It is the lack of ability to distinguish between natural science, other branches of science, expressions of opinion by scientists, and statements by third parties about scientists' opinions, which were previously equated with science.
That is absolute nonsense. Anyone who does not fit into the mainstream is mercilessly crushed. That is the reality. There is no proof of man-made climate change. A scientist who publicly questions it and can also prove it is immediately pushed into a corner and expelled. That is a dictatorship of opinion. It is just like having to listen to the green nonsense on DLF every day.
Here and elsewhere, there is only this one irreversible opinion.
So I describe something. Directly related to that, you write a textbook example of exactly what I described. Introduced with the words:
That is absolute nonsense.
The point of my comment was to show that natural science as a method has nothing to do with opinions – and conversely, opinions are not natural science. Even if they are opinions of natural scientists. That is very easy to understand, isn’t it? And it leads to the fact that scientific discourse is, of course, a dictatorship, namely the dictatorship of evidence. Whoever cannot prove something through measurements, or claims something that even contradicts measurements, is out. The freedom to hold any opinion whatsoever does not exist in natural scientific discourse, as it is excluded by the methodology itself from the outset. If it were otherwise, it would no longer be scientific methodology.
And precisely for this reason, people who, as scientists, hold an opinion that contradicts existing evidence are expelled from natural scientific discourse. Because they are not working scientifically.
For man-made climate change, there is indeed very much evidence (plural), which goes back to the first half of the 19th century. At that time, the greenhouse effect was first described. But back then, there was no green lobby, no environmental protection mentality of modern kind, industrialization was still in its infancy. At the end of the 19th century, Nobel laureate Svante Arrhenius even wanted to ignite coal seams to slightly warm the world by CO2. The Swede wanted more efficient agriculture in his cool homeland.
Proof A: Meanwhile, the interactions of greenhouse gases with thermal radiation at certain frequencies have been spectroscopically measured. Millions of times, in the laboratory, in the real atmosphere, from the ground, weather balloons, satellites.
Proof B: CO2 is measurable and verifiably such a greenhouse gas.
Proof C: The additional CO2 above 280 ppm was emitted by humanity. This can be seen from the fact that the proportion of CO2 with C13 measurably decreases – it is measurably less utilized in photosynthesis by plants and thus also less in fossil fuels. Additionally, pure logic: Humanity has in fact burned a lot of fossil fuels, and the production of CO2 in this process is verifiable and well known. This CO2 must be somewhere and cannot simply disappear.
Proof D: Deduction from the natural laws recognized so far: One can directly derive the warming effect of additional greenhouse gases from the fundamental laws. If there were no warming, the natural laws (here thermodynamics and quantum mechanics) would be wrong. But they prove their correctness billions of times every day.
Whoever (scientist or not, it does not matter) holds the opinion that A – D are incorrect must prove it. Because there is an incredible amount of evidence for the opposite and because scientific methodology simply requires it.
No one ever has. There are a few who claim they have. They are refuted on their way to breakfast cereal by people with expertise – my casual expertise is enough here. They themselves do not understand it, nor does their fanbase. But this does not make the refutation any less valid.
—————
And now I’ll put the bracket on: Then here, too, a few very few people come along and demonstrate how they cannot distinguish science as a method from exchange of opinions. And when I explain that, multiple times, easily verifiable elsewhere, what happens? Nothing. Nothing moves in the head, the same lament is simply repeated again and again.
That is the lack of self-reflection! And self-deception, since not even having to think about oneself from an external perspective goes so far that one simply presents it as a “test” in front of oneself and others. Which, of course, ended exactly as expected – what else?
By the way, I am against canceling and for contradicting. The quality of the contradiction may then be assessed by others.
