The real world has instituted laws about how scientific conclusions are made? Love to see the law textbooks that contain those alternative facts.
The real world has benefited greatly from the scientific method based upon unbiased testing of hypothesis and rejection of hypothesis when experimental data does not fully support the hypothesis
think about modern medicine & drug development. $millions spent on a drugs development, yet if the clinical trial data does not support the therapeutic hypothesis. the development stops dead
"Reasonably successful" (only 3% of the lab rats died, a 97% success rate) does not cut it - Note the 97% value and its relevance to the climate propaganda
A simple thought experiment for you: Scientists are studying a huge variety of aspects impacting climate and climate change. The clear majority conclude that human produced CO2 is playing a significant role in the current warming pattern the Earth is experiencing. Which option do you think...actually, we know that. let me rephrase. What option would rational people think makes more sense.
a) The entire scientific community is colluding to eliminate evidence and abetting political agendas to show CO2 is a major player (for some unknown reason) or,
b) It's because the preponderance of the evidence says that human CO2 is the best theory with the evidence currently available.
far too simple as
is your basis for determination
I do not know why you seem to think the physical laws of nature are determined by democratic vote or a polled opinion.
That is not science. period. end of story
Physics does not obey the ebbs and flows of human opinions which are subject to emotion, manipulation, ignorance and misinterpretation . Ask Galileo
Better yet Richard Fynman stated
https://philosophynow.org/issues/114/Richard_Feynmans_Philosophy_of_Science
Towards the end of his talk to the National Science Teachers Association, Feynman noted from his own experience that science is neither its content nor form. To just copy or imitate the method of the past is indeed to not be doing science. Feynman says we learn from science that you must doubt the experts: “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts"
It is a shame he is still not alive to weigh in on this farce.
Again I will repeat this very simple truism for you
A hypothesis is only supported by the experimental data for each and every experiment and must be rejected if any experimental data does not support the hypothesis
Climate science has become puedo science because
1. It predetermined the conclusion by narrowing the scope of inquiry to anthropocentric causes only
2. Actively applies time and resources to vigorously and constantly silence opposing views (despicable and will be extremely detrimental to ALL science)
3. Relies on propaganda to support its pre-determined conclusion
4. Allowed politics to determine the agenda & the conclusion
5. The corruption of the peer review process (Michael Mann & Phil Jones)
6. Outright fraud - The hockey stick Michael Mann, the 97% study by John Cook
7, The sheer magnitude of unsubstantiated evils caused by CO2
Hurricanes, tornado, drought, floods, rising water levels in the great lakes, falling water levels in the great lakes, crop failures, locusts, global warming, global cooling, the corona virus, mass migration, ocean acidification, species extinction, youth anxiety, erosion, wild fires, wars, financial ruin, divorce, spread of disease , climate change the musical.......... etc etc. The propaganda effort is impressive, however it is pretty clear it is a propaganda effort
8. Ignores or remains silent on basic physical facts such as
a) the dominance of water vapor as the primary greenhouse gas
b) the diminishing returns of absorbance with increasing concentration. Absorbance is logarithmic
c) the 2000 to 5000 ppm of CO2 in the past which included ice ages
d) Temperature increases determined in antarctic ice cores predate co2 increases by 500-800 years
I have yet to see any honest , credible response with evidence to refute these last four very important
facts
And the biggest part of your anti-science bullshit is your claims that the evidence refutes CO2 being the major player. It is a claim straight out of the conspiracy theorist manual to take tiny little things that science can't explain and attempt to use it to undermine the entire field of study.
Well little thing such as water vapor being the dominate greenhouse gas and the logarithmic nature of absorption are (sadly for you) SCIENTIFIC FACTS and
real science does not ignore scientific facts simply because they are inconvenient truths
But you keep up your crusade against science just because you are a personality type that is uncomfortable with change and believes that change must be part of a nefarious plot.
Change ?? Your dreaming in technicolor if you think solar & wind is going to replace fossil fuels
30 years and billions of wasted taxpayers money later and renewables that do not create CO2 are what 2-5% of world energy consumption?
And oil consumption keeps growing
A massive increase in nuclear is the only realistic avenue to reduce fossil fuel consumption, however the loonies hate and oppose nuclear just as much as oil
How odd that you prefer to ignore definitive scientific facts , yet you accuse me of being anti-science
And I had given you more credit than Frankfooter. Oh well live and learn