Law? What world are you living in?
The real world
You seem to think an argument against your position is invalid if it is not accompanied by an alternative theory
Well too bad for you that is NOT a hard fast rule or law
Wrong is wrong. offering up an alternative is optional and whether one is offered up or not does not change the fact that the original theory is wrong
But yes, in the scientific world, a reasonably successful theory is not replaced unless there is a more successful theory presented.
Absolutely not
What part of
“If it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science.” are you having trouble with ?
They use to bleed people in a futile attempt to relive numerous ailments
George Washington died because some fool believed bleeding him would fix his fever from the common cold and fever. Apparently this remedy was held by many as the "consensus view' of state of the art medical advise
After having 40% of his blood removed from his body he died.
Still no cure for the common cold , but clearly that theory was just plain wrong and George would have been better off if it had been previously proven wrong with or without a substitute theory
Now lets focus on what you describe as "reasonably successfully"
Imagine the thrill of the Apollo astronauts if the chief scientist described the theory of their re-entry trajectory as based upon "reasonably successful theory" which "has some flaws"
if there is not an alternative available they just would not climb in the space capsule at all
And if the chief scientist insisted this was the best available theory and insisted this is the one to go with... they would get a new chief scientist or not go into space.
Your an engineer
If the engineering plan for a proposed bridge is determined to be flawed you do not continue working on it. That plan is scraped and that bridge is not built
You do not stick with that plan because it is "reasonably successful"
The word "reasonably" has absolutely no place in scientific theory.
If there are doubts or flaws, the theory is wrong! period.
If the experimental data does not support the theory in all experiments. The theory is wrong. Period
I think there's an expression about a baby and bath water that reflects your anti-science viewpoint.
Accusing me of being anti-science after you insist a scientific theory is valid if it is "reasonably successful" ??
If you are an engineer, you should know better
In case you are unable to understand, the reason why people looking to change something tend to look at the things they can change.
are you sure you do not mean"looking to change other peoples behavior"?
We are interested in the impact of human created CO2 because it is the significant factor that we can control.
So you put constraints on the scientific inquiry because you have predetermined what the possible solution is?
That is ass backwards and not at aligned with successful scientific methodology
The vast majority of real scientific inquiry is spent attempting to remove / isolate bias from experimentation. It takes a long time and a lot effort to design experiments without biases
yet you and the IPCC want / need to inject a massive bias right upfront
What if CO2 is not the demon and warming is caused by some other force which we can not control. Say non explosive volcanic activity deep in the oceans as an example
OH! Gee sorry about that. We did not look at that because .... well man did not cause that
Do you carry the same fatalistic point of view into the rest of your life?
If the laws of physics does not support a theory, then yes I will bluntly state that theory is wrong
If I observe science is being misrepresented, then yes I will speak out
if I observe hard working scientist being abused and mistreated because of ideological dogma ,then yes I will speak out
Do you refuse to invest anything because you can't predict precisely what the market will do?
What I do not invest in are companies which mis-represent themselves to the investing public
Do you reject prescribed medications because they can't guarantee exactly how your body will react to them?
I would not take a prescribed medication if there are a lot of unanswered questions about the diagnosis and there is a high probability the cure might be worse than the ailment
I certainly would not take it if the prescribing doctor were an activist first and a sawbones second
If we took your view, we'd still be living on the plains, chasing antelope and wondering if the berries we picked had anything to do with people dying.
Actually if you were to eliminate all that Greenpeace and The Tides foundation want to get rid of , you have described how life might be like
although you missed the cholera problem as Greenpeace also wants to ban chlorine
Reality shows that our understanding of CO2's impact on the atmosphere matches observations better than any other theory and science will continue to support that view unless someone develops a better theory to replace it.
No it is pseudoscience and it will always remain pseudoscience as long as there is an on going effort to silence opposing views
Why the need to silence opposing views ?
Any scientific theory that can not stand up to questioning, opposing views or debate and instead relies on silencing of its critics is not worth a bucket of piss
This is quickly turning into the most expensive scientific (propaganda) mistakes of all time
Maybe one day you will be embarrassed enough that you'll put me on ignore too.
Embarrassment has nothing to do with me putting Frankfooter on ignore
He has proven himself to be a scientific know nothing, incapable of honestly, and absolutely void of any integrity.
I found his character assassination of Judith Curry and other skeptical scientists to be particularly despicable
Since I was not permitted to deal with him as he should be dealt with, putting him on ignore was the best option
If you display the same loathsome character faults I will be obliged to put you on ignore as well
I suspect you are more level headed, however time will tell
On Ignore: Frankfooter
