This Is How Science Is Supposed To Work

While I haven't vented about the ongoing Anthropogenic Global Warming debate for some time, it appears that one of the more recent posts on Watts Up With That has goaded me into doing so. The post which covers the New York Times editorial claiming that we should trust climate scientists because of the recent eclipse certainly had me scratching my head. How could the NYT in any way link the solar eclipse to the veracity of the warmist cabal? It's pretty lame, using an apple to oranges comparison but stating it's an apples to apples comparison.

I won't go into any details on the post as you can easily read it for yourself. But I will quote one of the comments in its entirety as it gets to the heart of the matter as to how science is supposed to work (emphasis in the original comment):

Definitions of Fact, Theory, and Law in Scientific Work from National Academy of Sciences Science uses specialized terms that have different meanings than everyday usage. These definitions correspond to the way scientists typically use these terms in the context of their work. Note, especially, that the meaning of “theory” in science is different than the meaning of “theory” in everyday conversation.

Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.

Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, the hypothesis is provisionally corroborated. If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis is proved false and must be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.

Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.

Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

Source – https://ncse.com/library-resource/definitions-fact-theory-law-scientific-work

Not a Theory yet. They Skipped a Step somewhere, since the Hypothesis stage hasn’t been verified, tested or corroborated.

The “climate scientists” have discarded much of this, telling us instead to “Trust us. We're scientists!” instead of showing us their work, the algorithms they've used to run their calculations, or even the data and other factors they've used to come up with the conclusion that “We're all gonna DIE!” if we don't impoverish ourselves to stop climate change. They are sounding more and more like Professor Irwin Corey - The World's Foremost Authority, all the time. I wouldn't mind that all that much if they were nearly as funny as he was. While he used his scientific sounding gobbledygook to comic effect, the so-called climate scientists are serious, at least when it comes to making sure they keep receiving funding.

It would be nice if they got back to doing real science.