You've missed the point in so far as that my argument is that climatology is a very debatable subject - that is the extent of my claim.
Fair enough. I'm not disputing that climatology can be debated scientifically, nor that there are lots of unknowns left to figure out. My point was that the main pillars of our understanding of it all (ie. that there is an overwhelming consensus behind anthropological climate change) makes it so that the point isn't really up for debate when it comes to the overarching narrative. That's also where the skepticalscience "myths" come into play. Happer doesn't simply argue a very narrow scientific point, he's also pushing a much broader political agenda.
Putting a definition to "consensus" or "very debatable" is also always going to remain subjective. The best way to gauge it is, I think, to check how many respectable scientists have gone against the consensus that climate change is real, anthropological and damaging. One person doing it outside of a peer-reviewed paper doesn't turn the whole field contentious. But perhaps you mean that as long as people can disagree on things within climatology it's very debatable?
Those pillars are debatable though because they are built on assumptions that have not been proven.
I will dive more into this when I give an example below.
Cool, I do not care about consensus especially in an area of science this speculative.
I mean that this area of science is extremely debatable both in the areas of accepted inferences and its foundations.
I view a source like that as a joke because it treats valid propositions as 'myths' - this very language is an extreme form of Ad hominem. That's only part of it though, the explanations given are built on a number of assumptions that are also dubious and not actually confirmed, as such they have massive weak points and cannot be confidently viewed as objectively proving these 'myths' incorrect. Hence, what is laughable is the same could be done to their own propositions, we could break their statements down to the assumptions they rely on, reveal that those assumptions are by no means proven to be objectively factual and as such make all conjectures implied by the unproven assumption uncertain.
Could you give me examples?
For fun lets focus in on Spatials Claim pertaining to cosmological effects on thermal equilibrium of climate..
The source you cited called “it’s the sun” and then debunks it. I am not so inclined to say the Sun is the only factor in Cosmic forces that cause climate change but Cosmic Rays in general lead to plausible theories.
If you go to your source, click: It’s the Sun > Advanced.
> Solar magnetic field must have a long-term positive trend.
> Galactic cosmic ray flux on Earth must have a long-term negative trend.
> Cosmic rays must successfully seed low-level clouds.
> Low-level cloud cover must have a long-term negative trend.
Astrophysicist who are focused on the Cosmic Ray Correlation with climate events and change in general have adequately dealt with all of these and have shown positive correlations. Interesting enough they all come up with differing sensitivities but similar correlation coefficients which is funny because so do the Co2 theorists, the difference between the two groups merely being the weight they give to parameters (Obviously one weighs Rays high while the other weighs C02 high).
If you want a starting point maybe investigate the work of R.G. Harrison, Nir J. Shaviv, D.B. Stephenson, H. Svensmark, and M. Lockwood.
Now, if you want to debate climatology and Physics and its foundations we can do that now, but that was never my point as I only wanted to point out its debatable nature. Perhaps you will only accept it as debatable if you have a rigorous debate about it, though.
Having a rigorous debate on it isn't necessary. I'm not sure I'm even knowledgeable enough to properly have one. I would like to hear your view though, if you have one.
I am concerned about the nature of the problem being oversimplified given we are dealing with highly complicated and chaotic systems and essentially doing simple time series analysis. On the Fluids side anomalies are endless and explanations are very few which alludes we hardly understand these phenomena. Essentially, a lot of my reservations are derived the mathematical limitations that constrict our understanding along with little physical experimental models to back up claims.
I am also concerned that scientists can acquire high correlation coefficients for opposing theories and create accurate models through assumptions made about parameters and sensitivity.
I want more investment into models for this reason.
