Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Your ad homs are ridiculous. I could care less what YOU consider hard science. You have shown yourself to engage in logical fallacy over actual scientific debate.
Furthermore, you have shown yourself to lack a complete understanding of the scientific method. What is the last step of any scientific method?
The last step is really just an iteration of the previous steps until the hypothesis has been modified to the point that it properly explains the observance (ie is verified, validated, and replicated).
Oh, did she point out an actual study that proves a link between man's activities and climate change?
(checks through lkb0714's posts)
Nope, I didn't think so.
She's merely tilting at the same old windmills, isn't she.
(yawn)
I am not sure whether you cannot read or you lied.
Post 22. I actually quoted you and then gave these.
"S. Leviticus et al. Anthropogenic Warming of Earth's Climate System
Science 13 April 2001: 267-270.
T Barnett, Pierce, DW, and Schnur R.Detection of Anthropogenic Climate Change in the World's Oceans. Science 13 April 2001: 292 (5515), 270-274. [DOI:10.1126/science.1058304]
Of the top of my head, I think I remember reading about the fact that the "holes" actually grow and shrink due to natural occurrences. The position of man causing them I think is now relegated to that of the fringe positions as the science doesn't support that previous belief.
Glad to hear that the National Geographic is a fringe publication.
The last step is really just an iteration of the previous steps until the hypothesis has been modified to the point that it properly explains the observance (ie is verified, validated, and replicated).
Uhm. No.
Its to communicate your findings. This usually means peer review.
Apparently you are not an actual scientist because if you do not publish, subject yourself to the peer review process, and communicate your findings its just conjecture.
Sitting around doing experiments in your basement and never sharing them with others is not science. Are you sure you have a science degree?
I am not sure whether you cannot read or you lied.
Post 22. I actually quoted you and then gave these.
"S. Leviticus et al. Anthropogenic Warming of Earth's Climate System
Science 13 April 2001: 267-270.
T Barnett, Pierce, DW, and Schnur R.Detection of Anthropogenic Climate Change in the World's Oceans. Science 13 April 2001: 292 (5515), 270-274. [DOI:10.1126/science.1058304]
Two just from Science Mag."
Pshh. Science Magazine is a liberal rag. I only accept blog posts from "Watts Up!".
I am not sure whether you cannot read or you lied.
Post 22. I actually quoted you and then gave these.
"S. Leviticus et al. Anthropogenic Warming of Earth's Climate System
Science 13 April 2001: 267-270.
T Barnett, Pierce, DW, and Schnur R.Detection of Anthropogenic Climate Change in the World's Oceans. Science 13 April 2001: 292 (5515), 270-274. [DOI:10.1126/science.1058304]
I am not sure whether you cannot read or you lied.
Post 22. I actually quoted you and then gave these.
"S. Leviticus et al. Anthropogenic Warming of Earth's Climate System
Science 13 April 2001: 267-270.
T Barnett, Pierce, DW, and Schnur R.Detection of Anthropogenic Climate Change in the World's Oceans. Science 13 April 2001: 292 (5515), 270-274. [DOI:10.1126/science.1058304]
Two just from Science Mag."
Both studies assert that man had something to do with the effects they document.
Its to communicate your findings. This usually means peer review.
Apparently you are not an actual scientist because if you do not publish, subject yourself to the peer review process, and communicate your findings its just conjecture.
Sitting around doing experiments in your basement and never sharing them with others is not science. Are you sure you have a science degree?
Obtuse much?
Peer review is a part of the validation and replication process.
That means... when you run off to them to "communicate your findings" they are supposed to evaluate your data, methods and analysis, even replicate it if possible.
The way you make it sound is as if you are bringing the stone tablets down to the heathens.
The problem with peer review in your field is that it has been turned into a mockery by having bobble heads with like intent nodding it through.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
