Thread: Are Global Warming "Predictions" Science or Mysticism?

Can Science "predict"? Is reading tea leaves, crystal balls, animal bones now considered science?

Or is Science defined as knowledge?

Do we gain knowledge if someone makes a lucky guess, or makes a guess that's so wide, it can't miss? Or is this a basic pallor trick?

If someone is given credit for being so smart that they can foresee the future 25 years from now, shouldn't we ask them to predict the future of the climate next week, next month, in 6 months, 1 year, 5 years, and 10 years from now, while showing us how they came to these conclusions?

If this can't be done, then shouldn't we consider these guesses to just be lucky guesses, not any better more scientific than a flip of a coin?

All the global warming science I pay attention to is predictions based on facts. Can someone with your demonstrated limited intelligence even understand the difference between science to mysticism. This is not the dark ages.

,any "survey" can be made to look how ever it best fits the scientists needs.i.e. funding,which generally is paid for by taxpayers.scientists who are not even doing research tend to agree with the "consensus" read 20 different websights about oceans rising and you will get an idea.or use your own brain and think,how can the ocean level rise in one spot and not another? they are all connected. if i put more water in my bathtub does it rise in one spot and not the other?

To be honest Science is based on the faith that if something is reproducible then it is accepted. There are very few truths in the world that can be derived without a leap of faith (Lemmas or preconditions).

Now if you decided that you have 50% of getting a heads and 50% of getting tails. People can probably say out of a 10000 flips you will have about 5000 heads and 5000 tails and the margin of error is small. It would be really hard for them to say if the third one will be tail or heads (or if you had 100 flips 53 heads and 47 tails to say if after the next flip there will be 54 heads or still have 53 heads with any satisfaction).

That is what they are doing to predict the weather. They make a model based on their understanding on climatology and the interventions that we are adding to the climate and having a computer run thousands of scenarios then they make an estimate of what is most likely trend.

I assume this is in response to the James Hansen question. If you read it, you'll see that one of his predictions in 1981 was that the '80s would see significant warming. That's a short-term and correct prediction.

I wonder how many predictions have to be right before you stop calling them lucky guesses. Yes, I'm sure it's a coincidence that essentially all of James Hansen's predictions have been correct. It has nothing to do with his scientific knowledge.

I also find it amusing that you think science can't predict things. I hope you pay no attention to weather forecasts, or the estimated time for an airplane flight to get to its destination, or any of the other countless scientific predictions we rely on daily.

And by the way, scientists have done exactly what you ask.

"Global warming is forecast to set in with a vengeance after 2009, with at least half of the five following years expected to be hotter than 1998, the warmest year on record"

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN0837368420070809?feedType=RSS&rpc=22&sp=true

I expect you to accept AGW now, unless you're in denial.