When Did Hypotheses Become Conclusions?

jwoodie

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2012
Messages
14,925
Reaction score
3,582
Points
280
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

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
168,037
Reaction score
16,461
Points
2,165
Then study up on the literature of the subject, jwoodie, because you are making a priori assumptions not based on fact.
 

IanC

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2009
Messages
11,064
Reaction score
1,315
Points
245
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

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2012
Messages
16,806
Reaction score
1,903
Points
280
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

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2012
Messages
16,806
Reaction score
1,903
Points
280
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.
 

SSDD

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2012
Messages
16,806
Reaction score
1,903
Points
280
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

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
15,085
Reaction score
1,455
Points
275
Location
N/A
AGW is widely accepted science. A lack of further research funding will not change that.
 

SSDD

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2012
Messages
16,806
Reaction score
1,903
Points
280
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

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
15,085
Reaction score
1,455
Points
275
Location
N/A
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

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2012
Messages
16,806
Reaction score
1,903
Points
280
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

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
59,656
Reaction score
7,427
Points
1,840
Location
Portland, Ore.
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

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
168,037
Reaction score
16,461
Points
2,165
Whut?

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

Whut?
 

Billy_Bob

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2014
Messages
25,509
Reaction score
12,469
Points
1,430
Location
Top Of The Great Divide
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

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
15,085
Reaction score
1,455
Points
275
Location
N/A
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

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
15,085
Reaction score
1,455
Points
275
Location
N/A
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.
 
Last edited:

SSDD

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2012
Messages
16,806
Reaction score
1,903
Points
280
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

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
15,085
Reaction score
1,455
Points
275
Location
N/A
What logical fallacy would that be SID?
 

SSDD

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2012
Messages
16,806
Reaction score
1,903
Points
280
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

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
15,085
Reaction score
1,455
Points
275
Location
N/A
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.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top