Settled Science is “Adjusting” their Estimates Downward


What is “settled science?” Settled science, if there is a thing, is something that has been tested countless times and never rejected through experimentation. Gravity is as close to a “settled science” as they come. Objects at sea level on earth in a vacuum will fall at  9.8m/sec^2, no matter how many times you run that experiment. The defining characteristic of a “settled science” is that no new information alters the previously defined conclusion. In other words, the conclusion is never altered. If it does get altered it is by definition, not a “settled science.” “Settled sciences” are “settled,” they don’t change with new information. New information simply reinforces the previous conclusion.

How then do you destroy your credibility to the 95% confidence level to any reasonable person? You go and claim that the “consensus” has “settled a science” with 95% confidence, and then change the conclusion. That, in fact, is exactly what is happening in the field of slimate clience. It appears that the upcoming 6th IPCC Report is about to unsettle this “science.” Ironically, it is the IPCC, not the Skeptics, that is about to blow up the myth of Slimate Clience being “settled.” The changing of the IPCC conclusions does far more to support the positions of the skeptics, than the alarmists.

“Seismic Shift” In Climate Science… IPCC CO2-Induced Warming Estimate “Far Too High”…”In A Free Fall”

All this points to a seismic shift in the understanding of CO2 climate sensitivity in the now being drafted 6th IPCC Report.

The ‘best estimated value’ will in any case move considerably downward. That of course is already causing a lot of bellyaching among the climate warriors, and so the world is preparing in advance for the changes. For example Knutti et al. 2017 wrote in Nature Geoscience, that in any case greenhouse gas emissions will have to limited, no matter if the CO2 climate sensitivity value is possibly lower:

Continue Reading

Please Like, Share, Subscribe and Comment



7 thoughts on “Settled Science is “Adjusting” their Estimates Downward”

  1. It would be false to claim that the theory of gravity is “settled science” — it is still in the process of being tested and continues to be subject to the process of corroboration, with every ball any physicist might care to drop and every dish in your kitchen shelf that may happen to fall to the floor.

    It is useful to make a distinction between (1) the fact that a certain theory has not been refuted and (2) the requirement of science to make any theory, irrespective of the extent of its corroboration, amenable to the continued possibility of refutation. There is no science in the absence of (2).

    To put it differently: what lends a theory scientific character is not the number of times / the fact that it has not been disproven but the requirement that it be ALWAYS open to testing and refutation.

    “Settled science” is a contradiction in terms.

    There is no general criterion of absolute and final knowledge that allows us to know after how many successful non-refutations a scientific theory will become incapable of being refuted.

    I would also tend to argue that if we treat a robustly tested theory as if it represented infallible truth, at times this may be a reasonable thing to do for practical purposes, but it is a decision taken outside of science, it is not a conclusion of the scientific process but a matter of pragmatic discretion.


    1. I agree, we don’t even really know what gravity is. I just used gravity as an example of something that has been tested enough to assign laws to it. Science is never settled, that is why you reject the null, not accept. You can never run enough tests to prove something, one one is needed to disprove.


      1. Exactly. What the alarmists’ science-is-settled fanfare blares out is their complete inability to understand what science really is. Ignorance of how science works is a great “qualification” for being able to abuse it with no danger of pangs of conscience. Epistomologically, they’re just not competent enough to suspect they might be doing something wrong. I enjoyed reading all of the five posts that you have published today. Many interesting things to learn; I especially liked your exposing the irony of claiming scientific finality while having to revise one’s findings. I also liked the way you demonstrate how the same phenomenon is being paraded by the alarmists when it serves to hype imminent apocalypse, only to be quickly swept under the mat when it turns out to have beneficial effects, the upshot being a bizarrely distorted representation of the net effect.


      2. The most dangerous people in the world are those too ignorant to know they are wrong. They will just keep making the same mistake over and over, and digging deeper and deeper. Thanks for the comment.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s