Richard Lawson shows how Karl Popper can help settle the climate debate.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/104/Cl ... ifiability
Climate Science & Falsifiability
Re: Climate Science & Falsifiability
It doesn't take this author long to fly his environmentalist flag and commit his first logical error, i.e., argument from authority.
"On the one hand, most climate scientists are warning that we must make a radical change away from reliance on carbon-based fossil fuels in order to avoid a catastrophic long-term change in global climate.”
I'm not aware of a formal head count "proving" that "most climate scientists" take this position.
Immediately following the "argument from authority" we find two additional difficulties in the form of ill defined terms and rhetorical hyperbole, i.e., "we must make a radical change away from reliance on carbon-based fossil fuels," and "catastrophic long-term..."
Now that the author has established the "indisputable facts" of his case, skeptics are instructed to ponder Popper’s falsifiability principle and dwell on the this bleak assertion:
"...one thing is certain: the hypothesis that the effect of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is trivial and warrants no action simply does not hold up. It does not match the facts. It has been refuted."
Strange. As a practicing "climate skeptic" I can't recall arguing the above hypothesis. However, what I am arguing is that taxing business and individuals is not the solution - even if man made climate change is a problem. (which, by the way, is still unproven!)
"On the one hand, most climate scientists are warning that we must make a radical change away from reliance on carbon-based fossil fuels in order to avoid a catastrophic long-term change in global climate.”
I'm not aware of a formal head count "proving" that "most climate scientists" take this position.
Immediately following the "argument from authority" we find two additional difficulties in the form of ill defined terms and rhetorical hyperbole, i.e., "we must make a radical change away from reliance on carbon-based fossil fuels," and "catastrophic long-term..."
Now that the author has established the "indisputable facts" of his case, skeptics are instructed to ponder Popper’s falsifiability principle and dwell on the this bleak assertion:
"...one thing is certain: the hypothesis that the effect of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is trivial and warrants no action simply does not hold up. It does not match the facts. It has been refuted."
Strange. As a practicing "climate skeptic" I can't recall arguing the above hypothesis. However, what I am arguing is that taxing business and individuals is not the solution - even if man made climate change is a problem. (which, by the way, is still unproven!)