Just answer the question. Why is the ozone hole getting smaller? Observations don’t seem to fit the hypothesis.

And: What’s wrong with considering alternative hypotheses?

And this one is simple compared to the AGW hypothesis.

I’ve recently read estimates of the time it takes for CFC molecules to get to the upper atmosphere of “2 years” to “several decades”, by various experts.

The assertion of 50-100 years came from Rowland and Molina. They won a Nobel prize for their work, remember?

You said: “Science is about making falsifiable statements (hypotheses) and finding relevant data that supports them or falsifies them.”

Yes.

” As long as the hypothesis is supported by data from many independent observers and not falsified, it is accepted.”

Slow down. Define “many” and “accepted”.

” So far the central AGW hypotheses have been supported by reams and reams of data.”

Yes and no. Reams and reams of paper, for sure

” Furthermore all seemingly falsifying pieces of data have been accounted for so far…”

Nope, or you would have more of your “many independent observers” on board already. There really is still a debate – one of the points in Al Gore’s movie that can definitely be proven false.

” … or are in the process of being explained.”

And THAT is a BELIEF not a scientific conclusion, isn’t it?

Look at it this way: Let’s assume for the moment that all the dire news is correct – serious ice loss, worsening and more frequent catastrophic weather events, increasing drought, swiftly rising seas, not to mention rising average temperatures; and all the contrary news has been proven to be false.

What is a scientist to do when his models fail to perform as he expected; when his observations don’t match his hypothesis?

We are told that ice loss and all that is happening much faster than the models predicted. One answer might be that the hypothesis is ‘righter’ than expected. But there could be other explanations and waving away contrary evidence isn’t a very scientific way to proceed.

Let me try an analogy:

Let’s say we wanted to calculate the time it would take to bring a pot of water to a boil. We’d take into account various factors like the starting temperature of the water, its surface area, and its volume, the heat of the flame, altitude, and maybe if we tried to get really exacting we might try to factor in the conductivity of the pan, etc. Right?

What if the water heated up faster than we expected? We expected fast, but we observed faster? Was our calculation ‘righter’? No, we made a mistake somewhere along the way.

And in my dealings with the teachers, by the way, I don’t shoot the messenger. I’m friends with all of them except the 6th grade science teacher. He threw a public tantrum when told he needed to give the kids a chance to do some critical thinking about Gore’s movie. The principal told me later that the guy was an engineer who apparently couldn’t ‘do’ so he became a teacher and “seems to move around a lot. This was his sixth teaching job in eight years”. Just a nut.

One should also be able to calculate the chance that the hypothesis-theory will occur/is true, and be able to make predictions about the theory.

Best,

D

You seem to be confusing “science” with certainty. Certainty is a psychological state that is related to belief. No science will ever give you certainty. Science is about making falsifiable statements (hypotheses) and finding relevant data that supports them or falsifies them. As long as the hypothesis is supported by data from many independent observers and not falsified, it is accepted. So far the central AGW hypotheses have been supported by reams and reams of data. Furthermore all seemingly falsifying pieces of data have been accounted for so far or are in the process of being explained.

The climate system is complex, so as a complex system, there will be many pieces of data (but still a very small fraction of all climate datasets) that can be weaved together to support alternative hypotheses to AGW. In this way it is more complicated than Newtonian physics which is model for scientific “certainty” for many who do not want to grapple with complex systems scientifically. These alternative hypotheses for GW have little support in the data but are waved about by people like yourself as a means to show that “certainty” has not been arrived at.

As to your objections to teachers in your kids schools: I have no idea as to the reality of what you are saying about these particular people and would assume that you would be looking out for fights to pick given your participation on this board. On the other hand, there may be people out there who are not the most psychologically sensitive messengers of what is quite grim news, especially for kids. That being said, that doesn’t mean that you “shoot” the messenger…

If you take it upon yourself to “school” these people, remember that you seem to be operating with a misconception about what science is and that it doesn’t bring “certainty”.

Could the hypothesis be flawed?