs ago.Jorts wrote: ↑Wed Jun 23, 2021 1:09 pm Is there a specific point you're trying to make with all this verbose prose?
The suggestion that climate science is inherently faulty because it is less than 100 years old is inaccurate. Think about all the engineering and societal progress that has been made in the last 100 years as a result of advancements in science: antibiotics, lasers, commercial air travel, radiology, etc. etc.
My point is that it is not. Liberals love to tout statistics that 99.999% (or whatever) of scientists agree with climate science predictions. If that's true, then something is wrong bc so many predictions have came out wrong, which in itself isn't a problem. It becomes a problem when partisan ideology, activism and groupthink take over from scientific exploration. As far I know, the oceans aren't dead yet, we are not in an ice age yet, and we havent yet all disappeared in a cloud of blue steam.Jorts wrote: ↑Wed Jun 23, 2021 1:09 pm Climate science, like other sciences, can be and is tested. Science is callous and unfeeling. There are not devil's advocates and proponents of the science itself, but only of the conclusions drawn from the science and evidence. Hypotheses and theories are constantly being refined based on new evidence.
And there is more https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-yea ... edictions/
Well, Lorenz wrote a book called "Nondeterministic theories of climatic change", but hey, if you think it ain't germane to climate science, then maybe you are right. Still, ignoring what you said, Lorenz discovery is germane to all problems involving non-linear dynamical systems depending on a set of initial conditions. In layman's terms, if you are trying to understand a pattern that you think started 50yrs ago, when in reality it started 45yrs ago, your solution will be most likely garbage. Systems that don't suffer from Lorenz deterministic chaos are called well-posed problems. Climate models aren't well-posed as they are called inverse problems - "An inverse problem in science is the process of calculating from a set of observations the causal factors that produced them. It is called an inverse problem because it starts with the effects and then calculates the causes. It is the inverse of a forward problem, which starts with the causes and then calculates the effects." Sounds a lot like climate change predictions. There is a lot of work being done on well-posed problems and I am far from capable of understanding most of it.
So, before we start heading to our shelters to prep for the end of times, maybe slow down to understand the difference between pop-culture-science and actual science.