AGW Question

[SSDD]

So a few anonymous posters on a message board versus NASA? Tough choice there.

I can't help but note that none of those supposed mountains of actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical data supporting the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis has been posted....if the data actually existed, there wouldn't be a place on earth where a skeptic could go without seeing it....

If there is real data, then surely you can find some of it....some real measured data supporting the idea that man is altering the global climate. Don't you find it disturbing in the least that an agency such as NASA is making claims and at the same time, you can't find even one shred of actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical data to support those claims?....Ever wonder why your defense of the topic always amounts to logical fallacy after logical fallacy and never involves slapping skeptics down with overwhelming mountains of data?...do you ever wonder anything or is just buying what you are told to buy without regard to the absolute absence of evidence as good as you can do?

If an agency makes claims about the natural world and can't produce observed, measured, quantified data from the natural world to support those claims, then anyone who believes the agency...no matter who the agency is is just plain stupid.

 

[SSDD]

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Evidence


Earth is Cooling…No It’s Warming
Earth's Temperature Tracker : Feature Articles

Still nothing....not the first shred of actual evidence in support of the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis. How surprising is that?.....Not.

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

The Data and the Details

Earth's Temperature Tracker : Feature Articles

It's simply amazing what some people will choose to ignore, in order to convince themselves that they are right.

 

[SSDD]

The Data and the Details

Earth's Temperature Tracker : Feature Articles

It's simply amazing what some people will choose to ignore, in order to convince themselves that they are right.

What's more amazing is what some people accept as actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence in an attempt to make themselves feel right....I read your article and don't see anything that looks like it might be actual evidence in support of the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis....

How about you cut and paste anything in your article that you believe rises to actual evidence supporting the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis....

My bet is that you won't because A) you know full well that there is nothing there or B) because you know how stupid you would look if you actually showed us what passes for actual evidence in your mind.

 

[jc456]

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Evidence


Earth is Cooling…No It’s Warming
Earth's Temperature Tracker : Feature Articles

so curious where you think in either article shows where any warming is due to humans and whether there was any warming. Do you all even read these articles you post up? Still no observed information. Feel free to copy and paste the info from either of these that is observed. I don't know, it's funny you mock me and the others in here and yet you can't post up one observed piece of data that supports your warming bull. Again, feel free to show me I'm wrong, but I didn't see any observed data. In the hansen one, he even admits his anomalies are done because of limited coverage and I'm sorry, that doesn't cover the globe so calling something global when it isn't is disingenuous.

 

[jc456]

The Data and the Details

Earth's Temperature Tracker : Feature Articles

It's simply amazing what some people will choose to ignore, in order to convince themselves that they are right.

What's more amazing is what some people accept as actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence in an attempt to make themselves feel right....I read your article and don't see anything that looks like it might be actual evidence in support of the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis....

How about you cut and paste anything in your article that you believe rises to actual evidence supporting the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis....

My bet is that you won't because A) you know full well that there is nothing there or B) because you know how stupid you would look if you actually showed us what passes for actual evidence in your mind.

I see he took down one of his links. How fking funny is that? Dude, it is amazing the actions by these dupes.

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

Science. one word: science

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Science. one word: science

Science, you mean like lab work and experiments?

 

[jc456]

Science. one word: science

Science, you mean like lab work and experiments?

nope, consensus, the, I said so therefore it is science, no work just words.

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

May 29, 1919: A Major Eclipse, Relatively Speaking

1919: During a total solar eclipse, Sir Arthur Eddington performs the first experimental test of Albert Einstein’s general theory of relativity.

The findings made Einstein a celebrity overnight, and precipitated the eventual triumph of general relativity over classical Newtonian physics.​

Poor, poor Frank. Ignore the evidence: Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Evidence

IV. Hypotheses, Models, Theories and Laws
In physics and other science disciplines, the words "hypothesis," "model," "theory" and "law" have different connotations in relation to the stage of acceptance or knowledge about a group of phenomena.

An hypothesis is a limited statement regarding cause and effect in specific situations; it also refers to our state of knowledge before experimental work has been performed and perhaps even before new phenomena have been predicted. To take an example from daily life, suppose you discover that your car will not start. You may say, "My car does not start because the battery is low." This is your first hypothesis. You may then check whether the lights were left on, or if the engine makes a particular sound when you turn the ignition key. You might actually check the voltage across the terminals of the battery. If you discover that the battery is not low, you might attempt another hypothesis ("The starter is broken"; "This is really not my car.")

