Bombshell study concludes there is no evidence for anthropogenic climate change...

[jc456]

Evidence may or may not be sufficient to prove a hypothesis.

Sure it is. You should look up the definition

 

[Woodznutz]

Sure it is. You should look up the definition

The term can be used to indicate enough evidence to qualify as proof, or it can indicate a single piece of evidence which is not. You can't dictate how I use the term. "One (warm) day does not a summer make."

 

[jc456]

The term can be used to indicate enough evidence to qualify as proof, or it can indicate a single piece of evidence which is not. You can't dictate how I use the term. "One (warm) day does not a summer make."

But proof is evidence

 

[jc456]

Yes. And understanding the limits of what that data says is what it means to be a scientist. All data has noise and variance unexplained by the fit. There's an upper limit that may be close to 100% but it will never be truly 100%.

know you think a model is evidence. That’s how fked up you are

 

[task0778]

But proof is evidence

However, evidence is not proof. Evidence is basically information and observation. In a court of law, sufficient evidence may be accepted as proof. But not in science, science is predicated on the ideas of observation and replication. In other words, what is seen, heard, touched and replicated is the source of scientific knowledge. Nevertheless, even if an experiment can be replicated, it does not necessarily “prove” anything; it only serves as evidence to support a theory. Unlike mathematics, “All scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, and nothing is final.”

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Obama bought an oceanfront mansion - to combat man madeup Global Climate Warming Change!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Obama bought an oceanfront mansion

Liar!!!!

He bought two oceanfront mansions.

 

[BackAgain]

Liar!!!!

He bought two oceanfront mansions.

But he only uses one at a time!

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

They have that choice, but there's about a 100% chance that anytime the price of gasoline goes up they are first in line to complain about it.

It's like Americans who have the choice to buy giant gas-guzzlers or fuel efficient cars. When gas prices are low they buy as if gas prices will always be low. And when gas prices are high suddenly everyone has to care what they think about the stress of higher prices. The President has to open up oil reserves to try to artificially suppress prices and the economy suffers overall.

If prices are driven up intentionally, they and anyone has a right to complain about it. And they should complain about it.

 

[BackAgain]

Why do some people insist on making fun of the dire threat of global climate warmering/coolering/changering ?

Don’t they realize that, someday, if we don’t act NOW, the entire global climate might eventually not be perfectly static — just like it’s always been?

What do you all think this is? Some kind of joke?

 

[AZrailwhale]

The population doesn't double every generation.

Potentially it more than doubles. Two kids per couple, static, three, three quarters of previous population, four, it doubles. Historically in times of war or major disaster birth rates climb steeply. One couple can easily breed ten children in the mothers fertile years. With modern medicine most babies survive to breeding age and accelerate the cycle.

 

[Burgermeister]

Contrary to the actual scientific method, the liberal version builds hypothesis weight through consensus and inertia through damaging policies. Repeated disproven predictions don't affect the process at all except as drivers to fund more research into explaining why the base hypothesis keeps failing. Remember the explanation for the global warming "pause"? The heat went and hid under the ocean for a decade. The actual scientific method would have discarded the hypothesis a long time ago.

 

[Crick]

Evidence may or may not be sufficient to prove a hypothesis.

I think I know what you're saying here but evidence, per its definition, supports or rejects a hypothesis. The question is: is there sufficient support from sufficient evidence to conclude that a given hypothesis is valid or acceptable. In the natural sciences, it will never prove it. On the other hand, a single piece of falfifying evidence will DISprove a hypothesis. The deniers here have long argued that AGW is unfalsifiable and thus not a proper hypothesis That, of course, is complete nonsense. It could be falsified a dozen different ways. Their problem is that they've never found anything with which to do the falsfiication. That they fail to see what that actually means is probably the clearest evidence that they either do not understand the scientific method or choose to ignore it as they're unhappy with what it tells them.

 

[alang1216]

Maybe because of the new study is accurate and it’s conclusions proper, the manner in which the global climate alarmists seek to “fix the problem” won’t need to be taken so seriously. Fucking “tax” carbon.

It’s not about “fixing” the possibly non-existent problem. It’s about trying to sneak in by a pretextual back-door some global redistribution of wealth.

The study only talks about the man-made contribution to global warming, it doesn't say anywhere that GW doesn't exist. I don't see how it changes my original statement: I'm not sure why it matters. If the sea level rises because of natural or manmade reasons, the sea level still rises and that would spell disaster for many.

 

[Crick]

Contrary to the actual scientific method, the liberal version builds hypothesis weight through consensus and inertia through damaging policies. Repeated disproven predictions don't affect the process at all except as drivers to fund more research into explaining why the base hypothesis keeps failing. Remember the explanation for the global warming "pause"? The heat went and hid under the ocean for a decade. The actual scientific method would have discarded the hypothesis a long time ago.

I'm sorry but that's nonsense. The conclusions of individual studies in the climate sciences are supported or rejected by the evidence those studies uncover through observations and experimentation. Consensus is used in the public sphere in an attempt to determine the acceptability of the broader theorem to science in general. Predictions are something that are neither proven or disproven. Your abuse of the term is telling. AGW theory has not failed. The world continues to get warmer and the demonstrable cause is greenhouse warming acting on the increased levels of GHGs that humans have placed into the atmosphere. Refute that and perhaps someone will think about discarding the hypothesis. Till then, try to understand that science doesn't give two shits about your sour grapes.

Global surface temperature - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Crick]

Potentially it more than doubles. Two kids per couple, static, three, three quarters of previous population, four, it doubles. Historically in times of war or major disaster birth rates climb steeply. One couple can easily breed ten children in the mothers fertile years. With modern medicine most babies survive to breeding age and accelerate the cycle.

Wikipedia

The highest rate here is 2.1% annual growth. That would produce a doubling time of 33.34 years, not quite doubling in a generation.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

If prices are driven up intentionally, they and anyone has a right to complain about it. And they should complain about it.

Then they should complain to Putin.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

I know you think a model is evidence. That’s how fked up you are

It sounds like you don't actually know how science works? Models are integral to science. Have you ever heard of E=mc^2? Yeah, that's a model.

The only people who laugh about how stupid models are are people who don't do science. But that's OK. I think no one will be surprised that you are laughing at models.

 

[jc456]

I think I know what you're saying here but evidence, per its definition, supports or rejects a hypothesis. The question is: is there sufficient support from sufficient evidence to conclude that a given hypothesis is valid or acceptable. In the natural sciences, it will never prove it. On the other hand, a single piece of falfifying evidence will DISprove a hypothesis. The deniers here have long argued that AGW is unfalsifiable and thus not a proper hypothesis That, of course, is complete nonsense. It could be falsified a dozen different ways. Their problem is that they've never found anything with which to do the falsfiication. That they fail to see what that actually means is probably the clearest evidence that they either do not understand the scientific method or choose to ignore it as they're unhappy with what it tells them.

Proof. And you still haven’t provided any to support yours

 

[jc456]

It sounds like you don't actually know how science works? Models are integral to science. Have you ever heard of E=mc^2? Yeah, that's a model.

The only people who laugh about how stupid models are are people who don't do science. But that's OK. I think no one will be surprised that you are laughing at models.

Models aren’t evidence, they are predictions. And so far, zip predictions have come true. If you think differently, post one. But, models aren’t evidence