So how much money do those evil conniving climate scientists make anyway?

[Oddball]

Where experimentation is not possible, one uses observation.

Scientific method - Wikipedia
Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, they are frequently the same from one to another. The process of the scientific method involves making conjectures (hypotheses), deriving predictions from them as logical consequences, and then carrying out experiments or empirical observations based on those predictions.[1][2] A hypothesis is a conjecture, based on knowledge obtained while seeking answers to the question. The hypothesis might be very specific, or it might be broad. Scientists then test hypotheses by conducting experiments or studies. A scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable, implying that it is possible to identify a possible outcome of an experiment or observation that conflicts with predictions deduced from the hypothesis; otherwise, the hypothesis cannot be meaningfully tested.[3]

1. Peirce, Charles Sanders (1908). "A Neglected Argument for the Reality of God" . Hibbert Journal. 7: 90–112 – via Wikisource. with added notes. Reprinted with previously unpublished part, Collected Papers v. 6, paragraphs 452–85, The Essential Peirce v. 2, pp. 434–50, and elsewhere.
2. ^ See, for example, Galileo 1638. His thought experiments disprove Aristotle's physics of falling bodies, in Two New Sciences.
3. ^ Popper 1959, p. 273

What Is Science?
The scientific method
When conducting research, scientists use the scientific method to collect measurable, empirical evidence in an experiment related to a hypothesis(often in the form of an if/then statement), the results aiming to support or contradict a theory.

"As a field biologist, my favorite part of the scientific method is being in the field collecting the data," Jaime Tanner, a professor of biology at Marlboro College, told Live Science. "But what really makes that fun is knowing that you are trying to answer an interesting question. So the first step in identifying questions and generating possible answers (hypotheses) is also very important and is a creative process. Then once you collect the data you analyze it to see if your hypothesis is supported or not."

The steps of the scientific method go something like this:

1. Make an observation or observations.
2. Ask questions about the observations and gather information.
3. Form a hypothesis — a tentative description of what's been observed, and make predictions based on that hypothesis.
4. Test the hypothesis and predictions in an experiment that can be reproduced.
5. Analyze the data and draw conclusions; accept or reject the hypothesis or modify the hypothesis if necessary.
6. Reproduce the experiment until there are no discrepancies between observations and theory. "Replication of methods and results is my favorite step in the scientific method," Moshe Pritsker, a former post-doctoral researcher at Harvard Medical School and CEO of JoVE, told Live Science. "The reproducibility of published experiments is the foundation of science. No reproducibility – no science."

 

[Crick]

And what do you think that indicates?

 

[Oddball]

It indicates that you are on the side of pseudo-science.

 

[Crick]

I disagree wholeheartedly.

 

[Oddball]

Of course you do....You've allowed yourself to be suckered in, to the point that any and all contravening evidence has been ignored.

P.S. If Michael Mann calls you and the rest of the fam to the pavilion for a special meeting, don't go.

 

[Crick]

So, you believe that roughly 70,000 published PhD scientists have been taken in by, and continued to produce, nothing but pure pseudo science for the past 20 to 30 years?

And that the world's refereed science journals have failed to recognize the tens of thousands of articles and studies submitted to them as pseudoscience?

Is that what you really believe has happened?

 

[SSDD]

Not surprised...religious beliefs seldom require anything other than how they make you feel.

I know weasel language when I see it. The round Earth scientists have an agenda.

This is what happens when you can't actually discuss the science or the evidence...you are reduced to engaging in the most base form of logical fallacy. Have fun with it if it is all you can manage.

 

[SSDD]

You think people are going to wait 81 years to see if a scenario was correct? YO ODDBALL. HERE IS AN ACTUAL RED HERRING. JUMP ALL OVER IT DUDE!!!

We already know that the AGW scenario is wrong..it isn't based in science..if it were, after 30+ years, there would be at least one piece of observed measured evidence that at least strongly suggests that the climate change we have experienced is in some way unlike natural variability...

 

[Confounding]

Not surprised...religious beliefs seldom require anything other than how they make you feel.

I know weasel language when I see it. The round Earth scientists have an agenda.

This is what happens when you can't actually discuss the science or the evidence...you are reduced to engaging in the most base form of logical fallacy. Have fun with it if it is all you can manage.

You confuse winning a war of attrition with actually winning the argument. Congratulations on being willing to spend the rest of your life having a circular argument. Being the most stubborn isn't the same as being right.

