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.
I've noticed that most of the people who believe in anthropological global warming know next to nothing about data. When you ask them why they believe in AGW they almost always just say "because 97% of scientists believe we are warming the planet". Putting aside that this 97% figure is a lie that traveled around the world (actually 2/3 of "scientists" of all kinds of different backgrounds have no opinion), saying "because scientists say so" is not data. It's a logical fallacy (fundamental attribution error).
And when you confront believers in AGW about the Vostok / Greenland ice core data they say "Huh?" Never heard of it.
Or if you ask them what they think of the Danish Meteorilogical Institute that demonstrated a direct correlation between sun spots and earth temperature, they've never heard of that either.
Or if you confront them about the short, cherry picked time period that AGW supporters use to create their "hockey stick", they have no answer. They usually just get defensive.
My evidence is every single scientist I have ever met told me global warming was real, and it would be the destruction of mammals dominating the planet. And pray tell, what science degree do you have, and what institution is that degree from?
I was merely throwing out such to see if you were hypocritical. Your problem here is that you do not understand the scientific method.
Sir, you do no even understand the difference between a hypothesis and a theory. You should not be trying the big stuff like method yet.
Quote:
I don't have to disprove CAGW, I merely need to show that it does not consistently meet its hypothesis. This is why Einstein says it only takes a single fact to prove him wrong. Remember, in the process of that experiment, your results must continually meet your explanations to that result. There can be no unexplained results, no failures, no assumptions. Your hypothesis must meet ALL tests with a pass or.. your assumption (ie your hypothesis) is wrong.
A single fact? Ok Einstein was wrong about gravitational lensing. He predicted it would be impossible to find. He was wrong. STOP THE PRESSES EVERYONE GRAVITY IS A LIE.
Einstein was also wrong about quantum coupling, he even called is "spooky action at a distance". STOP THE PRESSES EVERYONE SPECIAL RELATIVITY IS A LIE.
That is the standard you are holding climate science too. Seems a foolish standard doesn't it? Because jsut because Einstein had bits and pieces of his theories wrong, does not mean the theory itself is wrong. Once more what he was referring to a hypothesis, ACC is not a single hypothesis, it is a theory. Therefore finding one prediction in error does not negate a theory. Same with ACC.
[quote]So, does your CAGW hypothesis 100% pass every test that it is held to (if you say yes, you are lying, and also understand that you can not verify and validate a supposition, a hypothesis with yet another supposition, a model). [/quote[
It is a theory, not a hypothesis for like the 10th time. A hypothesis is a simple testable statement, theories encompass many hypotheses as they are what give it its first criteria, a body of evidence. Actual hypotheses related to the theory of ACC are things like: there is a correlation between atmospheric CO2 and global surface temperature, or the isotopic variation of the O16:18 fraction is different between CO2 from fossil fuels and vulcanic sources (it is btw) and so on. There are literally tens if not hundreds of thousands of hypotheses whose testing further supports the theory.
Quote:
What Feynman says very clearly is that if the guess (ie the hypothesis) does not match the experiment, it is wrong. That is, if your hypothesis fails ANY single test, it is wrong. Now.. does CAGW pass every test it has been measured for? NO? Then it is wrong and must be modified. This is why a model does not verify and validate a hypothesis, as a model is merely guesses, not reality. Your understanding of both Feynman's lecture and the basics of the scientific method are flawed.
Except because of your ignorance you think ACC is a hypothesis and not a theory. Feynman isn't wrong YOU ARE. His supposition is about HYPOTHESES, not theories. This is getting boring typing over and over again.
Quote:
Here is where you show the flaw in your understanding. Again, science is not horseshoes and hand grenades where "close enough" is "good enough". It doesn't matter if you have a a lot of things that seem to support your hypothesis, it only takes a single fact to invalidate it. so, CAGW is not verified and validated. It is still a hypothesis, unable to establish itself by the foundations of the scientific method.
Again, your education in the scientific method is lacking.
I think I will just cut and paste:
ACC is a theory not a hypothesis
Theories have a body of evidence supporting them; hypothesis are supported or rejected via experimentation or data collection.
Theories make predictions; a hypothesis makes a single prediction (unless you word it badly which I guess you would do)
Theories are falsifiable; hypotheses are either supported or rejected.
Theories, are things like atomic theory, gravitational theory, evolutionary theory. They are explanation of phenomena that are the summation of many, many hypothesis, including some that were rejected.
You laughably asked me to distill an entire scientific discipline I am not an expert in down to one post that YOU would be able to understand. Completely impossible. Next.
Incorrect. You claimed CO2 by man is accurately measured and specifically accounted for and established as the main contribution to CAGW.
I asked you to provide research that verifies that claim. You provided nothing, you simply mouthed off with more vulgar insults and dismissals and retreated to your tower of self proclaimed superiority.
Anyone who has even a basic understanding of this issue would not mouth off such things as it is a trap. You see, while we can measure roughly by estimation the amount man contributes, we have no idea on how it effects the system. For the love of sanity, they don't even know how clouds work, yet you go on this rant about how them simply being able to measure mans contribution is evidence of causation?
Let put this nicely. you are ignorant of the discussion, you are over your head because you think you are talking with someone who is merely like you, mouthing off talking points. you are mistaken and you realize this which is why you have turned to personal attacks and dismissals (something I said you would once pressed on the science claims).
