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.
The problem is that you do not believe in actual science, as you condemn the first law of experimental science:
DISPROVE THE "NULL HYPOTHESIS'.
This is the cornerstone of the scientific method and is completely ignored by the AGW crowd.
In actual science, one would disprove that man is NOT causing global warming. That is refuting the null hypothesis.
In AGW, the liberals state definitively that man is warming the planet. They then ask others to provide definitive proof to the contrary.
You see- that is the opposite of actual science. It would be like saying that marshmallow men inhabit the core of Jupiter. It has to be true, as you cannot disprove it. See the lunacy of the core premise of AGW? In addition to violating the very core of the scientific method, liberals CONDEMN AND VILLIFY any contrary data and cling to the premise. Again, in valid science, ANY additional data or challenge to the hypothesis is WELCOMED, as a good hypothesis will stand up under scrutiny.
Lastly, in actual science, the scientist is indifferent to the outcome of the study. Of course, this is the opposite in AGW, in which its proponants have a firm emotional investment in the outcome of their "studies".
Anyone who understands, or has had training in, formal science understands how absurd the contention of AGW actually is and how ridiculous its proponants claim to be supporting "science", when they are actually disregarding every principle of valid science. This is what happens when laymen with no knowledge of science whatsoever claim supreme expertise and understanding in an area in which they have no clue. If they were not so damaging in potential actions that could destroy the planet, they would simply be amusing "useful idiots".
The following cases are examples where sufficient evidence has been presented and the null hypothesis can be rejected.
Climate change: that human influence has not changed Earth's climate. Evolution: that species are not changed by natural selection to fit an ecological niche.
Given that the null hypothesis has been rejected it now falls to those who would wish to deny the evidence for global warming or evolution to present their counterarguments. The burden of proof is on them. The prior alternative hypothesis becomes the next default null hypothesis.
This is the cornerstone of the scientific method and is completely ignored by the AGW crowd.
See link above. I just debunked your ignorant statement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
In actual science, one would disprove that man is NOT causing global warming. That is refuting the null hypothesis.
You poor soul. You crack me up. You remind me of how creationists try to argue against Evolution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
In AGW, the liberals state definitively that man is warming the planet.
We've been over this already. Science does not wear a political cape.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
You see- that is the opposite of actual science.
You don't know what science is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
Lastly, in actual science, the scientist is indifferent to the outcome of the study. Of course, this is the opposite in AGW, in which its proponants [sic] have a firm emotional investment in the outcome of their "studies".
More hogwash.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
Anyone who understands, or has had training in, formal science understands how absurd the contention of AGW actually is and how ridiculous its proponants [sic] claim to be supporting "science", when they are actually disregarding every principle of valid science.
More unsubstantiated hogwash and ascribing your personal narrative onto others. You simply have no clue what you are talking about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
This is what happens when laymen with no knowledge of science whatsoever claim supreme expertise and understanding in an area in which they have no clue.
You have just described yourself to a T. Good job!
I suggest you stop wearing your emotions on your sleeve and learn how to hold an intelligent discussion using facts vs. your typical emotional tirade.
See link above. I just debunked your ignorant statement.
You poor soul. You crack me up. You remind me of how creationists try to argue against Evolution.
We've been over this already. Science does not wear a political cape.
You don't know what science is.
More hogwash.
More unsubstantiated hogwash and ascribing your personal narrative onto others. You simply have no clue what you are talking about.
Yo have just described yourself to a T. Good job!
I suggest you stop wearing your emotions on your sleeve and learn how to hold an intelligent discussion using facts vs. your typical emotional tirade.
I am afraid that you are a hopeless cause. You do not understand the first thing about "science", yet claim expertise in that area.
This is what we call "The Dunning-Kruger Effect".
I actually have an undergrad degree in an area of science, an MD degree, have published over 20 papers in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, took additional course work in statistics and mathematics, have edited dozens of papers for the peer reviewed scientific literature, have held faculty positions at two universities, and have presented scientific papers at national meetings.
You, on the other hand, probably have a business or communications undergrad degree and no credentials whatsoever. As with the Dunning-Kruger Effect, you will fail to understand your short comings unless you actually obtain an advanced scientific degree, which is very unlikely. Thus, you are doomed to ignorance and fertile ground for being an AGW proponent.
I do have the ability to understand this issue to a far greater extent than you, as I live "science" every day.
That's what folks who can't accept reality fall back on. Your confirmation bias just won't allow you to see the truth.
Instead of your typical emotional tirade and ad hominem attacks...why not instead support your arguments with verifiable scientific research and studies such as what I have done?
It is 50F on my gage right now, North Central Ohio. I wonder what sense of this number the Institutes for Conservative Studies can make since there was much fuss among Trump fans about -7F a few days earlier.
A recent Monmouth poll found that 78% of Americans believe climate change is real and leading to sea-level rise and more extreme weather. That’s up from 70% three years ago. The headline-grabbing takeaway: a majority of Republicans – 64% – are now believers, a 15-point jump from 2015.
A recent Monmouth poll found that 78% of Americans believe climate change is real and leading to sea-level rise and more extreme weather. That’s up from 70% three years ago. The headline-grabbing takeaway: a majority of Republicans – 64% – are now believers, a 15-point jump from 2015.
Climate change is real. It's been going on for billions of years. And the sea level may be rising in some places but that too is cyclical. Everybody I know has tuned out the hysterics. It's nothing more than background noise ... like elevator music. And these polls are hilarious. What's next? New poll shows 144% of Americans believe whatever somebody in a crisp, white coat tells them to believe? Because after all, science is simply consensus, right?
Climate change is real. It's been going on for billions of years.
Bravo! However you have only cherry picked this point.
There's more to it.
Greenhouse gasses, principally CO2, have controlled most ancient climate changes. This time around humans are the cause, mainly by our CO2 emissions.
Scientific analysis of past climates shows that greenhouse gasses, principally CO2, have controlled most ancient climate changes. The evidence for that is spread throughout the geological record. This makes it clear that this time around humans are the cause, mainly by our CO2 emissions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ncguy50
And the sea level may be rising in some places but that too is cyclical.
Not totally accurate.
A variety of different measurements find steadily rising sea levels over the past century...steadily rising does not equate to cyclical.
Sea levels are measured by a variety of methods that show close agreement - sediment cores, tidal gauges, satellite measurements. What they find is sea level rise has been steadily accelerating over the past century.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ncguy50
Everybody I know has tuned out the hysterics.
The only folks acting hysterical are the deniers. They go ape crazy when presented with data and facts that fly in the face of their denial.
At least know what you're talking about before spouting off.
I most definitely not looking forward to summer this year.
The yang to the incredibly bitter cold this winter in many countries especially parts of the U.S., is going to be extreme hot temperatures.
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.
