#17 | Posted by AndreaMackris
LOL a layperson lecturing a scientist about how science works...
The history of science is full of consensus shown to be incorrect.
Those are examples of the further accumulation of knowledge leading to better understanding. They're also examples from centuries ago when science was much less rigorous and precise corrected as science increased in rigor and precision.
Do you have any updated examples you'd care to add?
A good scientist doesn't "know".......
You're conflating two distinct issues here while arrogantly stating what a "good scientist" does.
My statement meant there is consensus among those most familiar with the topic and data. I'm sure they'd willingly admit there's much they don't "know".
They have asked a questions and they have been falsified
that they had a model that worked
Climate is an immensely complex topic and subject matter. That our models aren't as accurate as deniers would like them to be is a function of our incomplete knowledge and the complexity of what we're trying to understand. Deniers would have us say nothing until our knowledge is complete, which is on par with evolution deniers. Both groups are populated by retards. No offense.
BTW you conflated two topics here again. And idea being falsifiable is not the same as it having predictive capacity.