Page 80 of 135 FirstFirst ... 3070787980818290130 ... LastLast
Results 791 to 800 of 1347

Thread: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global [W:478]

  1. #791
    Assassin
    Verax's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    9,524

    Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global warm

    Quote Originally Posted by code1211 View Post
    Wow! Not a single fact to support anything you say, but cock sure of your assertions. Good for you!

    Have you come up with even one science organization that has elevated this notion to being a Scientific Theory? If not, then the scientific community with which you claim affinity has not given the kind of support to this notion that you imply they hold.

    Have you produced even one accurate 30 year old prediction of the temperature?

    It is you who are crowing that science supports the assertions of AGW. At some point, there must be evidence in the real world that the assertion is more than just a dream.

    I doubt with good cause. You believe with very little cause.
    You blew right past my suggestion to get a book on integrated science or at least read Wikipedia or something! You don't understand the difference between a hypothesis and a theory. The theory of climate change is a large, encompassing, well tested, explanation.

    A hypothesis on the other hand is generally much more specific. You would say something like "I hypothesize eating 1750 more calories a day than my usual 2500 will cause me to gain half a pound of body fat a day". You would then perform a carefully controlled experiment where you eat the extra calories then test the effects, your weight, bodyfat scale, caliper measurements, etc over a range of time long enough to give enough accuracy to your unit measurements (weight, bodyfat %). If the results of your experiments, the data, seemed to corroborate your hypothesis you could conclude your hypothesis was correct. Now that doesn't necessarily mean your hypothesis is correct, just that it wasn't proven false.

    For something large and complex like climate change, you cannot setup a lab where you test an Earth and play with the variables. You cannot adjust the independent variable Co2, then look at the dependent variable temperature, account for the controlled variables (thousands of different things going on), then say ok look at the results it shows a clear increase in temperature directly proportionate to Co2 increase while all other variables have remained absolutely static.

    For earth sciences we often have to use models. So what we really have is the "climate change model" which is a variation on climate change theory. The precise terminology doesn't really matter. "Elevating" climate change to a "theory" or "model" doesn't really mean anything. Its not like scientists have some party where they smack a bell with a hammer and declare climate change a theory that cannot be refuted or some such nonsense. A theory is just the best explanation for a well tested, well observed phenomenon. It doesn't mean its right, just that its a battle tested explanation that is probably right.

    Another problem with what you are doing is you are cherry picking. You are taking tidbits of knowledge and saying look! look! its not perfect! It seems to suggest something else! Look! That tidbit may in fact suggest another explanation, however its just 1 tidbit of 100 and the other 99 support the opposite... So you see just focusing on small parts of the argument and drawing massive conclusions (the WHOLE thing is a fraud, incorrect), is really silly. You have to look at the entire picture and judge it as a cohesive whole. That is where the climate change model's strength lies. There is a lot of data, observations, explanations, individual hypothesis that support the theory. That is what the scientific method is all about... You build a solid brick wall of well tested, credible science and over time you trust it more and more, it becomes stronger and less likely to be wrong. When something new comes along that seems to suggest otherwise, you don't just pounce and say forget it! forget that whole brick wall of science, lets blow it all down and say its all wrong because this ONE piece of evidence doesn't seem to fit!

    If you give it time and careful consideration you will find the science sorts itself out and the new information will be scrubbed and fit into the wall one way or another.

  2. #792
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 07:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    17,589

    Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global warm

    Quote Originally Posted by Verax View Post
    You blew right past my suggestion to get a book on integrated science or at least read Wikipedia or something! You don't understand the difference between a hypothesis and a theory. The theory of climate change is a large, encompassing, well tested, explanation.

    A hypothesis on the other hand is generally much more specific. You would say something like "I hypothesize eating 1750 more calories a day than my usual 2500 will cause me to gain half a pound of body fat a day". You would then perform a carefully controlled experiment where you eat the extra calories then test the effects, your weight, bodyfat scale, caliper measurements, etc over a range of time long enough to give enough accuracy to your unit measurements (weight, bodyfat %). If the results of your experiments, the data, seemed to corroborate your hypothesis you could conclude your hypothesis was correct. Now that doesn't necessarily mean your hypothesis is correct, just that it wasn't proven false.

    For something large and complex like climate change, you cannot setup a lab where you test an Earth and play with the variables. You cannot adjust the independent variable Co2, then look at the dependent variable temperature, account for the controlled variables (thousands of different things going on), then say ok look at the results it shows a clear increase in temperature directly proportionate to Co2 increase while all other variables have remained absolutely static.

