Falsifiability means that the hypothesis matches reality. It is possible to create a marvelous hypothesis which has nothing to do with the real life.
That is actually quite common and popular. Let’s postulate that whether is determined by the holy spirits. Rain dance works in some occasions. Sometimes more human sacrifice is required. It sounds plausible and 97% of experts will support it. How can you deny it? Is it enough that randomized double blind test does not pass.
True, but this post is too long and complicated. The point here is that complex adaptive systems’ behavior can’t be predicted by simple cause-and-effect rules or statistical samples of their past behaviors.
For example, think about a periodically warmed bath-tube of icy water. You measure its temperature with a sample of thermometers. Trend line of the average temperature tells very little of the future. A model creates better predictions but modeling the earth in the Solar system is way too complex to get anything useful out.
Right. We should rely on common sense that ordinary people understands. We should also say that instead on going to a scientific debate.
1. Earth has warmed 0.8 C to the global average of 15 C since 1880, time period called little ice age. We live still today one of coldest times after the big ice age 12800 years ago.
2. Alleged warming another 0,7 C by 2100 will benefit the mankind, the most adaptable species on our planet. It will be similar than moving less than 100 km from North to South. Vast land areas in Siberia and Canada will be little more habitable. There will be less extreme weather like hurricanes. Sea levels rise some centimetres. Deserts like Sahara get more rain and vegetation increases due to increase on CO2.
3. There has been ups and downs during that path which do not follow the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere showing that CO2 is not the main driver of the weather.
4. Climate change is most of all a political issue where a threat is used to pressure the ordinary people to give up their money and freedom to people who want to rule through big and powerful governments. Businessmen like sure profits coming subsidised ”renewables”. If CO2 were the problem, nuclear power and better coal technology would be the solution, not trillions of dollars moved to coffers of the elite.
I believe in civil discussion. Let’s talk about the science and politics, but leave out ad hominem, criticising people, talking about opponent’s motives, calling names, and so on. There is a saying that the player of the Nazi-card loses the game.
In less polarized atmosphere it is easier for them to get closer to us. I don’t require full surrender. Just doing the science as it should, fact and evidence based.
Remember the Greenpease principle. Plausibility is more important than the truth.
They know their supporters. If I show them a chart of a Hockeystick with the hidden decline or a chart describing the difference between observations and models, they ask about experts behind this. They say openly that they can’t read the charts and that they want experts’ opinion because of that.
This is why the claim of ”97% support” is important to them. Because Who is the most important question, ad hominem attacks to the ”deniers” is a relevant tactic.