Where's an Environmentalist when you need one

[Otern]

...we know we've been putting a lot of CO2 in the atmosphere the last 200 years, and we know this does have an effect of global temperatures.

I'll ask again--HOW do we know?

The science behind greenhouse gases is pretty sound. Or do you deny that too?

[Speaker to Animals]

Science fundamentally deals in conjecture and refutation. You make a conjecture (model) of the world which should make lots of risky predictions. Those predictions are falsifiable through experimentation. The predictions of your model become a hypothesis in a scientific experiment. You cannot typically test a model or conjecture in an experiment but, rather, you test the predictions made by that model.

For instance, general relativity posited that starlight should actually bend around the Sun's gravity well. The hypothesis was that a certain star, at a certain time before it was occluded by the Sun, would change it's apparent position in a specific way due to the effect of it's light curving into the Sun's gravity well. Telescopes were trained on that star and, sure enough, the hypothesis was validated. You can't really prove a model in the ultimate sense either. You can only falsify it.

The theory of human caused climate change has become something of a pseudo-science in that literally everything becomes confirmation. It just depends upon how you interpret the data. For instance, you'd think the model should predict warmer climate, but you'd be wrong, hence why they changed the name from "global warming" to "climate change". So now a particularly cold year becomes evidence of climate change no differently than a particularly hot year. It's become a kind of religious thinking.

The theory behind climate change really does none of this. The only way they can "experiment" here is by building computer models, which brings into the mix a long list of problems. Those problems are similar to what we deal with cognitive science when we create cognitive models. It's easy to fit models to what you want to show, but that doesn't necessarily mean that which is being modeled actually works that way.

When we are dealing with something that cannot be falsified, we have entered the territory of religion. Sorry. But that's what this is. It might be true that humans are causing global warming, but the current theory, as it stands, is not legitimate science -- else they wouldn't need to constantly doctor the data, lie, and hide information from the public. It's really a fucking dumpster fire at this point.

[Alexander PhiAlipson]

...we know we've been putting a lot of CO2 in the atmosphere the last 200 years, and we know this does have an effect of global temperatures.

I'll ask again--HOW do we know?

The science behind greenhouse gases is pretty sound. Or do you deny that too?

I've denied nothing, but it's nice to see that you've gone from "we know" to "the science is pretty sound."

[Otern]

Science fundamentally deals in conjecture and refutation. You make a conjecture (model) of the world which should make lots of risky predictions. Those predictions are falsifiable through experimentation. The predictions of your model become a hypothesis in a scientific experiment. You cannot typically test a model or conjecture in an experiment but, rather, you test the predictions made by that model.

For instance, general relativity posited that starlight should actually bend around the Sun's gravity well. The hypothesis was that a certain star, at a certain time before it was occluded by the Sun, would change it's apparent position in a specific way due to the effect of it's light curving into the Sun's gravity well. Telescopes were trained on that star and, sure enough, the hypothesis was validated. You can't really prove a model in the ultimate sense either. You can only falsify it.

The theory of human caused climate change has become something of a pseudo-science in that literally everything becomes confirmation. It just depends upon how you interpret the data. For instance, you'd think the model should predict warmer climate, but you'd be wrong, hence why they changed the name from "global warming" to "climate change". So now a particularly cold year becomes evidence of climate change no differently than a particularly hot year. It's become a kind of religious thinking.

The theory behind climate change really does none of this. The only way they can "experiment" here is by building computer models, which brings into the mix a long list of problems. Those problems are similar to what we deal with cognitive science when we create cognitive models. It's easy to fit models to what you want to show, but that doesn't necessarily mean that which is being modeled actually works that way.

Anyone using a specific year for proof any one way or another is usually full of shit. Of course some years will be colder, and some hotter, than the average. Can't really be used to prove, or disprove climate change.

But if, in a hundred years, we're still pretty much the same as now, we can say the whole climate change deal was a hoax.

This is why I really dislike whenever there's some natural disaster, some hippie goes on screen, saying it's due to man. It really makes the proper science less credible, even though the proper scientists would never say "Hurricane Katrina was caused by climate change" or something like that.

