AGW Question

[Billy_Bob]

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.

The worthless appeal to authority of the paid for left wing bigots, power mongers, and shills...

 

[Billy_Bob]

Science. one word: science

You dont know any...

Everything you have posted are opinion pieces. Not one link to actual facts of empirical observed evidence. A whole host of models (Scientific Wild Ass Guesses) all of which do not pass empirical review failing inside 2- 10 years..

Science is the open practice of observed empirical evidence and repeatable and quantifiable work. Everything you have posted so far does not meet even basic science criteria to be science. That is a sad note to those who think they are scientists and have fallen into the political trap of agenda.

 

[SSDD]

Science. one word: science

So no actual words about the actual observed, measured, actual data they don't have? So in the end, you are just expressing your articles of faith in climate science and haven't formed your position based on any actual evidence. Well that is what I have been saying all along while you have been going on about science that wasn't actually science but was faith...and you are not able to distinguish between the two...and my bet is that now, having been completely unable to provide even one shred of observed, measured, quantified, natural data supporting the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis, you still BELIEVE that it is A)valid....B) supported by actual observed, measured, empirical data whether you or anyone else can find it to post or not.....and C) still represents settled science.

Tell me otherwise...

 

[SSDD]

Science. one word: science

Science, you mean like lab work and experiments?

No, science like belief in their experts and faith that the science is settled even though they don't seem to be able to find even a shred of actual, observed, measured, quantified, empirical data from the natural, observable world which supports the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis which is all about the natural observable world.

 

[SSDD]

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​

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​

So your article is begins talking about actual science where observations are made, experiments are performed and then extremely accurate predictions are made based on the findings of the observed, measured, and quantified data from both experiments and the natural world...

Interesting that you don't seem to be able to see the incredibly obvious disconnect between that sort of science and climate pseudoscience....it is clear by now that there is no actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical data from the natural world even though the hypothesis is all about the natural world.....there are no experiments verifying the hypothesis...and the string of failed predictions stretches back for decades....how exactly to you think that sort of "science" is akin to the science of Einstein, Newton, or any other actual science which to date, has not had a single prediction based on their theories to fail?

 

[SSDD]

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.

Based on what? There still exists much debate over Einstein's theory of relativity even though to date, his theory has not had even one predictive failure....the string of failed predictions made based on the AGW hypothesis stretches back for decades.....

Do you not think it is possible for a branch of science to be broken? When a branch of science makes claims based on a hypothesis and the predictions fail to materialize and rather than scrap, or radically revise the hypothesis so that it more accurately represents the natural world, they double down, on the predictions, make excuses and carry on with the failing hypothesis, you really think that what you are seeing is an unbroken field of science?

 

[SSDD]

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

Which evidence do you think we are ignoring? I have been asking for at least a couple of pages now for even one shred of actual, observed, measured, quantified, empirical data from the natural world which supports the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis....at this point, it has become blatantly obvious that no such data is forthcoming....so you have no data that is the result of observations, and measurements in the natural world to support a hypothesis about the natural world that is observable all around us and you still claim that we are ignoring all of the evidence.....which evidence would that be? What constitutes evidence in your mind....

You have provided some links which you clearly believe contain evidence to support the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis....I have asked repeatedly for you to cut and paste whatever is contained within those links that you believe represents actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence to support the anthropogenic component of the hypothesis...you haven't brought anything forward....there can't be many reasons for that....those that come to mind are that A) you know that there is no actual observed measured data from the natural world and you don't care but believe anyway......B) are embarrassed to bring forward what you believe to be evidence because you know that it won't stand up to any sort of scrutiny and don't want to be embarrassed. C) don't have any idea about any of this but believe what you are told based on your political leanings and at this point are content to just sit back with your thumb in your mouth and your comfort teddy bear clutched tightly to your chest and tell us skeptics that we don't know what we are talking about because you have faith in something that you have been told.

So which is it?

 

[SSDD]

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

Very likely is an opinion and not even a valid opinion unless some actual observed, measured, quantified evidence from the natural world exists to back it up...I want to see some of this observed, measured, quantified evidence from the natural world which supports the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis which is all about the natural observable, measurable, quantifiable world.

 

[SSDD]

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

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

Cherry pick what???....so far you haven't provided the first bit of actual observed, measured, quantified data to cherry pick from...

So now you will go do what?....run away with your tail tucked firmly between your legs telling yourself that you really taught us?

 

[SSDD]

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.​

There is still much argument within the real scientific community regarding Einstein's theory of relativity and even after all this time, it has not failed even one predictive test...the string of failed predictions based on the AGW hypothesis stretch back decades....what sort of actual science circles the wagons around a hypothesis with such a long and illustrious history of failure?....really?

 

[SSDD]

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.

Based on what actual, observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence from the natural world rocks....bring forward one bit of actual observed measured quantified data that supports the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis....and if you bring forward your same old bits of dogma be prepared to be asked to cut and past what you believe constitutes actual, observed, measured, quantified, empirical data from the natural world within them that supports the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis...

I predict that you, like MEM will not be able to bring forward anything from your sources because you know full well that there is nothing there.

 

[SSDD]

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.

Hey...you have another member from the congregation of the faithful helping you out...now there are two of you who can't bring forward one single shred of actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical data from the natural world in support of the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis....no data, but hell, you can hold hands, give each other a hug and maybe a little kissy, and maybe sing a hymn or two and read some scriptures from the book of IPCC....you take all the comfort you can from that...me? I don't see the emperors clothes and am waiting for something that approaches real observed, measured, quantified data from the real world to support this hypothesis which about phenomena out here in the real, observable, measurable, quantifiable real world.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

Like DENIER!!!, consensus is a cult word, it's not a word you find in science

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

Based on what actual, observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence from the natural world rocks....bring forward one bit of actual observed measured quantified data that supports the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis....and if you bring forward your same old bits of dogma be prepared to be asked to cut and past what you believe constitutes actual, observed, measured, quantified, empirical data from the natural world within them that supports the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis...

I predict that you, like MEM will not be able to bring forward anything from your sources because you know full well that there is nothing there.

I have peer reviewed this post and find it accurate to the 99.99 percentile. We have consensus

science = settled

 

[jc456]

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.

same old same old from you. This has been debunked many times in here pal. so, you need something new. Those agencies don't represent who you believe they do. And i proved their intent months ago after posting up a Judith Curry statement about the APS. So, please spare us the redundancy of stupid and post some actual evidence, not fallacies.

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

The worthless appeal to authority of the paid for left wing bigots, power mongers, and shills...

Very scientific argument

 

[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.

Like DENIER!!!, consensus is a cult word, it's not a word you find in science

No one says it is used in the science, but of course it is used in the field of science.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

Like DENIER!!!, consensus is a cult word, it's not a word you find in science

No one says it is used in the science, but of course it is used in the field of science.

It's all you got. No evidence, no experiments, just lots of money to say you have "Consensus"

 

[SSDD]

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.

Like DENIER!!!, consensus is a cult word, it's not a word you find in science

No one says it is used in the science, but of course it is used in the field of science.

It's all you got. No evidence, no experiments, just lots of money to say you have "Consensus"

Nothing builds consensus faster than a bucket full of money.

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

And I am on the side of NASA scientists and an overwhelming majority of scientists. Put that up against you and 3% of scientists? Not a tough choice to make