    For earth sciences we often have to use models. So what we really have is the "climate change model" which is a variation on climate change theory. The precise terminology doesn't really matter. "Elevating" climate change to a "theory" or "model" doesn't really mean anything. Its not like scientists have some party where they smack a bell with a hammer and declare climate change a theory that cannot be refuted or some such nonsense. A theory is just the best explanation for a well tested, well observed phenomenon. It doesn't mean its right, just that its a battle tested explanation that is probably right.

    Another problem with what you are doing is you are cherry picking. You are taking tidbits of knowledge and saying look! look! its not perfect! It seems to suggest something else! Look! That tidbit may in fact suggest another explanation, however its just 1 tidbit of 100 and the other 99 support the opposite... So you see just focusing on small parts of the argument and drawing massive conclusions (the WHOLE thing is a fraud, incorrect), is really silly. You have to look at the entire picture and judge it as a cohesive whole. That is where the climate change model's strength lies. There is a lot of data, observations, explanations, individual hypothesis that support the theory. That is what the scientific method is all about... You build a solid brick wall of well tested, credible science and over time you trust it more and more, it becomes stronger and less likely to be wrong. When something new comes along that seems to suggest otherwise, you don't just pounce and say forget it! forget that whole brick wall of science, lets blow it all down and say its all wrong because this ONE piece of evidence doesn't seem to fit!

    If you give it time and careful consideration you will find the science sorts itself out and the new information will be scrubbed and fit into the wall one way or another.


    You are saying that a Scientific Model is the same thing as a Scientific Theory? You will need to alert the entire Science Community of this. You have a scoop.

    Are you saying that Anthropogenic Global warming Science is more complex than the Theory of Evolution? Again, you have a scoop.

    A Scientific Hypothesis is not just some guy who says, "Gee, I wonder it this thing over here is something to look at." It has a real live set of parameters and key among these the the method by which it may be falsified. There is no such method for the notion of AGW. I have linked to the form provided by Duke University so you can review the rigors to which a real scientist must go to create a hypothesis. As I said, key among these is the precise method that can be used to falsify the hypothesis.

    There is no hypothesis for this empty group of notions, there is certainly no theory for it and there is no method provided by the proponents to falsify the results. The entire notion is empty. There has been more than 100 years to prove that this is an actual Scientific Theory. The Cubs will win a World Series before this wins the classification of being a Scientific Theory and, no, a model is not a theory in the world of science.



    http://biology.duke.edu/rausher/HYPOTHES.pdf
    <snip>
    HYPOTHESIS DESCRIPTION FORM
    1. Describe phenomenon to be explained.
    2. Describe process(es) that you hypothesize to cause the phenomenon and describe how they do so.
    3. Are there relevant observations/phenomena your hypothesis does not account for? If so, what are they?
    4. Are there known facts that are inconsistent with your hypothesis? If so, what are they?
    5. Describe what experimental results or observations could falsify your hypothesis.
    <snip>
    I am not of the mind that a man is either of science or of religion. At his best and his worst, man exists in the misty glimmering where the falling angel meets the rising ape. That he chooses a direction from that point defines him as human.

  3. #793
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global warm

    Quote Originally Posted by code1211 View Post
    Okay, you may not know what a Straw Man argument is. It is a deceitful diversion from the actual topic.

    For you reference:

    Logical Fallacy: Straw Man
    I'm. Nit diverting. A strawman is beating up something easier. A red herring is more diverting to something more agreeable. I told you, j, and others I picked an easier more understandable place to start, and that we could build from there, which is addressing the topic. Now, if you and they lack the courage or ability to tackle this, don't. I understand. But, we effect. The water, the ground, he air, all of this is the environment. Each place a role in our lives on this planet. There is no logical reason to believe that you can effect everything but the planet warming, especially scientist point to how we do just that.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  4. #794
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global warm

    Quote Originally Posted by code1211 View Post
    The argument of AGW is: CO2 increased in the ecosystem due to the activities of man. As a result of this increase, warming occurred. By reducing the amount of CO2 emitted by the activities of Man, the warming will end.

    The assertion is that man can control and direct the climate of the planet.

    That is what we are talking about.

    You are trying to create a diversion by attacking a straw man.
    That's actually not true. You guys don't even Know the arguments. The argument is we can stop our contribution, thus slowing it down closer to a more natural cycle. It's hard to debate people who don't even know what they are debating.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  5. #795
    Sage
    Lord of Planar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Portlandia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,274

    Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global warm

    Quote Originally Posted by Verax View Post
    For something large and complex like climate change, you cannot setup a lab where you test an Earth and play with the variables. You cannot adjust the independent variable Co2, then look at the dependent variable temperature, account for the controlled variables (thousands of different things going on), then say ok look at the results it shows a clear increase in temperature directly proportionate to Co2 increase while all other variables have remained absolutely static.
    This is why it cannot elevate to a theory.

