The Sea Level Isn't Rising as Predicted

[jc456]

9aces is just flapping yap without anything at all to back up his flap-yap. Virtually all of the articles concerning global warming in peer reviewed literature states that the globe is warming, and that we are responsible because of the GHGs we are putting into the atmosphere.

And yet you can't prove it. You have theories, but theories without any verification, and you don't have anything remotely approaching a repeatable, even semi-reliable model are simply WAG.

Science is not required - and is not logically able - "to prove it". The scientific method requires the presentation of observations, predictions and experiments which all support the hypothesis. It allows the refutation of hypotheses via falsification. There are thousands of peer-reviewed studies published for several decades now which clearly support AGW and which clearly refute ALL of the alternative hypotheses attempted. No one has falsified AGW despite the funding of hundreds of millions of dollars from the fossil fuel industries for that very purpose.

You lose. AGW is a widely accepted theory which provides an accurate description of the behavior of the Earth's climate.

How, you just stated you have no evidence?

 

[Crick]

Evidence is not proof. How could you people be gaffed so many times on the fallacy of your belief that science requires proofs without thinking to look up the meaning of "proof" and the reality of the scientific method in the natural sciences?

 

[jc456]

Evidence is not proof. How could you people be gaffed so many times on the fallacy of your belief that science requires proofs without thinking to look up the meaning of "proof" and the reality of the scientific method in the natural sciences?

Evidence is proof.

 

[Crick]

Man, you need some education.

Next time you get called up for jury duty, you tell them you think evidence is proof and see what they say.

 

[jc456]

Man, you need some education.

Next time you get called up for jury duty, you tell them you think evidence is proof and see what they say.

I did, I was actually the foreman. Drunk driving case. Cop used his window cam video as his evidence that the defendant was driving erratically. 2 hours of court time and right afterward, 12 votes, not guilty. The cop and the prosecutor trying to tell us what wasn't there. We all laughed at them in the jury room. It proved what the defendant stated.

 

[RollingThunder]

Evidence is not proof. How could you people be gaffed so many times on the fallacy of your belief that science requires proofs without thinking to look up the meaning of "proof" and the reality of the scientific method in the natural sciences?

Evidence is proof.

Nope! You are just an ignorant retard who knows nothing about science.

In reality....there are NO proofs in science!

Common misconceptions about science: “Scientific proof”
Why there is no such thing as a scientific proof
PsychologyToday
by Satoshi Kanazawa in The Scientific Fundamentalist
November 16, 2008
(excerpts)
There are many misconceptions about science. One of the most common misconceptions concerns the so-called “scientific proofs.” Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof. Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science. Proofs have two features that do not exist in science: They are final, and they are binary. Once a theorem is proven, it will forever be true and there will be nothing in the future that will threaten its status as a proven theorem (unless a flaw is discovered in the proof). Apart from a discovery of an error, a proven theorem will forever and always be a proven theorem. In contrast, all scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, and nothing is final. There is no such thing as final proven knowledge in science. The currently accepted theory of a phenomenon is simply the best explanation for it among all available alternatives. Its status as the accepted theory is contingent on what other theories are available and might suddenly change tomorrow if there appears a better theory or new evidence that might challenge the accepted theory. No knowledge or theory (which embodies scientific knowledge) is final. That, by the way, is why science is so much fun.

Further, proofs, like pregnancy, are binary; a mathematical proposition is either proven (in which case it becomes a theorem) or not (in which case it remains a conjecture until it is proven). There is nothing in between. A theorem cannot be kind of proven or almost proven. These are the same as unproven. In contrast, there is no such binary evaluation of scientific theories. Scientific theories are neither absolutely false nor absolutely true. They are always somewhere in between. Some theories are better, more credible, and more accepted than others. There is always more credible and better evidence for some theories than others. It is a matter of more or less, not either/or. For example, experimental evidence is better and more credible than correlational evidence, but even the former cannot prove a theory; it only provides very strong evidence for the theory and against its alternatives. The knowledge that there is no such thing as a scientific proof should give you a very easy way to tell real scientists from hacks and wannabes. Real scientists never use the words “scientific proofs,” because they know no such thing exists. Anyone who uses the words “proof,” “prove” and “proven” in their discussion of science is not a real scientist.

 

[jc456]

Evidence is not proof. How could you people be gaffed so many times on the fallacy of your belief that science requires proofs without thinking to look up the meaning of "proof" and the reality of the scientific method in the natural sciences?

Evidence is proof.

Nope! You are just an ignorant retard who knows nothing about science.

In reality....there are NO proofs in science!

