I am currently reading Steven Pinker’s book ‘Rationality’. It contains the following:
“Echoing a famous argument by the philosopher Karl Popper, most scientists today insist that the dividing line between science and pseudoscience is whether advocates of a hypothesis deliberately search for evidence that could falsify it and accept the hypothesis only if it survives.”
Where does the current ‘Climate Science’ fit with this? It is certainly not science, it probably doesn’t reach pseudoscience, it is more like religion.
What evidence is investigated to falsify the hypothesis that manmade CO2 causes global warming?
What evidence is investigated to falsify the hypothesis that a temperature rise of more that 1.5°C since industrial times will cause a global catastrophe?
What evidence is investigated to falsify the hypothesis that the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) is more than 2 (lower end of the IPCC ARC6 range).
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/figures/chapter-7/figure-7-18
What happens if you challenge any of the hypothesis’ of ‘Climate Science’? My experience is generally an outpouring of abuse and for those working in the field funding loss and job loss is quite likely.
Where is the science? To quote Terry Pratchett:
