I agree but, come on. It's a cop out. Anyone can retroactively fit a model. It's much harder to have a model that makes good predictions. It's tiring when everything from insect populations, to depression in humans, to polar vortexes are all retroactively attributed to AGW. Of course, existing models would never predict these things, they are simply observed, and then a climate related cause is sought out and pinned on.
I agree that it's lazy to just say "AGW" for any problem.
But I also think it's lazy to dismiss theories that point to AGW as a cause simply because no model predicted it in advance.
There are an infinite number of possible effects (including amphibian funguses), modeling each specific one and knock-on effects is an exercise in futility. It's much more reasonable to simply be responsible about the attribution of any effects we do observe, and only focus on modeling the most devastating predicted effects of AGW rather than every potential one (including amphibian funguses).
My main concern is things are not going to be better researched because climate change is the simple answer, why look further? I work at a university, talk to lots of scientists and academics in my free me, these researchers are just as human as anyone else and simple answers are just as appealing and knee-jerk reactions are just as common
This is a false dichotomy and betrays a lack of understanding of the actual work of the scientific community here. The mortality of the fungus and amphibian behavior are both affected by climactic conditions. It is far from “easy” to attribute the epidemic to global warming but careful studies are illustrating how different temperature envelopes and humidity can cause this fungus to thrive in amphibian populations. I suggest you take a few minutes to read this study, it might change your perspective.
Actually neither of those scenarios seems right to me. At some point scientists should generate a falsifiable hypothesis and then test to falsify that hypothesis.
You are correct that this step seems to be omitted in much popular writing about science.
This is a sciency-sounding position that actually misrepresents science. Since scientists are not gods, just as with macroeconomics and astrophysics and paleontology, climate science cannot readily “test to falsify a hypothesis.” We are restricted to observing the universe and hoping to come across useful data we can compare and contrast. Thus to imply that the inability to regularly cleanly isolate and test variables in these disciplines is unscientific is itself a disservice to science.
No, that pretty much is the definition of modern (Popperian) science. At least the sort of science that we should require in order to justify rewiring trillion-dollar economies.
This "astronomy makes no predictions" meme is goofy. Halley got a comet named after him by predicting the year of its return. That was a completely falsifiable hypothesis. If you like something a bit more current, there are plenty of falsifiable hypotheses concerning e.g. neutrino mass that various underground/under-ice detectors will test in the next few years.
Such hypotheses are not inherently impossible for climate science.
Why would you expect us to have good models for unprecedented events of unprecedented scale? I’m all for high standards but this isn’t exactly a simple thing you’re pining for.
