Also, when the media can write things that aren't incoherent, that's a win. Sadly, this article is a loss. The title itself is nonsense. I'm a scientist, and I have no idea what a "science fact" is. I know what data are. And I know how to make reasonable connections between data that appear to have a causal relationship. But, to this point in my career, I've not encountered a science fact. Climate change is a belief, it just happens to be a well reasoned one. The facts are the data points that show, collectively, that the world is retaining more energy. Climate change, as a predictive theory, is certainly a belief by any reasonable definition of the world belief. Articles like this do nothing other than to muddle good science and terrible journalism. Somehow, we've decided that belief means things that aren't true and facts are things that are. I think that's a shit way of looking at the world. I think over time that the predictive powers of the various models out there will get better, as more data are gathered and better understanding of various climatic interactions develops. This will make the models more fully believable, but they'll still be beliefs. The media need to help out, if the unconvinced masses are to ever come on board with science and the scientific method. Writing things like "science fact" represent small setbacks for humanity.
It reminds me of the discussion we all had about moral facts. https://hubski.com/pub?id=209417 Here's where I would say that climate change is an opinion, or belief, based upon physical facts. The author seems to struggle with this. "Agreed-upon" is the crux of the matter, IMO. Ultimately, the author is trying to parse beliefs founded upon scientifically collected data from other types of beliefs. To be fair, the phrase wasn't hers, but the chief of the EPA. The language here is messy. It might be redundant to say scientific fact, but I guess the scientific part separates it from historical facts. It could be shorthand for facts gathered in a scientific manner. But, I agree that it's inappropriate to apply it to a theory.Some arguments carry more weight than others, but at least it's a debate that can stand on agreed-upon fact.
Nate silver made an interesting point in The Signal and the Noise that a whole lot more people "believe" in "the greenhouse effect" than they do in "climate change" and that contrary to the assertions of most "skeptics" the argument over "anthropocentric global warming" is over "anthropocentric" not "global warming." Unfortunately, most "skeptics" like to argue "it's science, duh" without really noticing that their opponents aren't arguing the mechanisms, they're arguing the validity of the data leading to an anthropocentric interpretation of climate change. I, for one, can explain "the greenhouse effect" no problem. They first started teaching that when I was in 5th grade. Have a nuanced article about the validity of the data indicating anthropocentric climate change? Well, the data has convinced me but I'm nowhere near entrenched enough to debate it.
I wonder if they still teach the greenhouse effect. I remember learning a lot about the environment in grade school, before the environment was a politically divisive issue. We had a second grade choir concert in which one of the songs was about turning off the faucet when you brush your teeth, and another about the evils of polystyrene. Imagine if my music teacher had to tell us that the inability of polystyrene to break down in landfills was "just a theory". My how times have changed...
Dude, remember acid rain? How that was going to be the downfall of us all? Or the hole in the ozone layer? http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/pages/6e7ff51a-3f5b-4b91-8411-98786c01b740/images/animation.gif it's almost as if we can fix things when we acknowledge them as fact and work to correct them. mk - here's a great reason why animated gifs should be allowed.