Why ManMade Global Warm Fails as real science

Discussion in 'Environment' started by CrusaderFrank, Jun 17, 2011.

  1. CrusaderFrank
    Offline

    CrusaderFrank Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    81,265
    Thanks Received:
    14,919
    Trophy Points:
    2,210
    Ratings:
    +37,068
    According to Wiki

    "Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[2] The Oxford English Dictionary says that scientific method is: "a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."[3]

    Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methods of obtaining knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses via predictions which can be derived from them. These steps must be repeatable, to guard against mistake or confusion in any particular experimenter. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many independently derived hypotheses together in a coherent, supportive structure. Theories, in turn, may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.

    Scientific inquiry is generally intended to be as objective as possible, to reduce biased interpretations of results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, giving them the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. CrusaderFrank
    Offline

    CrusaderFrank Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    81,265
    Thanks Received:
    14,919
    Trophy Points:
    2,210
    Ratings:
    +37,068
    Lets take the Epic Fail that is ManMade Global Warming ("AGW")as science one step at a time.

    First, " Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena"

    As we have seen in numerous challenges all we get from the Warmers are links to weather related events where it's warmer and that supposed to mean AGW is real.

    Say that atmospheric CO2 really has increased by 100PPM in the last 150 years (150 years ago they measured in parts per 10,000 so the baseline is subject to question), how much of the increase is mankinds and therefore even theoretically preventable?

    Has anyone every actually stated that "a 150PPM increase in CO2 will raise temperatures by __ degrees?"

    That's a testable hypothesis!
     
  3. CrusaderFrank
    Offline

    CrusaderFrank Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    81,265
    Thanks Received:
    14,919
    Trophy Points:
    2,210
    Ratings:
    +37,068
    Second, "Scientific inquiry is generally intended to be as objective as possible, to reduce biased interpretations of results"

    How can Warmers meet this test when the IPCC is on record as being driven by the predetermined outcome that they need to strangle western civilization through manmade global warming?

    "...one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy." -- IPCC

    The IPCC has been caught redhanded with their thumb on the data scales
     
  4. CrusaderFrank
    Offline

    CrusaderFrank Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    81,265
    Thanks Received:
    14,919
    Trophy Points:
    2,210
    Ratings:
    +37,068
    Third, "Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, giving them the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established."

    Climategate has exposed the Warmers as data tampering frauds so the reliability of their data is zero.

    There is not a single shred of real science or scientific method in what passes for the "science" of manmade global warming
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  5. konradv
    Offline

    konradv Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    Messages:
    22,571
    Thanks Received:
    2,558
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Baltimore
    Ratings:
    +5,674
    How? Unless you use "tricks" of the statistical trade to "hide the decline" from other sources, it's not necessarily a simple experiment and has to be done in the field rather than in the lab, due to the plethora of variables involved. How can we even convince a determined skeptic/denier, when they label standard scientific practice as "fraud". I guess it's a necessity, since neither science nor logic is on their side.
     
  6. konradv
    Offline

    konradv Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    Messages:
    22,571
    Thanks Received:
    2,558
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Baltimore
    Ratings:
    +5,674
    Cherry-picked quotes once again prove that the skeptic/denier side is purely political in nature, since neither science nor logic are on their side.
     
  7. konradv
    Offline

    konradv Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    Messages:
    22,571
    Thanks Received:
    2,558
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Baltimore
    Ratings:
    +5,674
    Advanced statistics IS NOT data tampering, no matter how much you say it's so. The proponents of Climategate were the ones committing fraud in this case. They stole emails, misinterpreted them and now refuse to acknowledge that the people in question had been cleared of the charges.
     
  8. CrusaderFrank
    Offline

    CrusaderFrank Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    81,265
    Thanks Received:
    14,919
    Trophy Points:
    2,210
    Ratings:
    +37,068
    If there are too many variables, how can you say you've eliminated all of them but for an increase in the deminimus atmospheric trace element CO2?

    It can't be both. Now do you see why AGW fails as science?
     
  9. CrusaderFrank
    Offline

    CrusaderFrank Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    81,265
    Thanks Received:
    14,919
    Trophy Points:
    2,210
    Ratings:
    +37,068
    The above quote clearly shows that IPCC is purely political. Thank you for underlining that
     
  10. CrusaderFrank
    Offline

    CrusaderFrank Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    81,265
    Thanks Received:
    14,919
    Trophy Points:
    2,210
    Ratings:
    +37,068
    Need I remind you.

    "BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?

    Phil Jones: Yes..."

    BBC News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones
     

Share This Page