Proof is absolutely key to science. The only key? No.
Nope, there is a reason why pseudo-science is defined as relying on proof rather than falsification. That's where the term pseudo-science comes from.
dawolf wrote:It's very understandable to non-experts as well. There are literally thousands of websites out there with explanations.
There are comments in this thread which claim the opposite, and rely on proof by jargon more often than not.
dawolf wrote: Ah! Bizarro world! I've missed you!
I'm going to rely on you to figure why that is the case, it is too complex an issue to discuss with someone who does not first show the inclination to think critically for himself.
Note things like String theory, which everyone agrees to not worry about agreeing what it means (there is no "consensus" interpretation), but focus on the reliability of the outcomes, versus something like nutritional science where everyone agrees that reducing fat intake is a good thing even when the results show that that likely is wrong.
dawolf wrote:Facts, scientific explanations and unanimity of opinion are key attributes of pseudo-science? You have this exactly backwards.
That's not precisely what I said, but basically, to a rough approximation, yes, those are some reliable indicators. Not facts themselves mind you, but claims of enhanced and definite knowledge of what constitutes facts and reliance on explanation rather than risky testing. In science the explanation comes after the results and is dispensable, not the other way around.
Do you know who coined the term pseudoscience and what the conditions were?
dawolf wrote:The scientific method depends on testable hypotheses. The major testable hypotheses regarding climate change (there are more than one), very roughly, is that additional carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will lead to warming. Please provide some "controlled conditions" to model an entire planet?
That test even fails in being true historically. It can't be that simple.
The fact that you can't do controlled experiments in climate science is not my problem, and does not incline me to accepting claims of "facthood" any more seriously.
dawolf wrote:It's really not. I'll start with one point: NASA temperatures are used, except they're not. They've used one small dataset, cherry picked from all possible data sets. This same trick (if you can call it that, and I haven't bothered checking their numbers) is used throughout.
I have seen similar results using several datasets, SkepticalScience tends to counter this with they're own cherrypicked example and after the fact adjustments (another key hallmark of pseudo-science).
Note the "Model accuracy" section here http://www.skepticalscience.com/david-e ... -cold.html
This is the key section, yet they talk about a prediction made in 1988 using a chart that shows everything before 2000 as hindcasting. The need to adjusting predictions after the fact is far more damning to theory than cherry picking.
You can only cherry pick if the original theory failed to stipulate the data to be used in attempting to falsify it, which again is a weakness of the theory (a vagueness that is indicative of pseudoscience), not a strength as is sometimes claimed. If the prediction was a good one, you wouldn't be able to cherry pick one way or another.