It is a rare person who can change the way that we understand the earth that we stand on. Jason Morgan was one of those rare people.
Not even “plates” are settled! Just climate change science is settled.
climate change science isn’t settled - science is never settled as it isn’t a ‘thing’ it is a methodology; a thought process! There are a range of outcomes to climate change; all of them bad and some of them catastrophic. Scientists are constantly reevaluating and if a scientist could arrive at a reproducible theory putting an end to the ‘earth warming’ he would make a name for himself and a Nobel!!
In the 60’s, early 70’s there was some thought that climate change was going to mean ‘global cooling’. Smart people are able to change their minds when the evidence or facts change.
dogma need not apply
I’m glad to hear that. So many people assured me that Climate Science was settled. Did they change their mind? Is Climate Science now debatable? Can it now be challenged?
You are misunderstanding what he said. He is setting aside dogma for science. Science is not fully settled. He did not rescind his thoughts that we have climate change and it will worsen.
So Climate Science is settled = “we have climate change and it will worsen?” You can’t have your cake and eat it too. Make up your mind.
We have climate change and it will get worse. The dogma in how much worse is not a factor.
You are too old to be cute. Or you are getting old enough to be cute again.
Sounds like you are giving up on the argument. Thank you!
You are correct. I am giving up on you.
You have been wrong before you will be wrong again.
You’ve heards this many times, so it’s no new news. You’re listening to the wrong people if they’ve led to to believe that there’s such a thing as “settled science”. Probably non scientists.
I’m going to register a disagreement with this. Scientists are all over the place telling us it’s settled science. The End. You must Obey ME! Anyone varying is shunned or blown off and “not a climate scientist.” Ya know like Greta Thunberg or Neil deGrasse-Tyson. Oh, wait. Bad examples. Or maybe those people of gravitas purporting to be climate scientists really aren’t…?
It could and can always be challenged - you just need evidence and be willing to accept being wrong if your challenge is not reproducible. Clearly you do not understand ‘science’.
Who the heck says this? In the sense that we have the overwhelming majority of climate scientists saying this is a real thing and a real threat to our existence - it is settled; but if someone can show (with evidence/facts) the opposite and can convince the other professionals; then he is golden! But just being contrarian isn’t going to do that!
In fact, Fools (with a capital ‘F’), right here at METaR, and no one but me has confronted them on the issue.
This is the thing about the “settled science” Straw Man. As you rightly state, “science” can … and routinely is …challenged. There’s always someone coming along with a new idea that doesn’t fit the current paradigm.
If this new idea, in fact, successfully challenges current thinking with irrefutable and reproducible new evidence, then it’s added to the scientific archive ( think Barry Marshall and the h. pylori hypothesis of gastritis ulcer disease)…even earns Nobel Prizes for the really new ideas.
OTOH, if said new idea doesn’t do any of the above, it fades into ignominity (sp?)…or, worse yet, if the new idea, out of the box thinking person goes the Whack a Mole route or courts public opinion via the media or, even worserer, commits fraud, then that isn’t added to the scientific archive or publications retracted and medical licenses lost. Think Andrew Wakefield and his assertion (still asserts it, apparently) of a link between MMR and autism. Not to mention hydroxychloroquine and Covid (oooops, I just did:rofl:)
If you say so. Can this opinion be challenged or is it set in stone – settled?
“Settled science” is an unfortunate term. I suppose it was adopted to communicate to non-scientists who don’t understand the dynamic nature of science that this current conclusion of climate science is very strongly agreed upon by a very large majority of climate scientists. There are many such things in the various scientists just as there is also a full spectrum of levels of agreement depending on the topic. Where the level of consensus is not high, it is reasonable for a non-scientist to pick and choose which opinions to pay attention to. But, when the level of consensus is as high as it is here, it is really only reasonable for the non-scientist to say “this is our best current understanding, therefore the sensible thing for me to do is to accept and operate on that basis”.
Ohio appears to be moving to outlaw evidence based science education.
So, why go to skool in Ohio, (or Texas or Florida et al) and cry about how silly they are? Just go to another school in another state and laugh about how silly they are in Ohio et al. Students need to keep their minds on their work. Yes, I know not everybody can just up and transfer but this will have a very short transition period if it’s as serious as they think it is.
In the mean time if you know what they’re teaching is bogus do what every student does. Learn the real information, it’s not like it’s going away, and then just puke up on the test what the “teacher” wants to see so you can get a grade. Everybody wins!