The word model is reserved for situations when it is known that the hypothesis has at least limited validity. A often-cited example of this is the Bohr model of the atom, in which, in an analogy to the solar system, the electrons are described has moving in circular orbits around the nucleus. This is not an accurate depiction of what an atom "looks like," but the model succeeds in mathematically representing the energies (but not the correct angular momenta) of the quantum states of the electron in the simplest case, the hydrogen atom. Another example is Hook's Law (which should be called Hook's principle, or Hook's model), which states that the force exerted by a mass attached to a spring is proportional to the amount the spring is stretched. We know that this principle is only valid for small amounts of stretching. The "law" fails when the spring is stretched beyond its elastic limit (it can break). This principle, however, leads to the prediction of simple harmonic motion, and, as a model of the behavior of a spring, has been versatile in an extremely broad range of applications.

A scientific theory or law represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests. Theories in physics are often formulated in terms of a few concepts and equations, which are identified with "laws of nature," suggesting their universal applicability. Accepted scientific theories and laws become part of our understanding of the universe and the basis for exploring less well-understood areas of knowledge. Theories are not easily discarded; new discoveries are first assumed to fit into the existing theoretical framework. It is only when, after repeated experimental tests, the new phenomenon cannot be accommodated that scientists seriously question the theory and attempt to modify it. The validity that we attach to scientific theories as representing realities of the physical world is to be contrasted with the facile invalidation implied by the expression, "It's only a theory." For example, it is unlikely that a person will step off a tall building on the assumption that they will not fall, because "Gravity is only a theory."

Changes in scientific thought and theories occur, of course, sometimes revolutionizing our view of the world (Kuhn, 1962). Again, the key force for change is the scientific method, and its emphasis on experiment.

Introduction to the Scientific Method​

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

Science. one word: science

Science, you mean like lab work and experiments?

nope, consensus, the, I said so therefore it is science, no work just words.

There is a consensus on the science. Pretty simple.

 

[jc456]

May 29, 1919: A Major Eclipse, Relatively Speaking

1919: During a total solar eclipse, Sir Arthur Eddington performs the first experimental test of Albert Einstein’s general theory of relativity.

The findings made Einstein a celebrity overnight, and precipitated the eventual triumph of general relativity over classical Newtonian physics.​

Poor, poor Frank. Ignore the evidence: Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Evidence

IV. Hypotheses, Models, Theories and Laws
In physics and other science disciplines, the words "hypothesis," "model," "theory" and "law" have different connotations in relation to the stage of acceptance or knowledge about a group of phenomena.

An hypothesis is a limited statement regarding cause and effect in specific situations; it also refers to our state of knowledge before experimental work has been performed and perhaps even before new phenomena have been predicted. To take an example from daily life, suppose you discover that your car will not start. You may say, "My car does not start because the battery is low." This is your first hypothesis. You may then check whether the lights were left on, or if the engine makes a particular sound when you turn the ignition key. You might actually check the voltage across the terminals of the battery. If you discover that the battery is not low, you might attempt another hypothesis ("The starter is broken"; "This is really not my car.")

The word model is reserved for situations when it is known that the hypothesis has at least limited validity. A often-cited example of this is the Bohr model of the atom, in which, in an analogy to the solar system, the electrons are described has moving in circular orbits around the nucleus. This is not an accurate depiction of what an atom "looks like," but the model succeeds in mathematically representing the energies (but not the correct angular momenta) of the quantum states of the electron in the simplest case, the hydrogen atom. Another example is Hook's Law (which should be called Hook's principle, or Hook's model), which states that the force exerted by a mass attached to a spring is proportional to the amount the spring is stretched. We know that this principle is only valid for small amounts of stretching. The "law" fails when the spring is stretched beyond its elastic limit (it can break). This principle, however, leads to the prediction of simple harmonic motion, and, as a model of the behavior of a spring, has been versatile in an extremely broad range of applications.

A scientific theory or law represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests. Theories in physics are often formulated in terms of a few concepts and equations, which are identified with "laws of nature," suggesting their universal applicability. Accepted scientific theories and laws become part of our understanding of the universe and the basis for exploring less well-understood areas of knowledge. Theories are not easily discarded; new discoveries are first assumed to fit into the existing theoretical framework. It is only when, after repeated experimental tests, the new phenomenon cannot be accommodated that scientists seriously question the theory and attempt to modify it. The validity that we attach to scientific theories as representing realities of the physical world is to be contrasted with the facile invalidation implied by the expression, "It's only a theory." For example, it is unlikely that a person will step off a tall building on the assumption that they will not fall, because "Gravity is only a theory."

Changes in scientific thought and theories occur, of course, sometimes revolutionizing our view of the world (Kuhn, 1962). Again, the key force for change is the scientific method, and its emphasis on experiment.

Introduction to the Scientific Method​

I love you guys, you still don't know the difference between facts/ evidence and what ifs.

From you stupid link:

excerpt:
very likely human-induced

'Very likely' does not mean it is. It is a guess and remains a guess without evidence. So a guess is not evidence. you should really look up the word science and learn that word before moving into the much harder words like hypothesis and theory. I know you all get very confused by those two..

 

[jc456]

Science. one word: science

Science, you mean like lab work and experiments?

nope, consensus, the, I said so therefore it is science, no work just words.

There is a consensus on the science. Pretty simple.

nope, that word does not exist in the scientific community. No matter how many libturd links you post up here fool.

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

May 29, 1919: A Major Eclipse, Relatively Speaking

1919: During a total solar eclipse, Sir Arthur Eddington performs the first experimental test of Albert Einstein’s general theory of relativity.

The findings made Einstein a celebrity overnight, and precipitated the eventual triumph of general relativity over classical Newtonian physics.​

Poor, poor Frank. Ignore the evidence: Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Evidence

IV. Hypotheses, Models, Theories and Laws
In physics and other science disciplines, the words "hypothesis," "model," "theory" and "law" have different connotations in relation to the stage of acceptance or knowledge about a group of phenomena.

An hypothesis is a limited statement regarding cause and effect in specific situations; it also refers to our state of knowledge before experimental work has been performed and perhaps even before new phenomena have been predicted. To take an example from daily life, suppose you discover that your car will not start. You may say, "My car does not start because the battery is low." This is your first hypothesis. You may then check whether the lights were left on, or if the engine makes a particular sound when you turn the ignition key. You might actually check the voltage across the terminals of the battery. If you discover that the battery is not low, you might attempt another hypothesis ("The starter is broken"; "This is really not my car.")

The word model is reserved for situations when it is known that the hypothesis has at least limited validity. A often-cited example of this is the Bohr model of the atom, in which, in an analogy to the solar system, the electrons are described has moving in circular orbits around the nucleus. This is not an accurate depiction of what an atom "looks like," but the model succeeds in mathematically representing the energies (but not the correct angular momenta) of the quantum states of the electron in the simplest case, the hydrogen atom. Another example is Hook's Law (which should be called Hook's principle, or Hook's model), which states that the force exerted by a mass attached to a spring is proportional to the amount the spring is stretched. We know that this principle is only valid for small amounts of stretching. The "law" fails when the spring is stretched beyond its elastic limit (it can break). This principle, however, leads to the prediction of simple harmonic motion, and, as a model of the behavior of a spring, has been versatile in an extremely broad range of applications.

A scientific theory or law represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests. Theories in physics are often formulated in terms of a few concepts and equations, which are identified with "laws of nature," suggesting their universal applicability. Accepted scientific theories and laws become part of our understanding of the universe and the basis for exploring less well-understood areas of knowledge. Theories are not easily discarded; new discoveries are first assumed to fit into the existing theoretical framework. It is only when, after repeated experimental tests, the new phenomenon cannot be accommodated that scientists seriously question the theory and attempt to modify it. The validity that we attach to scientific theories as representing realities of the physical world is to be contrasted with the facile invalidation implied by the expression, "It's only a theory." For example, it is unlikely that a person will step off a tall building on the assumption that they will not fall, because "Gravity is only a theory."

Changes in scientific thought and theories occur, of course, sometimes revolutionizing our view of the world (Kuhn, 1962). Again, the key force for change is the scientific method, and its emphasis on experiment.

Introduction to the Scientific Method​

I love you guys, you still don't know the difference between facts/ evidence and what ifs.

From you stupid link:

excerpt:
very likely human-induced

'Very likely' does not mean it is. It is a guess and remains a guess without evidence. So a guess is not evidence. you should really look up the word science and learn that word before moving into the much harder words like hypothesis and theory. I know you all get very confused by those two..

