DrPaul

In this video, we will apply the logical tools and scientific framework from the first two parts in this series to the theory which asserts that carbon dioxide is a primary or significant driver of Global Warming. First, we will look at many examples of logical fallacies on which the theory is supported and then we will test some of the theory's predictions against observations in the real world. some references: Models, balloon and satellite data: https://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06/epic-fail-73-climate-models-vs-observations-for-tropical-tropospheric-temperature/ https://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06/still-epic-fail-73-climate-models-vs-measurements-running-5-year-means/ For the ocean temperature data: https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf

As we saw in Part 1 of this series, the foundations of modern science are built on logical principles. In this video, we will see how straying from logical principles can lead to controversy. In order to resolve such controversies, it is important for us to be able to recognize the common logical fallacies that are often at the root. In this video, we will examine a number of logical and procedural fallacies which will help us to identify the root of most controversies and allow us to resolve the controversy with confidence.

You don't have to be an expert to resolve disputes or controversies in science. Instead, a basic understanding of the philosophical foundations of Modern Science and a familiarity of basic rules of logic will allow you to untangle even the most contentious scientific controversies. In this video, we will look at easy to understand, fundamental principles of all modern science. It is the first step in resolving a scientific controversy.