So do us all a favor and run off to some other board, maybe SkS where the talking heads all applaud each other over their brilliance (when they aren't self imposing themselves on Nazi pictures), or maybe hop on by to 1010.org where you guys can fantasize about blowing up all the deniers into gory bits (kids included).
Fact is, you are just another activist position, pushing talking points and using Alinksy tactics.
My evidence is every single scientist I have ever met told me global warming was real, and it would be the destruction of mammals dominating the planet. And pray tell, what science degree do you have, and what institution is that degree from?
Perhaps a tad hyperbolic. In the long term it will have effects on the biodiversity of the planet but if you wanna talk about complex modeling - modeling the evolutionary impacts of the current trends over a long time frame would be astronomically complex... astronomically would probably not even be the right word for it... super-universally complex?
Incorrect. You claimed CO2 by man is accurately measured and specifically accounted for and established as the main contribution to CAGW.
I asked you to provide research that verifies that claim. You provided nothing, you simply mouthed off with more vulgar insults and dismissals and retreated to your tower of self proclaimed superiority.
Anyone who has even a basic understanding of this issue would not mouth off such things as it is a trap. You see, while we can measure roughly by estimation the amount man contributes, we have no idea on how it effects the system. For the love of sanity, they don't even know how clouds work, yet you go on this rant about how them simply being able to measure mans contribution is evidence of causation?
Let put this nicely. you are ignorant of the discussion, you are over your head because you think you are talking with someone who is merely like you, mouthing off talking points. you are mistaken and you realize this which is why you have turned to personal attacks and dismissals (something I said you would once pressed on the science claims).
So do us all a favor and run off to some other board, maybe SkS where the talking heads all applaud each other over their brilliance (when they aren't self imposing themselves on Nazi pictures), or maybe hop on by to 1010.org where you guys can fantasize about blowing up all the deniers into gory bits (kids included).
Fact is, you are just another activist position, pushing talking points and using Alinksy tactics.
O noes you hurt my fee fees. Your entire argument here is tone trolling, and for one demanding so much evidence you have provided d**k all to support your position. Oh wait no, I forgot about all the youtube videos and blogs.
Last edited by zzzSnorlax; 02-28-2017 at 01:41 PM..
I was just laughing how your argument was that there was no need for replication because scientists have already done it and then you go on to lie about your profession.
This is nonsense and deeply ignorant especially coming from someone who goes on to make cracks about degrees. Even if someone has "done it" doesn't negate the need for replication. In fact that is where replication becomes necessary. Someone pretending to know science should not be making such simple, yet fundamental mistakes.
Quote:
It is rather amusing because even a progressively indoctrinated grad of such fields wouldn't make such a mistake.
My bet is you aren't anywhere near a science discipline.
You would be wrong. My undergraduate and graduate work are in oceanography (which is an interdisciplinary science similar to climate science which you would know if you knew much about science) and ecological/evolutionary biology.
Quote:
Show us. Be sure to explain your points.
You wouldn't want to look ignorant by simply cut and pasting, you know... being the big science guy you are?
Now the above bit is laughable. Why would he need to do that? You don't.
This is nonsense and deeply ignorant especially coming from someone who goes on to make cracks about degrees. Even if someone has "done it" doesn't negate the need for replication. In fact that is where replication becomes necessary. Someone pretending to know science should not be making such simple, yet fundamental mistakes.
Eh, he was basically asking me to replicate the entire field and distill it down into one post. I was asking why I would do that when it is outside my field of expertise and even if it wasn't he would not listen to it or understand it anyway. Not claiming that it would or should never need to be replicated.
My evidence is every single scientist I have ever met told me global warming was real, and it would be the destruction of mammals dominating the planet. And pray tell, what science degree do you have, and what institution is that degree from?
I find this post to be somewhat refreshing. The reality is most of us do not have enough knowledge base to form our own evidence based and meaningful opinions on many topics. I have a decent understanding of engineering and physics due to the nature of working on research vessel for much of my career, and yet when I needed the electrical and plumbing redone on my home, I contracted an expert. Same with medical issues, I will read up, get second opinions but ultimately I acknowledge a doctor knows more medicine than I do. Yet some how with climate science everyone who has read a blog thinks they know as much as the experts. Note I am not a climate scientist, or climate expert, I just work in a closely related field and would consider myself well versed, just not an expert.
But the deniers are so invested emotionally in climate science being wrong, usually due to some sort of issues with their careers or world view (many of them work in the energy industry) that the paint themselves as experts and denigrate the work of people who literally spent their entire lives learning about complex and narrow aspects of a much larger field.
And as of yet, NONE of them have been able to rule out any other cause.
FAIL.
Curious how desperate you feel the need to convert everyone to your way of thinking on the issue, personally i am not a climatologist and can offer no valid data to disprove what the scientists who study the weather are telling us,you on the other hand for some reason are claiming the scientists are all lying for financial reasons. So now we have each others viewpoints on the issue. So what.
Articles like this https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...limate-change/carry more weight in my way of thinking than anti GW people who have done no study on the issue but are just following some odd RW agenda.
Curious how desperate you feel the need to convert everyone to your way of thinking on the issue, personally i am not a climatologist and can offer no valid data to disprove what the scientists who study the weather are telling us,you on the other hand for some reason are claiming the scientists are all lying for financial reasons. So now we have each others viewpoints on the issue. So what.
Curious indeed this desperate imperative of all these non-scientists to smear and discredit the actual scientists working in the relevant fields. Almost as if THEY were the ones pushing an agenda...
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 what.
