Is science ever really "settled"?

I've always seen science as the logical formulation of theories based on all pertinent current data, with the understanding that as more data comes to light, those theories may be revised slightly, altered significantly, or even negated totally. History is replete with examples of "settled science" undergoing such changes. Phrenology, determining personality traits by the shape of one's skull, was "science" in roughly the first half of the 19th century before more information coming to light completely discredited it. But my favorite has to be the science of astronomy. It was "settled science" back in the fifteenth century that the earth was the center of pretty much everything. I mean, you could SEE it. The Sun faithfully circled the earth once every 24 hours. Likewise for the moon and most of the stars (those pesky points of light called "wanderers" didn't always follow the same paths and procedures of the other stars but they were at least predictable. Besides, the earth as the center of everything jived pretty neatly with the current religious thought of the day. Then along comes Galileo, expanding on a theory of Copernicus, and with this newfangled scientific instrument called a telescope and throws the whole settled science of astronomy for a loop. His observations proved that what you SEE isn't always what IS. The church branded him as a heretic and he nearly lost his life in the process. I think it took the church something like 300 years to finally admit that they were wrong and Galileo was right.

Such is what happens when "settled science" becomes dogma.

Don't be so sure of backing off extreme forecasting!

https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/to...da/ar-AA1q0HmQ

They are still at it. .

They have to keep the public continually alarmed in order to control them. Since there is no climate crisis -- they have make up the crisis of the day. It's both funny and sad to see.

Yeah! It really does! 🫠🫠🫠

So how much did man-made CO2 "really" warm the earth last year?

Fact check your preferred "scientists". Follow big oil money to see where it goes. And your right that scientists should report truth. If they all did, then everyone would agree that human activity and industry is pushing global warming ever faster. 🫥😒

Still around, I'm sad to say. Now one part of larger issues.

Whac-A-Hurricane? Cute! 😏🙄

This is just plain laughable...There really is no helping you.
Just how long is the growing season in Colombia compared to Illinois?
You do know that fertilizer raises crop yields...Riiight?
How exactly does soil get "over used"? Soil is just soil.

Crop yields and productivity in the Mississippi river system are - By far - the highest in the world...Even with the short growing season.

It's a simple concept: Atmospheric H2O and CO2 rise as global temperatures rise...Permafrost thaws and deserts revert back into forests and steppes...Plant life flourishes and crop yields increase and growing seasons lengthen...More natural nitrogen fertilizer is
created from increased lightning energy. This is literally GRADE SCHOOL science.

Looking at it scientifically, the Earth is very near to being a cold and dead planet (most of the earth surface is permafrost and desert) with low temperatures and low atmospheric CO2 and low cloud cover/rain.

Anyway...Why bother.

Environmentalism is obviously just another religion.

Then explain how exactly the same climate changes have occurred dozens of times before humans were walking upright?????

Classic case of post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Here's an analogy:

Every year on July 4th for over a hundred years millions of fireworks are set off. Next year I'm going to eat a cupcake on July 3rd, and convince everyone else to do the same. Therefore, cupcakes will have CAUSED noise on July 4th. An entire cult of anti-cupcake minions arises, funded by the popsicle industry that will make a fortune if they can convince people to switch to "combat" cupcake eating. They permeate government, media and universities. "Scientists" publish studies claiming cupcakes will cause imminent worldwide catastrophes. Corporations push popsicles over cupcakes. The news does "hit pieces" on the evil of cupcakes. The weak minded give in to this Jedi mind trick.

But in reality, ONE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE OTHER.

Can I have a black and white cookie instead?

No, the black and white cookie cult is a subset of the anti-cupcake cult. You need special qualifications to join, like a complete inability to see the forest for the trees and an ability to ignore the fact that cupcake induced Independence Day noise is a myth.

All the hoopla aside, it is pretty much undeniable that the human race does better when things warm up, worse when it cools off.

But there is some scary stuff out there. Back in my younger days I was aware, through friends and some attendance on my part, of the "environmental" movement. A lot of the organizations that are now (unfortunately or not) part of our lives as Americans got their beginnings back then: the Environmental Justice Movement of the early 1980s, save the ozone, PETA, Denis Hayes and the Earth Day movement, etc. etc. Without going into details, there were a fair number of extremists flying under the radar; people who saw this stuff as gospel as well as others who may not so much have believed in the hype and hoopla quite as strongly as the True Believers but who were nevertheless adept at organizing, indoctrinating and demonstrating.

One of the topics that got a fair amount of play, at least among the folks I knew, was that North America, in an ideal situation where human activity was NOT harming the environment, could support at most eleven million hunter-gatherers. I'm not joking when I say that such a prospect was given serious thought by the more extreme folks. It was ludicrous then and even more so now, but one has to consider just what ARE the long-term goals of the more extreme environmentalists, especially considering the practice of no goal reached is ever enough: I seriously doubt that if an extreme environmental group saw all of their goals achieved one day, that they'd NOT have a list of even more extreme goals on the table the next.

What ARE the long-term goals of the more extreme environmentalists? We don't know, and I doubt we ever will.

Nice guy that I am will offer another choice, The infamous 7 layer cake.:BigApplause: