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.
It’s a common (and dirty) tactic to label one’s opponent in debate. Calling someone a “science denier” or “pro-abortion” or “anti-choice” or “anti-vaxxer” or “gun-nut” “quack” “conspiracy theorist”,etc. all serve one purpose and this is to label and shut them, cast doubt in people’s minds and shut them down before they can even get started.
Science has become a religion rather then a field of study and people refuse to dig deeper or even understand the fact that people influence scientific research, money influences scientific research, politics influences scientific research. Whenever anyone claims, “science is settled” I cringe. But then again, it’s an effective tool that people use to win debates. Some people care more about winning then understanding. It’s frustrating for sure.
Agreed.
Were it not for the corrupting influence of money and political dogma, much more could be learned about the Earth and the impact man has had on it since we started introducing chemicals into the environment.
With respect to sea level rise, estimates are largely based on the future emissions concentration pathways that we would need a crystal ball to foresee. Hence the estimates are dependent on those future decisions society makes. And those decisions matter a very great deal to future SLR by 2100.
For reference, climate scientists are currently following RCP 6.0 pathways, so I would look at the Intermediate-High set of values.
Again- another "model". These "models" have been shown to be grossly inaccurate.
Valid science is not based on "models". It is based on actual observations in the real world and in controlled experimental conditions.
We live on earth, not in a model. The problem with AGW with respect to the real world is this:
1. too short of observational period
2. multiple different instruments used to measure temps
3. multiple different locations for temp measurement without single observational positions used for long periods of time
4. Invalid statistics- "averaging" data measurements which are imprecise is invalid
5. Invalid statistics- multiple comparisons with multiple paired "t-tests"
6. Lack of validation with the fossil record
7. Absence of accounting for other factors than CO2
In AGW, valid science has been thrown out the window, due to AGW becoming more of a political issue than a scientific issue. Any rational person would simply want this hypothesis evaluated by legitimate scientific principles. Yet this has not been done and hysteria rules.
Again- another "model". These "models" have been shown to be grossly inaccurate.
Valid science is not based on "models". It is based on actual observations in the real world and in controlled experimental conditions.
We live on earth, not in a model. The problem with AGW with respect to the real world is this:
1. too short of observational period
2. multiple different instruments used to measure temps
3. multiple different locations for temp measurement without single observational positions used for long periods of time
4. Invalid statistics- "averaging" data measurements which are imprecise is invalid
5. Invalid statistics- multiple comparisons with multiple paired "t-tests"
6. Lack of validation with the fossil record
7. Absence of accounting for other factors than CO2
In AGW, valid science has been thrown out the window, due to AGW becoming more of a political issue than a scientific issue. Any rational person would simply want this hypothesis evaluated by legitimate scientific principles. Yet this has not been done and hysteria rules.
That is a journalist's impression of how they perceive the scientific method has been used to study AGW! So yes- AGW defies valid use of the scientific method. In fact, it is the antithesis of the scientific method and reverts science back to medieval times.
1. In AGW, instead of relying upon observations, "modeling" is used extensively. That is no where in the scientific method.
2. There is nothing stated about "disproving the null hypothesis" which is the cornerstone of the scientific method.
3. In "making observations"
a. there needs to be a long enough "n" or time scale- modern AGW uses a very brief period of time
b. the "observations" use four markedly different temperature measurements, all with widely different levels of accuracy
c. "observations" should occur over time in the same place on earth. This has not happened with AGW. Prior to satellites, one could not easily access many areas of the ocean or poles. There have only been consistent locales of temp measurement, during which time there has been no change.
4. Correlation does not = causation
5. Results: one must use valid statistical analysis, which appears to have eluded many of the AGW claims, which have marked statistical errors which, if conducted properly, would eliminate the perception of "warming.
6. Conclusions: conclusions must be within the scope of being determined from the data obtained. AGW makes presumptions that far exceed the results and data obtained.
Science proves that sea levels rise during every Inter-Glacial Period by 3 meters to 10 meters, even when CO2 levels range from 260 ppm CO2 to 280 ppm CO2.
Prove to us with absolute certainty that reducing CO2 levels back to the 260-280 ppm range will not result in rising sea levels.
If AGW is a science, you should be able to do that.
Science proves that sea levels rise during every Inter-Glacial Period by 3 meters to 10 meters, even when CO2 levels range from 260 ppm CO2 to 280 ppm CO2.
Prove to us with absolute certainty that reducing CO2 levels back to the 260-280 ppm range will not result in rising sea levels.
If AGW is a science, you should be able to do that.
Again- another "model". These "models" have been shown to be grossly inaccurate.
While there are uncertainties with climate models, they successfully reproduce the past and have made predictions that have been subsequently confirmed by observations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
Valid science is not based on "models". It is based on actual observations in the real world and in controlled experimental conditions.
If having to resort to straw-man arguments is what you consider a valid way to debate a topic you had better rethink your strategy.
Models don't need to be exact in every respect to give us an accurate overall trend and its major effects - and we have that now. If you knew there were a 90% chance you'd be in a car crash, you wouldn't get in the car (or at the very least, you'd wear a seat-belt). The IPCC concludes, with a greater than 90% probability, that humans are causing global warming. To wait for 100% certainty before acting is recklessly irresponsible.
They can call me a "denier" a "flat earther" a "skeptic" or anything they want. I know the claims by the CAGW/CACC alarmist crown is a SCAM and a FRAUD... but I'm not the one they will be judged by. That will be Dr. William Happer and his Climate Science Committee that President Trump is forming. Dr. Happer and his committee will take these folks to task.
While there are uncertainties with climate models, they successfully reproduce the past and have made predictions that have been subsequently confirmed by observations.
If having to resort to straw-man arguments is what you consider a valid way to debate a topic you had better rethink your strategy.
Models don't need to be exact in every respect to give us an accurate overall trend and its major effects - and we have that now. If you knew there were a 90% chance you'd be in a car crash, you wouldn't get in the car (or at the very least, you'd wear a seat-belt). The IPCC concludes, with a greater than 90% probability, that humans are causing global warming. To wait for 100% certainty before acting is recklessly irresponsible.
The AGW models have markedly over-estimated changes in temps and have been grossly wrong in sea level predictions.
We must rely upon actual data observed over an appropriate time period in order to make logical and accurate conclusions.
That is all that any "skeptic" (like myself) is asking- that the principles of valid science that are applied to every hypothesis be applied to AGW and that valid statistical analysis of data be used. Presenting data which refutes the hypothesis is not a "straw man argument". Again, it is incumbent upon those presenting the hypothesis to disprove the null hypothesis- that there are not other factors contributing to "climate change". That is not a "straw man argument", it is what is demanded by the scientific method.
There are too many other natural phenomenon not CO2 related that are far greater influences on temps-
1. decline in earth's magnetic field
2. solar activity
3. wobble in the orbit of the earth around the sun
4. water vapor
CO2 is a greenhouse gas- no one is denying that. However, it has a minor role on temps, which has been proven through the fossil record. For those earnestly presenting a scientific hypothesis, skepticism and questioning should be welcome, as in rational science, one is indifferent to the outcome of the study.
AGW has a very vested interest in the outcome of their research and predictions. Given this, they are being academically dishonest and violating the personal dissociation that is required for conducting proper research. There is no place for evangelists in rational science.
Last edited by hawkeye2009; 04-17-2019 at 06:26 AM..
While there are uncertainties with climate models, they successfully reproduce the past and have made predictions that have been subsequently confirmed by observations.
If having to resort to straw-man arguments is what you consider a valid way to debate a topic you had better rethink your strategy.
Models don't need to be exact in every respect to give us an accurate overall trend and its major effects - and we have that now. If you knew there were a 90% chance you'd be in a car crash, you wouldn't get in the car (or at the very least, you'd wear a seat-belt). The IPCC concludes, with a greater than 90% probability, that humans are causing global warming. To wait for 100% certainty before acting is recklessly irresponsible.
Don't forget to pray, GIGO forever, inshalgore.
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.
So yes- AGW defies valid use of the scientific method. In fact, it is the antithesis of the scientific method and reverts science back to medieval times. 
