Re:Sea Change – The Pacific's Perilous Turn
by zeteo on Friday September 13, 2013 @08:17PM
(#6384063)
"It's warming" is not falsifiable because any immediate developments can always be written off. An actual scientific statement is on the lines of "using methodology X, the recorded temperature next year will be between Y and Z". The climate models were scientific in this respect, but they did not predict events accurately. So the scientific certainty is simply not there, and it's all down to subjective interpretation on both sides.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Sea Change – The Pacific's Perilous Turn
by graeme on Friday September 13, 2013 @08:45PM
(#6384139)
Hmm, perhaps it isn't falsifiable by that standard. Only the evidence used in support is falsifiable, but the theory itself couldn't be falsified.
How could you falsify the idea "things will continue to be fine"? I'm trying to assess if falsification is a good standard to use.
Re:Sea Change – The Pacific's Perilous Turn
by zeteo on Friday September 13, 2013 @09:04PM
(#6384186)
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis
Sorry, a bit in a rush but that's the main idea. Expecting no specific change is the scientific default.