 

[SSDD]

Follow The Scientific Method, which requires experimentation for it to gain traction or change the hypothesis.

What? Doesn't that indicate no hypothesis about black holes can be valid as experimentation is not possible? Are you really a Crusader Frank sock? That's his ludicrous stock in trade theme.

You really want to compare a situation where modeling is your only option to a situation where the study is of an entity as eminently observable, and measurable as the climate, the atmosphere and energy movement through it?

 

[SSDD]

And what do you think that indicates?

The writing in blue perfectly describes the process of climate science..

 

[SSDD]

Not surprised...religious beliefs seldom require anything other than how they make you feel.

I know weasel language when I see it. The round Earth scientists have an agenda.

This is what happens when you can't actually discuss the science or the evidence...you are reduced to engaging in the most base form of logical fallacy. Have fun with it if it is all you can manage.

You confuse winning a war of attrition with actually winning the argument. Congratulations on being willing to spend the rest of your life having a circular argument. Being the most stubborn isn't the same as being right.

That would be true if, and only if climate science were able to produce observed, measured evidence which supports the claim that the climate change we have experienced is somehow different from natural variability...or if climate science could produce some observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...or a single published paper in which the claimed warming due to our activities had been empirically measured, quantified and ascribed to so called greenhouse gasses...

Climate science can provide none of those things...and you are right..being stubborn isn't the same thing as being right...I am asking for very basic and straight forward evidence that climate science can't provide...and yet, you still believe you and climate science is right...

In actual science, criticism is welcomed...it provides an opportunity to test the evidence...in pseudoscience, great effort is expended in attempting to silence any sort of criticism because pseudoscience simply can't stand up to close examination.

 

[Confounding]

Not surprised...religious beliefs seldom require anything other than how they make you feel.

I know weasel language when I see it. The round Earth scientists have an agenda.

This is what happens when you can't actually discuss the science or the evidence...you are reduced to engaging in the most base form of logical fallacy. Have fun with it if it is all you can manage.

You confuse winning a war of attrition with actually winning the argument. Congratulations on being willing to spend the rest of your life having a circular argument. Being the most stubborn isn't the same as being right.

That would be true if, and only if climate science were able to produce observed, measured evidence which supports the claim that the climate change we have experienced is somehow different from natural variability...or if climate science could produce some observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...or a single published paper in which the claimed warming due to our activities had been empirically measured, quantified and ascribed to so called greenhouse gasses...

Climate science can provide none of those things...and you are right..being stubborn isn't the same thing as being right...I am asking for very basic and straight forward evidence that climate science can't provide...and yet, you still believe you and climate science is right...

In actual science, criticism is welcomed...it provides an opportunity to test the evidence...in pseudoscience, great effort is expended in attempting to silence any sort of criticism because pseudoscience simply can't stand up to close examination.

 

[SSDD]

Not surprised...religious beliefs seldom require anything other than how they make you feel.

I know weasel language when I see it. The round Earth scientists have an agenda.

This is what happens when you can't actually discuss the science or the evidence...you are reduced to engaging in the most base form of logical fallacy. Have fun with it if it is all you can manage.

You confuse winning a war of attrition with actually winning the argument. Congratulations on being willing to spend the rest of your life having a circular argument. Being the most stubborn isn't the same as being right.

That would be true if, and only if climate science were able to produce observed, measured evidence which supports the claim that the climate change we have experienced is somehow different from natural variability...or if climate science could produce some observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...or a single published paper in which the claimed warming due to our activities had been empirically measured, quantified and ascribed to so called greenhouse gasses...

Climate science can provide none of those things...and you are right..being stubborn isn't the same thing as being right...I am asking for very basic and straight forward evidence that climate science can't provide...and yet, you still believe you and climate science is right...

In actual science, criticism is welcomed...it provides an opportunity to test the evidence...in pseudoscience, great effort is expended in attempting to silence any sort of criticism because pseudoscience simply can't stand up to close examination.

And still not the first piece of observed, measured evidence to support the hypothesis...believers in the hypothesis have been reduced to posting pictures of merry go rounds and believing that somehow they have supported their case.

A perfect snapshot of post modern science...thank you. You don't see the true position of those who believe in AGW stated so eloquently very often. Thank you again.

 

[Confounding]

I know weasel language when I see it. The round Earth scientists have an agenda.

This is what happens when you can't actually discuss the science or the evidence...you are reduced to engaging in the most base form of logical fallacy. Have fun with it if it is all you can manage.