Cherry picking the evidence? Ignore all the 'evidence' that doesn't fit your ideological position. Ice core samples and more. Ideology is not science.

NASA just called out climate change deniers on Facebook, and it was glorious

and add Global Warming : Feature Articles

 

[jc456]

May 29, 1919: A Major Eclipse, Relatively Speaking

1919: During a total solar eclipse, Sir Arthur Eddington performs the first experimental test of Albert Einstein’s general theory of relativity.

The findings made Einstein a celebrity overnight, and precipitated the eventual triumph of general relativity over classical Newtonian physics.​

Poor, poor Frank. Ignore the evidence: Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Evidence

IV. Hypotheses, Models, Theories and Laws
In physics and other science disciplines, the words "hypothesis," "model," "theory" and "law" have different connotations in relation to the stage of acceptance or knowledge about a group of phenomena.

An hypothesis is a limited statement regarding cause and effect in specific situations; it also refers to our state of knowledge before experimental work has been performed and perhaps even before new phenomena have been predicted. To take an example from daily life, suppose you discover that your car will not start. You may say, "My car does not start because the battery is low." This is your first hypothesis. You may then check whether the lights were left on, or if the engine makes a particular sound when you turn the ignition key. You might actually check the voltage across the terminals of the battery. If you discover that the battery is not low, you might attempt another hypothesis ("The starter is broken"; "This is really not my car.")

The word model is reserved for situations when it is known that the hypothesis has at least limited validity. A often-cited example of this is the Bohr model of the atom, in which, in an analogy to the solar system, the electrons are described has moving in circular orbits around the nucleus. This is not an accurate depiction of what an atom "looks like," but the model succeeds in mathematically representing the energies (but not the correct angular momenta) of the quantum states of the electron in the simplest case, the hydrogen atom. Another example is Hook's Law (which should be called Hook's principle, or Hook's model), which states that the force exerted by a mass attached to a spring is proportional to the amount the spring is stretched. We know that this principle is only valid for small amounts of stretching. The "law" fails when the spring is stretched beyond its elastic limit (it can break). This principle, however, leads to the prediction of simple harmonic motion, and, as a model of the behavior of a spring, has been versatile in an extremely broad range of applications.

A scientific theory or law represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests. Theories in physics are often formulated in terms of a few concepts and equations, which are identified with "laws of nature," suggesting their universal applicability. Accepted scientific theories and laws become part of our understanding of the universe and the basis for exploring less well-understood areas of knowledge. Theories are not easily discarded; new discoveries are first assumed to fit into the existing theoretical framework. It is only when, after repeated experimental tests, the new phenomenon cannot be accommodated that scientists seriously question the theory and attempt to modify it. The validity that we attach to scientific theories as representing realities of the physical world is to be contrasted with the facile invalidation implied by the expression, "It's only a theory." For example, it is unlikely that a person will step off a tall building on the assumption that they will not fall, because "Gravity is only a theory."

Changes in scientific thought and theories occur, of course, sometimes revolutionizing our view of the world (Kuhn, 1962). Again, the key force for change is the scientific method, and its emphasis on experiment.

Introduction to the Scientific Method​

I love you guys, you still don't know the difference between facts/ evidence and what ifs.

From you stupid link:

excerpt:
very likely human-induced

'Very likely' does not mean it is. It is a guess and remains a guess without evidence. So a guess is not evidence. you should really look up the word science and learn that word before moving into the much harder words like hypothesis and theory. I know you all get very confused by those two..

Cherry picking the evidence? Ignore all the 'evidence' that doesn't fit your ideological position. Ice core samples and more. Ideology is not science.

NASA just called out climate change deniers on Facebook, and it was glorious

and add Global Warming : Feature Articles

again 'very likely' is not evidence. Sorry, you can post whatever you want, the fact is, very likely is not absolutely or observed.

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

May 29, 1919: A Major Eclipse, Relatively Speaking

1919: During a total solar eclipse, Sir Arthur Eddington performs the first experimental test of Albert Einstein’s general theory of relativity.

The findings made Einstein a celebrity overnight, and precipitated the eventual triumph of general relativity over classical Newtonian physics.​

Poor, poor Frank. Ignore the evidence: Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Evidence

IV. Hypotheses, Models, Theories and Laws
In physics and other science disciplines, the words "hypothesis," "model," "theory" and "law" have different connotations in relation to the stage of acceptance or knowledge about a group of phenomena.

