Laws aren’t based on consensus or age as we have plenty of Laws that are known to be wrong and stuff gets called a law fairly early.

F=MA fails really obviously at high velocity but the error doesn’t go away at low speed it just becomes small enough to be ignored. Even the most known Law of conservation of energy fails in expanding space time.

The basic rule of thumb is can you write a useful equation? And for climate change it’s just too complex for that.

> …when the science is settled it becomes a law.

This is absolutely and completely wrong. “Hypothesis -> Theory -> Law” is not actually the scientific pipeline. Theories and laws not only can co-exist, but often do.

From Wikipedia [0]:

> Scientific theories explain why something happens, whereas scientific law describes what happens.

An example of this is the theory of gravity [1], which contains laws of gravity [2].

[0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law

[1]: https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/ESSAYS/Bekenstein/bekens...

[2]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_law_of_universal_gr...

Ok, Newtons law of gravity is settled science but also wrong.

The “settled” science of climate change makes wildly inaccurate predictions on earth, during time periods we have lots of data on.

Aren’t we past the point of no return 8 times over now?

To your points:

1) Newton's Law of Gravity is not wrong, it is just incomplete. Newton's Law of Gravity is a critical formula used for calculating rocket trajectories and behaviors. It is correct but has 'boundaries' where Einstein's General Theory of Relativity takes over.

2) I'm not sure what this means.

3) I'm not sure what this means.

This is my interpretation of his statement:

3)Dates for “Certain Doom”, with regards to the climate, have been proffered by prognosticators of climate science. Much like those that predict the religious End Of Time, these dates invariably pass with no notice or fanfare.

That’s a serious straw man argument. Where exactly do you see some “Certain Doom” prediction in say an IPCC report that’s predicted something beyond X equivalent CO2 results in Y temperature?

The 2022 version for example basically says 1.5C above preindustrial levels by 2025.

That’s not some doom that’s basically exactly where we are now and only relevant because the keep updating past predictions. Go back to reports from 1990 and 1.5C in 2025 is well within error bars. We are experiencing negative effects that could have been avoided in 1990, then again things could also have been worse before now without quite a lot effort into improving efficiency etc.

Predictions further into the future assume net emissions continue and therefore the effects will be worse. That’s not some “doom” that’s cause and effect. 1.5C, 2C, 2.5C, and even 3C, as long as net emissions continue we well eventually reach all of those milestones. Arguably what’s changing is 2025 and 2040 etc don’t seem to be in the distant future they way they seemed in 1990. Kids today are thinking they could be around in 2100.

Not OP and not a physicist.

I think wrongness is inherent to any well-proven theory, because each theory is a model.

It’s just understanding where the theory falls apart and where it makes accurate and useful predictions.

Like Newtonian physic. Even where it’s accurate, the math can get hard for very simple scenarios.

The classic three-body problem can be computed; but it’s also inherently chaotic so any computation quickly becomes inaccurate (sensitive to initial values).

I think they compute many different times with different initial conditions, to generate probabilities.

I imagine the climate science of “what happens” is also the same: We may not turn into Venus, but we also know all that excess heat and energy has to go somewhere and in our fragile global supply chain it won’t take much to make a disaster.

Still, I don’t like the quasi-religious aura that climate journalism has. It’s very off-puttingz

> when the science is settled it becomes a law

That's not how it works for most of science. Most consensus ideas are theories because they are impossible to prove well enough to call them a law.

Couldn’t have said it better myself. Climate change is an unproven theory, far from the certainty that the political side of science makes it out to be.

For all intents and purposes until we have better modeling climate change is largely a political topic.

People for the most part have a pet form of energy generation they want the world to switch to and use wildly inaccurate climate models to beat everyone who disagrees with them over the head with.

See Germany and switching to oil and gas over climate friendly nuclear and trying to get gas added as a renewable form of energy and nuclear removed.

Broadly speaking laws are a thing of the past.

Also modelling basically anything is hard. Applying the laws of thermodynamics to a kettle well enough that you can predict it's exact dynamics is not a simple task.