[tacticalogic]

Back at post 591 I said: science has particular influence because it claims to be definitive and objective by reason of the scientific method - and this example stands as evidence that it should not be presumed to be either definitive or objective.

How do you justify implicitly "definitive and objective" declarations that "science claims to be definitive and objective", when those public disagreements among scientists stands as evidence that it is not true?

You ask "How can science help us here? (Oh my, I so hope it can!)", and presented with evidence that they are providing help, stand ready to reject it.

[Alamo-Girl]

I suspect you may have gotten some of betty boop's remarks mixed in with mine.

Nevertheless, the point I was driving at back at 591 is that science presents itself as definitive and objective by reason of the scientific method, i.e. repeated experiments or observations yielding essentially the same results.

Confidence in the theory increases over time as the results accumulate. Additionally, a good scientific theory will have many ways to falsify it (Popper) and the theory must also accumulate success in ongoing attempts to disprove it.

But with the Global Warming issue, scientists on contradictory sides claim to have good cumulative results. Both cannot be right.

In this situation, I discount the science on the side of those advocating a political or ideological agenda.

In this case, I am indeed "filling in the blanks."