Comment

Sarah Palin Shills for Climate Change Deniers, Says Bill Nye Isn't a Scientist

257
A Cranky One4/15/2016 6:07:46 pm PDT

re: #229 Ojoe

Science requires repeatable experiments with unchanged controls. There is only one climate and you cannot do a repeatable experiment with a control on something unique. Even doing sequential experiments changes what you are working on. All the stuff masquerading as climate “science” is speculation done on incomplete, inaccurate computer models being fed guessed parameters the accuracy of which no one knows.

Umm…..no.

Some science requires repeatable experiments, depending on what is being studied. But to say it all does is the equivalent of the creationists “Were you there?” argument.

I can scientifically test whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas. In fact, that’s an easy and repeatable experiment that anyone can do. Take two clear 2-liter soda bottles. Put 1-2 inches of water in the bottles (exact same amount in both bottles). Let them stabilize temperature. Add extra CO2 to one bottle. Cork both with a rubber cork with a thermometer fed through it (by exactly the same amount on both corks). Put both corked bottles where they’ll receive the same amount of sunlight. Monitor the temperatures. Guess what you’ll find? The bottle with a higher CO2 level will be warmer than the control bottle. This is a repeatable, controlled experiment.

Using a method like this, gather data about how different concentrations of CO2 affect air temperature. You can then hypothesize about the affects of CO2 in the atmosphere. Then create controlled, repeatable tests of the hypothesis to see if it’s valid or incorrect. Rinse and repeat until the hypothesized model yields accurate predictions.

And hint: you can also test predictions and models against historical evidence.

Similarly, break down other basic elements of the issue and study it experimentally. Over time, the different factors can be used to create sophisticated models whose predictions can be tested against the data. When the models aren’t accurate, the data can be used to investigate why and modify the models. Make new predictions, test again against current and historical data.

The use of data to create and test the predictions of a hypothesis are science. And guess what? The controlled and repeatable experiments you demand are in fact used.

Do the simple experiment above and then come back and explain why the results, showing that a higher CO2 concentration in the air raises the air temperature aren’t science or accurate. Then explain how dumping massive amounts into the atmosphere won’t affect it’s temperature.

I’ll be waiting.