Common misconceptions about science: “Scientific proof”
Why there is no such thing as a scientific proof
PsychologyToday
by Satoshi Kanazawa in The Scientific Fundamentalist
November 16, 2008
(excerpts)
There are many misconceptions about science. One of the most common misconceptions concerns the so-called “scientific proofs.” Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof. Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science. Proofs have two features that do not exist in science: They are final, and they are binary. Once a theorem is proven, it will forever be true and there will be nothing in the future that will threaten its status as a proven theorem (unless a flaw is discovered in the proof). Apart from a discovery of an error, a proven theorem will forever and always be a proven theorem. In contrast, all scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, and nothing is final. There is no such thing as final proven knowledge in science. The currently accepted theory of a phenomenon is simply the best explanation for it among all available alternatives. Its status as the accepted theory is contingent on what other theories are available and might suddenly change tomorrow if there appears a better theory or new evidence that might challenge the accepted theory. No knowledge or theory (which embodies scientific knowledge) is final. That, by the way, is why science is so much fun.

Further, proofs, like pregnancy, are binary; a mathematical proposition is either proven (in which case it becomes a theorem) or not (in which case it remains a conjecture until it is proven). There is nothing in between. A theorem cannot be kind of proven or almost proven. These are the same as unproven. In contrast, there is no such binary evaluation of scientific theories. Scientific theories are neither absolutely false nor absolutely true. They are always somewhere in between. Some theories are better, more credible, and more accepted than others. There is always more credible and better evidence for some theories than others. It is a matter of more or less, not either/or. For example, experimental evidence is better and more credible than correlational evidence, but even the former cannot prove a theory; it only provides very strong evidence for the theory and against its alternatives. The knowledge that there is no such thing as a scientific proof should give you a very easy way to tell real scientists from hacks and wannabes. Real scientists never use the words “scientific proofs,” because they know no such thing exists. Anyone who uses the words “proof,” “prove” and “proven” in their discussion of science is not a real scientist.

so are you saying there is no evidence to support your claim? Just asking, cause you still haven't supplied any. Facts are not supported in science, is that what you're saying? The fact is that temperature sets and sea level stats are manufactured, that is not evidence, that is manufacturing.

 

[RollingThunder]

Evidence is not proof. How could you people be gaffed so many times on the fallacy of your belief that science requires proofs without thinking to look up the meaning of "proof" and the reality of the scientific method in the natural sciences?

Evidence is proof.

Nope! You are just an ignorant retard who knows nothing about science.

In reality....there are NO proofs in science!

Common misconceptions about science: “Scientific proof”
Why there is no such thing as a scientific proof
PsychologyToday
by Satoshi Kanazawa in The Scientific Fundamentalist
November 16, 2008
(excerpts)
There are many misconceptions about science. One of the most common misconceptions concerns the so-called “scientific proofs.” Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof. Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science. Proofs have two features that do not exist in science: They are final, and they are binary. Once a theorem is proven, it will forever be true and there will be nothing in the future that will threaten its status as a proven theorem (unless a flaw is discovered in the proof). Apart from a discovery of an error, a proven theorem will forever and always be a proven theorem. In contrast, all scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, and nothing is final. There is no such thing as final proven knowledge in science. The currently accepted theory of a phenomenon is simply the best explanation for it among all available alternatives. Its status as the accepted theory is contingent on what other theories are available and might suddenly change tomorrow if there appears a better theory or new evidence that might challenge the accepted theory. No knowledge or theory (which embodies scientific knowledge) is final. That, by the way, is why science is so much fun.

Further, proofs, like pregnancy, are binary; a mathematical proposition is either proven (in which case it becomes a theorem) or not (in which case it remains a conjecture until it is proven). There is nothing in between. A theorem cannot be kind of proven or almost proven. These are the same as unproven. In contrast, there is no such binary evaluation of scientific theories. Scientific theories are neither absolutely false nor absolutely true. They are always somewhere in between. Some theories are better, more credible, and more accepted than others. There is always more credible and better evidence for some theories than others. It is a matter of more or less, not either/or. For example, experimental evidence is better and more credible than correlational evidence, but even the former cannot prove a theory; it only provides very strong evidence for the theory and against its alternatives. The knowledge that there is no such thing as a scientific proof should give you a very easy way to tell real scientists from hacks and wannabes. Real scientists never use the words “scientific proofs,” because they know no such thing exists. Anyone who uses the words “proof,” “prove” and “proven” in their discussion of science is not a real scientist.

so are you saying there is no evidence to support your claim? Just asking, cause you still haven't supplied any. Facts are not supported in science, is that what you're saying? The fact is that temperature sets and sea level stats are manufactured, that is not evidence, that is manufacturing.

And there is that old denier cult insanity and rejection of science and crackpot conspiracy theory ideation all rolled into one deranged ball of bullshit!