🇳🇴 Thor — backup account
This one guy in the comments section of the Aftenposten news site says that you can't trust climate science consensus because there was once a scientific consensus that the Earth was flat, that the Earth was the center of the universe, and that the sun orbited the Earth.
It's a myth that the ancients believed the Earth was flat.
As for the rest: Yes, it's possible that there's a better model to explain our observations, but as far as I understand it, the current fit is very, very good.
🇳🇴 Thor — backup account
We threw out the Ptolemaic system with the Earth in the center because Copernicus' circular orbits made way more sense than the epicycles. (Copernicus' system wasn't more accurate, just more elegant.)
We threw out Copernican system because Newton's theory taught us that the eccentricities in the orbits of the planets were due to their elliptical nature.
We threw out the Newtonian system when we realised that Einstein's theory gave us completely accurate predictions.
🇳🇴 Thor — backup account
If you want to doubt climate science because scientific consensus can be wrong, you have to find the epicycles or the eccentric orbits; the parts of the model that either seems a bit clumsy, or give the wrong predictions. As far as I know, our current climate models don't have such problems.
🇳🇴 Thor — backup account
If you want to doubt climate science because scientific consensus can be wrong, you have to find the epicycles or the eccentric orbits; the parts of the model that either seem a bit clumsy, or give the wrong predictions. As far as I know, our current climate models don't have such problems.
Jonkman Microblog is a social network, courtesy of SOBAC Microcomputer Services. It runs on GNU social, version 1.2.0-beta5, available under the GNU Affero General Public License.
All Jonkman Microblog content and data are available under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license.