  6. #796
    Quantum sufficit

    Threegoofs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    The birthplace of Italian Beef
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    26,626

    Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global [W

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord of Planar View Post
    This is why it cannot elevate to a theory.
    I guess the same goes for Evolution then.

    Or maybe you're wrong.

    Hard to say which. You seem so confident.
    Many Trump supporters have lots of problems, and those deplorables are bringing those problems to us. They’re racists. They’re misogynists. They’re islamophobic. They're xenophobes and homophobes. And some, I assume, are good people.

  7. #797
    Sage
    Lord of Planar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Portlandia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,274

    Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global [W

    Quote Originally Posted by Threegoofs View Post
    I guess the same goes for Evolution then.

    Or maybe you're wrong.

    Hard to say which. You seem so confident.
    In genetics, we have seen changes that are experimentally repeatable. To become a theory, it is required for testing to be repeatable. Now I disagree that evolution should be called a theory, but I accept that it is. Time and time again, there is not counter evidence to the ideas proposed. In the case of the complexities of anthropogenic global warming, the atmospheric mix cannot be properly simulated in a laboratory to do repeated testing on. It can only be modeled, and there are legitimate papers that have radiative forcing values for CO2 that decrease warming in some studies. It is not repeatable when values are all over the place.

  8. #798
    Assassin
    Verax's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    9,524

    Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global warm

    Quote Originally Posted by code1211 View Post
    You are saying that a Scientific Model is the same thing as a Scientific Theory? You will need to alert the entire Science Community of this. You have a scoop.

    Are you saying that Anthropogenic Global warming Science is more complex than the Theory of Evolution? Again, you have a scoop.

    A Scientific Hypothesis is not just some guy who says, "Gee, I wonder it this thing over here is something to look at." It has a real live set of parameters and key among these the the method by which it may be falsified. There is no such method for the notion of AGW. I have linked to the form provided by Duke University so you can review the rigors to which a real scientist must go to create a hypothesis. As I said, key among these is the precise method that can be used to falsify the hypothesis.

    There is no hypothesis for this empty group of notions, there is certainly no theory for it and there is no method provided by the proponents to falsify the results. The entire notion is empty. There has been more than 100 years to prove that this is an actual Scientific Theory. The Cubs will win a World Series before this wins the classification of being a Scientific Theory and, no, a model is not a theory in the world of science.



    http://biology.duke.edu/rausher/HYPOTHES.pdf
    <snip>
    HYPOTHESIS DESCRIPTION FORM
    1. Describe phenomenon to be explained.
    2. Describe process(es) that you hypothesize to cause the phenomenon and describe how they do so.
    3. Are there relevant observations/phenomena your hypothesis does not account for? If so, what are they?
    4. Are there known facts that are inconsistent with your hypothesis? If so, what are they?
    5. Describe what experimental results or observations could falsify your hypothesis.
    <snip>
    Again, you need to read, you don't understand what you're talking about.

    Scientific theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    What does the complexity of AGW have to do with evolution? What on earth are you even talking about?

    Then you imply it is not a theory, nor even a hypothesis? What on earth are you talking about? It wouldn't be a hypothesis anyway as it contains many, many different factors from many different disciplines of science. It encompasses many individual hypotheses. It is a large unifying body of evidence. Again I don't think you have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

  9. #799
    Assassin
    Verax's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    9,524

    Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global warm

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord of Planar View Post
    This is why it cannot elevate to a theory.
    No, that is why it can't be a hypothesis. I'm really puzzled here, how can somebody who claims to know so much about science not even understand the most basic aspects of the scientific method? Climate change is a large term given to thousands of individual pieces of information, data, experiments, hypotheses, etc. As I responded to code it is a unifying theory the encompasses many different fields of science. It consists of many individual hypotheses. It itself is not a hypothesis... That is why we use models. You don't seem to understand the more complicated aspects of this. I thought I explained it quite simply but I guess you don't get it.

  10. #800
    Quantum sufficit

    Threegoofs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    The birthplace of Italian Beef
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    26,626

    Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global [W

    Quote Originally Posted by Verax View Post
    I'm really puzzled here, how can somebody who claims to know so much about science not even understand the most basic aspects of the scientific method?
    I have a theory about this.

    It's complicated, involves quite a bit of self delusion, arrogance, paranoia, and a dash of troll. But I digress...
    Many Trump supporters have lots of problems, and those deplorables are bringing those problems to us. They’re racists. They’re misogynists. They’re islamophobic. They're xenophobes and homophobes. And some, I assume, are good people.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •