When Did Hypotheses Become Conclusions?

[jwoodie]

It used to be that scientific hypotheses had to be proven before they became conclusions. Now hypotheses such as man-made global warming are accepted conclusions without having to be proven. What happened?

I don't oppose research and testing in this area, but I am concerned about the apparent abandonment of the scientific method when it comes to determining public policy. Am I mistaken about this?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Then study up on the literature of the subject, jwoodie, because you are making a priori assumptions not based on fact.

 

[IanC]

It used to be that scientific hypotheses had to be proven before they became conclusions. Now hypotheses such as man-made global warming are accepted conclusions without having to be proven. What happened?

I don't oppose research and testing in this area, but I am concerned about the apparent abandonment of the scientific method when it comes to determining public policy. Am I mistaken about this?

Reasonable people can look at the same set of (incomplete) facts and come to differing conclusions. Scientists are no different. CAGW is rife with exaggerated or even wrong conclusions based on incomplete and sometimes opposing data.

 

[SSDD]

when politicians with great big old buckets full of money decided that they should....and decided to only hand out money to those who agree with them.

 

[SSDD]

It used to be that scientific hypotheses had to be proven before they became conclusions. Now hypotheses such as man-made global warming are accepted conclusions without having to be proven. What happened?

I don't oppose research and testing in this area, but I am concerned about the apparent abandonment of the scientific method when it comes to determining public policy. Am I mistaken about this?

Reasonable people can look at the same set of (incomplete) facts and come to differing conclusions. Scientists are no different. CAGW is rife with exaggerated or even wrong conclusions based on incomplete and sometimes opposing data.

Beginning with very basic, but flawed assumptions regarding the movement of energy through the atmosphere.

 

[Crick]

God are you stupid.

And JWoodie, hypotheses do not get proven. They get supported by evidence or they get falsified. No proofs.

 

[SSDD]

God are you stupid.

And JWoodie, hypotheses do not get proven. They get supported by evidence or they get falsified. No proofs.

So how many predictive failures do you think a hypothesis should get before it is scrapped?b And when the money starts drying up for supporting the AGW hypothesis..which it surely will now, how long do you thing it will take for that particular piss poor hypothesis to fall out of favor?

 

[Crick]

AGW is widely accepted science. A lack of further research funding will not change that.

 

[SSDD]

AGW is widely accepted science. A lack of further research funding will not change that.

AGW is widely paid for science...lets see how widely accepted it is when the money trough starts drying up....and if you don't think money has been driving climate science, then you are even more stupid than I though you were...and that is really saying something.

 

[Crick]

AGW is widely accepted science. You cannot support your charges. You're famous for failing to back up your claims with evidence and this statement is no different than all the rest.

 

[SSDD]

AGW is widely accepted science. You cannot support your charges. You're famous for failing to back up your claims with evidence and this statement is no different than all the rest.

Still waiting on that observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence in support of the A in AGW..the Great Pumpkin will rise up from the pumpkin patch before such evidence ever appears.

 

[Old Rocks]

It used to be that scientific hypotheses had to be proven before they became conclusions. Now hypotheses such as man-made global warming are accepted conclusions without having to be proven. What happened?

I don't oppose research and testing in this area, but I am concerned about the apparent abandonment of the scientific method when it comes to determining public policy. Am I mistaken about this?

Reasonable people can look at the same set of (incomplete) facts and come to differing conclusions. Scientists are no different. CAGW is rife with exaggerated or even wrong conclusions based on incomplete and sometimes opposing data.

Beginning with very basic, but flawed assumptions regarding the movement of energy through the atmosphere.

Oh fuck, here we go again with smart photons. What an absolute idiot. As crazy as Frankie boi's hollow moon.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Whut?

The moon is not hollow, and there is not alien space base on the dark side?

Whut?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Basic chemistry shows CAGW a scam..

Chemistry 101: Le Chatelier’s Principle: When a system in (chemical) equilibrium is subjected to a disturbance, it tends to change in a way that opposes this disturbance. That’s why it’s dangerous to assume linearity, i.e., increasing emissions of CO2 won’t necessarily cause a corresponding increase in atmospheric CO2 levels.

 

[Crick]

What chemical equilibrium is upset by adding CO2 to the atmopshere?

No one is assuming such linearity, but it's not from chemical reactions. It's from CO2 being absorbed into solution in the oceans and the soil of the planet, in a manner dependent on temperature, and thus in a complex manner with iterative feedbacks.

But let me repeat, what chemical equilibrium is upset by adding CO2 to the atmosphere?

 

[Crick]

Now Saturday morning. Still waiting for an answer. What chemical equilibrium is upset by changing CO2 levels in the atmosphere? More importantly, I suppose, is what chemical reaction do you, Billy Bob, believe is taking place to oppose increases in the atmosphere? And I do not regard CO2 going into solution in the world's ocean and soils as a chemical reaction.

Your problem is that the atmosphere is not an ionic solution, it is a simple mixture.

 

[SSDD]

Oh fuck, here we go again with smart photons. What an absolute idiot. As crazy as Frankie boi's hollow moon.

Sad when your go to argument for all situations is a logical fallacy....but then, you are sad rocks...

 

[Crick]

What logical fallacy would that be SID?

 

[SSDD]

What logical fallacy would that be SID?

You don't recognize an argument to ridicule skid mark?...is there anything that you actually do know?...or are you just a parrot bot and nothing more?

 

[Crick]

I recognize that your "hypothesis" regarding radiative heat transfer requires all matter to sense its surroundings, throttle its emissions, control its radiation patterns, predict the future state of its surroundings and do this in violation of special relativity. I recognize that your insistence on this nonsense and your unwillingness to listen to reason indicates you're either exceedingly ignorant or insane.