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."
In this case, I am indeed "filling in the blanks."
That's understandable. I tend to do the same thing. That includes ideological agendas based on theology.
Probably my remarks about Global Warming science. If we're speaking in terms of the scientific method, is Global Warming science "scientific?" What I mean by that is it depends on simulation — the construction of computer models that can run the mountains of climatological data and whatever other relevant data the designer of the model wants to put in it. The point is: How can we really tell whether such models are good proxies for the system behavior they seek to explicate? The disagreements in climate science seem to be largely the result of the models used, and evidently there are many.
How "objective" can such models be, when their construction is "subjective" — the modeler must decide what goes into the simulation model. The type of science that essentially relies on mimicry and human judgment seems not to be typical of the scientific method as we know it. Simulation does not rely on repeated experiments. It simply takes for granted its model has all the necessary ingredients by which accurate forecast of future climatological changes can be predicted.
Models can and most likely will be biased by the biases of their constructors. Which is where politics can sneak in....
Well, my two cents, for what it's worth, dearest sister in Christ!