[Otern]

I'll ask again--HOW do we know?

The science behind greenhouse gases is pretty sound. Or do you deny that too?

I've denied nothing, but it's nice to see that you've gone from "we know" to "the science is pretty sound."

The theory of gravitation is also pretty sound. We know if we drop something, it'll fall to the ground.

[Speaker to Animals]

Science fundamentally deals in conjecture and refutation. You make a conjecture (model) of the world which should make lots of risky predictions. Those predictions are falsifiable through experimentation. The predictions of your model become a hypothesis in a scientific experiment. You cannot typically test a model or conjecture in an experiment but, rather, you test the predictions made by that model.

For instance, general relativity posited that starlight should actually bend around the Sun's gravity well. The hypothesis was that a certain star, at a certain time before it was occluded by the Sun, would change it's apparent position in a specific way due to the effect of it's light curving into the Sun's gravity well. Telescopes were trained on that star and, sure enough, the hypothesis was validated. You can't really prove a model in the ultimate sense either. You can only falsify it.

The theory of human caused climate change has become something of a pseudo-science in that literally everything becomes confirmation. It just depends upon how you interpret the data. For instance, you'd think the model should predict warmer climate, but you'd be wrong, hence why they changed the name from "global warming" to "climate change". So now a particularly cold year becomes evidence of climate change no differently than a particularly hot year. It's become a kind of religious thinking.

The theory behind climate change really does none of this. The only way they can "experiment" here is by building computer models, which brings into the mix a long list of problems. Those problems are similar to what we deal with cognitive science when we create cognitive models. It's easy to fit models to what you want to show, but that doesn't necessarily mean that which is being modeled actually works that way.

Anyone using a specific year for proof any one way or another is usually full of shit. Of course some years will be colder, and some hotter, than the average. Can't really be used to prove, or disprove climate change.

But if, in a hundred years, we're still pretty much the same as now, we can say the whole climate change deal was a hoax.

This is why I really dislike whenever there's some natural disaster, some hippie goes on screen, saying it's due to man. It really makes the proper science less credible, even though the proper scientists would never say "Hurricane Katrina was caused by climate change" or something like that.

It's not just any specific year. Literally EVERYTHING is used as proof of climate change. It doesn't matter if the temperature goes up or down, or if the longterm trend is up, down, or sideways.

And when they can't really even do that with a straight face, they have been caught repeatedly doctoring the data and trying to hide the truth from the public.

I don't think they do this because they want to defraud people. I think they are true believers who feel the ends justify the means. We are talking about religion now.

[Alexander PhiAlipson]

The theory of gravitation is also pretty sound. We know if we drop something, it'll fall to the ground.

Does that happen when we "drop" CO2?
Does that happen when we "drop" balloons filled with helium?
Why doesn't the Moon "drop" to the ground--what's holding it up?

But forget all that; just answer this one question: why do dead fish float?

[C-Mag]

As far as the dumpster fire that has become of climate science, I'd suggest that if you create a theory that is always confirmed, not matter what happens, then perhaps that's not legitimate science.

So, I'll ask you the same question. No AGW adherents will answer this question.

Based on Science, would you categorize AGW as a
A. Speculation
B. Observation
C. Hypothesis
D. Theory
E. Scientific Law

Please pick the best answer.
(you will not be given credit if pencil marks stray outside the lines)

That question doesn't make any sense.

Yes, it does.
Scientists have made a correlation that Human activity is causing unnatural warming of the earth. Said scientists claim it is proven science. Standard procedure is to use the scientific method. If it's proven science, is it a proven scientific law, a proven theory or a proven hypothesis.

An accurate answer to this question will indicate how serious people should take the research and honestly assess where the research has gotten us so far.

[C-Mag]

The science behind greenhouse gases is pretty sound. Or do you deny that too?

I've denied nothing, but it's nice to see that you've gone from "we know" to "the science is pretty sound."

The theory of gravitation is also pretty sound. We know if we drop something, it'll fall to the ground.

Unless your existing in the 17th C. it's a Scientific Law, not a Theory, specifically Newtons Law of Universal Gravitation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_ ... ravitation

[Speaker to Animals]

You are confusing words.