You confuse winning a war of attrition with actually winning the argument. Congratulations on being willing to spend the rest of your life having a circular argument. Being the most stubborn isn't the same as being right.

That would be true if, and only if climate science were able to produce observed, measured evidence which supports the claim that the climate change we have experienced is somehow different from natural variability...or if climate science could produce some observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...or a single published paper in which the claimed warming due to our activities had been empirically measured, quantified and ascribed to so called greenhouse gasses...

Climate science can provide none of those things...and you are right..being stubborn isn't the same thing as being right...I am asking for very basic and straight forward evidence that climate science can't provide...and yet, you still believe you and climate science is right...

In actual science, criticism is welcomed...it provides an opportunity to test the evidence...in pseudoscience, great effort is expended in attempting to silence any sort of criticism because pseudoscience simply can't stand up to close examination.

And still not the first piece of observed, measured evidence to support the hypothesis...believers in the hypothesis have been reduced to posting pictures of merry go rounds and believing that somehow they have supported their case.

A perfect snapshot of post modern science...thank you. You don't see the true position of those who believe in AGW stated so eloquently very often. Thank you again.

When you flatly reject the claims of the global scientific community based on your own uninformed interpretation of things there's not much left to do but make fun of you.

People like you are why the rest of the world thinks Americans are stupid.

 

[SSDD]

When you flatly reject the claims of the global scientific community based on your own uninformed interpretation of things there's not much left to do but make fun of you.

You keep saying that my position is uninformed...and you keep not providing any evidence to support the claim. You can't support your own claim and think the only thing left to do is to try and make fun of me? Not a very good plan. Perhaps the best thing to do would be to try and get an informed opinion of your own rather than suffering the ignorance of the one that was given to you by someone with a political agenda. Learning something is always a better option than trying to make fun of someone who feels pity for you.

People like you are why the rest of the world thinks Americans are stupid.

Alas, it is people like you who admit to being ignorant, and having no earthly idea of whether your position is supportable or not, attempting to place people who are not ignorant in the ignorant box with yourself simply because they don't find the consensus view to be credible. You are quick to voice your opinion on a topic on which you are completely ignorant...and feel that your position is supportable based on a quasi religious faith in climate scientists... People who have demonstrated that they just aren't worthy of that soft of faith. That is, in fact, stupid and is why people believe americans to be stupid.

Any thinking person would look at your posts, pronouncing your uninformed opinion to be true as you admit ignorance on the topic...Were I from another nation, I might look at your post and think..."typical american"...

Here is a clue for you though...attempting to make fun of someone who actually can discuss the topic when you admit that you can not is always going to fail...For starters, since you are ignorant on the topic, your opinion on the topic doesn't carry much weight....since you know absolutely nothing about me, your opinion on me carries even less. I do feel for you...how terrible it must be to be forced to believe in people who have demonstrated that they aren't worthy of being believed in because you, in your ignorance, really don't have any other real option. Must suck...

 

[Crick]

Confounding,

when people choose to troll a discussion site like this one, there is no point in further communication with them. Whatever you say will entertain them and since they already know their posts are completely bullshit, you catch their attention trying to correct them. I wasted a great deal of time talking to some of these people. I think that what they deserve and what is probably the most appropriate response and what will probably get them to move on as quickly as possible is for everyone to simply ignore them.

 

[Confounding]

Confounding,

when people choose to troll a discussion site like this one, there is no point in further communication with them. Whatever you say will entertain them and since they already know their posts are completely bullshit, you catch their attention trying to correct them. I wasted a great deal of time talking to some of these people. I think that what they deserve and what is probably the most appropriate response and what will probably get them to move on as quickly as possible is for everyone to simply ignore them.

I learned not to invest real effort into these conversations a long time ago. Good on you for trying to show them information but it was a complete waste of your time. They were never willing to learn.

 

[cnm]

When you flatly reject the claims of the global scientific community based on your own uninformed interpretation of things there's not much left to do but make fun of you.

Yes.

 

[Dale Smith]

When you flatly reject the claims of the global scientific community based on your own uninformed interpretation of things there's not much left to do but make fun of you.

Yes.

Unless all factors are added into the equation like the 20 years of the stratospheric aerosol spraying program? Then the conclusions made by "scientists" that work for the IPCC and are at the beckon call of the U.N are abso-fucking-lutely worthless.