Religion & Ethics: Content from Across the ABC




Date/Time 29 Dec 2014 9:19:22pm
"Your argument about scientific consensus isn't really correct."

I'm sorry, could you explain how your example shows a contradiction to what I said?

Your example precisely fits into my definition:
"Science "facts" are theories that have been tested against their predictions, and which have not been contradicted by physical data."
Einstein's theory has been tested against its predicted outcomes and found to be pretty accurate(i.e. except for very strong gravitation etc).

As for your predictions:
"Record 12 month temperature high in US."

The US is roughly 3% of the planet. I note Australia is similarly sized, and is currently tracking well below average. Global temps for 2012 are not tracking a record (10th up to July). What you have described is traditionally known as weather.

Arctic extent is lowest in a whole 32 years of satellite measurement. 100+ year old Danish maps exist indicating islands that are only now being uncovered as not connected to the mainland because of reduced extent, how did they know this before submarines, diving, radar, satellites? Antarctica is presently near its record.

"3 of the hottest years globally have occurred after 1998."
The period of accurately recorded global temps is rather short.

So all we have is it is a little warmer recently. That's not exactly proof of a theory. It's like saying Einstein's E=mc^2 is correct because you've noticed a lump of Plutonium 239 is rather warm and it has lost some mass over time (assuming you live long enough to publish results). Proving the formula is correct requires more accuracy (it could have been E=mc^3 based on your "data").

How are predictions of more, severe storms? Less snow? How are global temps going compared to the modeled predicted increases? Are ocean temps rising quicker now than a decade ago? Last I looked these were rather more equivocal.