An hypothesis is a limited statement regarding cause and effect in specific situations; it also refers to our state of knowledge before experimental work has been performed and perhaps even before new phenomena have been predicted. To take an example from daily life, suppose you discover that your car will not start. You may say, "My car does not start because the battery is low." This is your first hypothesis. You may then check whether the lights were left on, or if the engine makes a particular sound when you turn the ignition key. You might actually check the voltage across the terminals of the battery. If you discover that the battery is not low, you might attempt another hypothesis ("The starter is broken"; "This is really not my car.")

The word model is reserved for situations when it is known that the hypothesis has at least limited validity. A often-cited example of this is the Bohr model of the atom, in which, in an analogy to the solar system, the electrons are described has moving in circular orbits around the nucleus. This is not an accurate depiction of what an atom "looks like," but the model succeeds in mathematically representing the energies (but not the correct angular momenta) of the quantum states of the electron in the simplest case, the hydrogen atom. Another example is Hook's Law (which should be called Hook's principle, or Hook's model), which states that the force exerted by a mass attached to a spring is proportional to the amount the spring is stretched. We know that this principle is only valid for small amounts of stretching. The "law" fails when the spring is stretched beyond its elastic limit (it can break). This principle, however, leads to the prediction of simple harmonic motion, and, as a model of the behavior of a spring, has been versatile in an extremely broad range of applications.

A scientific theory or law represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests. Theories in physics are often formulated in terms of a few concepts and equations, which are identified with "laws of nature," suggesting their universal applicability. Accepted scientific theories and laws become part of our understanding of the universe and the basis for exploring less well-understood areas of knowledge. Theories are not easily discarded; new discoveries are first assumed to fit into the existing theoretical framework. It is only when, after repeated experimental tests, the new phenomenon cannot be accommodated that scientists seriously question the theory and attempt to modify it. The validity that we attach to scientific theories as representing realities of the physical world is to be contrasted with the facile invalidation implied by the expression, "It's only a theory." For example, it is unlikely that a person will step off a tall building on the assumption that they will not fall, because "Gravity is only a theory."

Changes in scientific thought and theories occur, of course, sometimes revolutionizing our view of the world (Kuhn, 1962). Again, the key force for change is the scientific method, and its emphasis on experiment.

Introduction to the Scientific Method​

I love you guys, you still don't know the difference between facts/ evidence and what ifs.

From you stupid link:

excerpt:
very likely human-induced

'Very likely' does not mean it is. It is a guess and remains a guess without evidence. So a guess is not evidence. you should really look up the word science and learn that word before moving into the much harder words like hypothesis and theory. I know you all get very confused by those two..

Cherry picking the evidence? Ignore all the 'evidence' that doesn't fit your ideological position. Ice core samples and more. Ideology is not science.

NASA just called out climate change deniers on Facebook, and it was glorious

and add Global Warming : Feature Articles

again 'very likely' is not evidence. Sorry, you can post whatever you want, the fact is, very likely is not absolutely or observed.

Cherry pick. It's all you've got.

Now I'll free you up to go shill with somebody else.

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

not much changes The 97% consensus on global warming

Science achieves a consensus when scientists stop arguing. When a question is first asked – like ‘what would happen if we put a load more CO2 in the atmosphere?’ – there may be many hypotheses about cause and effect. Over a period of time, each idea is tested and retested – the processes of the scientific method – because all scientists know that reputation and kudos go to those who find the right answer (and everyone else becomes an irrelevant footnote in the history of science). Nearly all hypotheses will fall by the wayside during this testing period, because only one is going to answer the question properly, without leaving all kinds of odd dangling bits that don’t quite add up. Bad theories are usually rather untidy.

But the testing period must come to an end. Gradually, the focus of investigation narrows down to those avenues that continue to make sense, that still add up, and quite often a good theory will reveal additional answers, or make powerful predictions, that add substance to the theory.

So a consensus in science is different from a political one. There is no vote.​

 

[Old Rocks]

And, given the the fact that virtually all the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities in the world have policy statements that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

And, given the the fact that virtually all the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities in the world have policy statements that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.

Say it ain't so Joe! Say it ain't so.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Evidence


Earth is Cooling…No It’s Warming
Earth's Temperature Tracker : Feature Articles

You offer up two opinion pieces which fail to show any empirical evidence and quote MODELS at their basis..

This is dam funny....

Tell me again when any of these models were tested against reality and were even remotely close to being right.