/r/science? Nah,
Reddit banned climate denialism years ago :good!:
From your article:
From the
Torcello article:
That is not only dumb, but dangerous. Competing claims ought to be made, and the debate ought to take place in the public forum. Climate scientists ought to put forth not only their models, and show that the models of climate scientists disagree, but also put out into the public the assumptions that are made by the scientists to build the models in the first place.
Scientific modeling, scientific experimentation, and scientific observation are all great tools. But, we must understand they are merely tools. The guidance of these tools is unscientific. That is, the assessment and evaluation criteria are chosen outside the bounds of the model, experiment, and observation. That is how science works.
Thus, you have these models that are built to track certain patterns, built to pay attention to certain correlations (while rejecting other correlations), and then built to project those patterns and correlations into the future. The problem is, however, that such patterns and correlations are not selected by science. The selections are biased.
This does not mean the science is bad science, because all science does this. What it means, however, is that the selections themselves are subject to critical examination, skepticism, and cynicism. Just as I can put forth a valid argument, an argument in which the structure of logic declares that the conclusion must follow from the premises, the premises are self-selected and selected outside of the bounds of logic. The premises ought to be highly scrutinized.
The fact that the models among different scientists differ so drastically tells us that disagreement either exists in the selection of pertinent patterns and correlations or that disagreement exists in the method. Either way, it means that either the selections are open to reasonable, even to scientists, dispute or the methods are open to reasonable, even to scientists, dispute.
One scientists might observe that acidification is higher closer to the poles and, thinking that is relevant, might conclude that as atmospheric CO2 increases, the oceans will warm, yet phytoplankton will not be able to thrive in polar seas, thus phytoplankton increase will not occur, thus CO2 production will not be offset by CO2 consumption, and this will lead to an ever worsening cycle of warming. However, this scientist might not have looked at why acidification is higher closer to the poles. Why is it higher? The water is colder. That is the gist of the answer. But, the model says the water will warm and keep warming, thus the acidification will decrease.
But, another problem might remain, phytoplankton production is decreasing currently. Yes, this is true. As the climate transitions the temperate oceanic zones on warmer during the sunlight hours (above the thermocline) than usual. This larger gap in temperatures keeps nutrients from flowing easily, and thus the phytoplankton is not thriving. But, again, when speaking of global warming we are speaking of system wide warming. If ocean temperatures heat up 2-4 degrees farenheit, the temperature below the thermocline will also rise, and toward the end of the transition period, that discrepancy will be lower, allowing the movement of nutrients between levels.
These are things that are largely left out of models and left out of descriptions regarding the consequences of the models. But, these are things that ought to be questioned. And, they don't need to be questioned and answered through empiricism and empirical science, they can be questioned deductively through logic. We can say we know the conditions in which phytoplankton thrive. We can say we know the conditions in which phytoplankton are imperiled. Then, we can say, well, if these are true conditions of phytoplankton growth and demise, then certain causes will have certain effects.
To absolutely rule out the possibility that phytoplankton will thrive at the end of the climate change transition (or after a certain "breaking point") is to rule out the possibility that the oceanic temperature below the thermocline will rise. Yet, to rule out this possibility is, in effect, to argue against the entire notion of systematic climate change.
