I have been fortunate to learn from a great thinker that science is the “known desire to know,” and that obviously having a conclusion and then fitting the data to support it is diametrically opposed to that.
Corbett’s use of Popper is dishonest because he is using the local variations in climate, and opposing conjectures of the particular effects of climate change to disqualify the larger picture. Particular variations in climate are all over the place in different locales, and different in the same locale, and there are opposing theories as to particular effects in the same locale at the same time. NONE of this refutes the fact that global CO2 levels in the atmosphere are rising, and that humanity is contributing to that rise. NOTHING Corbett writes refutes the greenhouse effect itself.
You can TRY and refute global warming by showing that CO2 levels are falling over a long period of years OR by showing the greenhouse effect does not work on a global scale OR by showing that overall GLOBAL temperatures are dropping over a long period of years. It is a global picture not what is happening locally that is of great concern. And dishonest conceited pundits like Corbett should have their names inscribed in stone so that someday we will remember who dishonestly delayed our response to global warming.
Great comment I mostly agree. However, the effects of climate change are done with simulations that are just continually adjusted until they get the result they want or else they lose funding.
If you read the sceptical environmentalist it makes the solid case with long term data that shows every aspect of the environment is getting better except for global warming. But it also shows the harm from climate change is much lower than people predict and mostly effects poor people on coast lines and barely fertile land. It also happens slowly over 100 years where future tech will drastically reduce harm. Additionally the large majority of the damage to the air was done during the industrial revolution, so cutting back on co2 emissions will have negligible consequence. Basically he proves that of the top 20 most harmful things to humanity, it is the worst use of money and putting any significant money into stopping climate change is a waste. For every life saved by cutting emissions hundreds could be saved by investing in other problems like mosquito nets. Bill gates knows where to invest in humanity.