You're trying to wriggle out of it, but it still doesn't make sense.
Really! So you disagree with my description of the scientific methodology; the necessity for verification under controlled conditions, and the creation of experiments designed to reveal the falsity of the theories under examination, before reasonable certainty can be achieved?
With complex dynamics, it is customary to make models that allow testing of those interactions without having to wait for them to happen. The procedure/model is peer reviewed and if almost all others arrive at the same conclusions, and find that the model is adequate, there emerges a consensus about the findings.
Bart, I'm amazed that you seem to be in denial of the importance of the scientific methodology. Can you not see the contradiction in your above statement? You claim it is customary to make models that project results,
without having to wait for them to happen, then you go on to say if most others find that the model is accurate, a consensus emerges about the findings.
How on earth can you determine that the models are accurate without waiting for the projected results to happen? It sounds to me that you are the one who is trying to wriggle out.
This principle is fundamental to the scientific methodology. One creates a hypothesis based upon the available evidence. One sets up experiments under controlled conditions, and models to predict what will happen with a change of one or more variables, then one not only has to wait the appropriate period of time to see if the models' predictions are correct, but one has to have the capacity to observe the results.
For example, a few decades ago, models predicted that the expansion of the universe is slowing down. I think there was a consensus among astrophysicist that this was the case, which included the late Stephen Hawking.
However, when we developed the capacity to observe the outer reaches of the universe with the advanced Hubble telescope, scientists were amazed to discover the the expansion of the universe
appeared to be accelerating; the opposite of what the models predicted.
When this sort of thing happens there are often many possible explanations. The models could be flawed. The theories on which the models were based could be flawed. The observations could be misinterpreted. Undetectable or unknown factors could be influencing the results.
In the case of the observed acceleration of the expansion of the universe, it is the latter explanation which has gained the largest consensus, that is, the possible existence of huge quantities of Dark Matter and Dark Energy which are invisible and undetectable.
However, no-one has yet detected a single particle of Dark Matter. Here is a recent article describing the problem.
https://cosmosmagazine.com/physics/dark-energy-may-not-existExactly what they say in the report, that the (historical) data is lacking in some respects (e.g. measuring location had to be moved due to rising water levels, or urbanisation coming too close to avoid interference, or no prior measuring point available but now a new point has been made available for improved coverage and data quality going forward). Sometimes a new method of data collection is replacing a less accurate method. So there is no longer an exact 1:1 relationship between historical measuring locations and new measuring locations in the same area. That's all.
That's all?? Of no great consequence?? Crikey!
Isn't it obvious that any certainty about the catastrophic effects of increased CO2 levels has to be based on very accurate records from the past and the present. If such accurate records don't exist, for whatever reason, then certainty cannot exist, from a scientific perspective.
Of course, certainty can always exist from a purely emotional perspective, as in a religious belief, but we're talking about science here, aren't we?
