7 thoughts on ““Settled Science””

1. “One must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.” – Ottmar Edenhofer, co-chair of Working group III IPCC, In an interview published by the Neue Zürchen Zeitung.

   Goody.

2. The instant I heard the term “settled science” I know the whole thing was a colossal fraud.

   It’s similar to a term lawyers use (settled law), and so that’s how Al Gore comes to spout the nonsense.

   For a scientist to use that phrase?

   NO scientist worth the title would EVER allow a Phd student to use a phrase like that in a dissertation. Or even use the word “is” as in “…this *is* the way it works….” and certainly not “this is proven..” etc.

   Never.

   Even the Theory of Evolution is still called a Theory and is not yet stipulated as “proven”. It has great predictive power (as all good theories do), and it’s the go-to starting point for most scientists. But it is not proven.

   1. “There is no controlling scientific authority.”

   2. Darwinism is settled science, too.

   3. I generally agree, but I think you are confusing theory with hypothesis.

3. 107 years later we’re still trying to break the Theory of Relativity – still a Theory, not a Law. Why should Michael Mann get a pass that not even Einstein gets? I think the whole “science is settled” thing is what sticks in my craw the most, particularly when self-proclaimed skeptics like Phil Plait simply accept the assertion and spread the meme.

4. It’s a matter of degree, isn’t it? Some scientific theories are pretty well settled, at least within their limits. General relativity, Newtonian laws of motion (in the low-gravity, low-velocity regime) and the theory of evolution are pretty well unassailable at present.

   AGW is very dubious, if only because data from over maybe forty years ago is scanty and imprecise. Anthropogenic climate change is undeniable – at least in some geographic areas, notably the edges of the Sahara.

Comments are closed.