When Did Hypotheses Become Conclusions?

[SSDD]

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.

I base my position on every observation ever made....what was it that you base your position on again?....oh yes...an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model...and I have no hypothesis...just the second law of thermodynamics..It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

 

[Crick]

Insane and stupid. Got it.

 

[SSDD]

Insane and stupid. Got it.

So when you look into a mirror, you can see the truth....now that you know that you are stupid, you might ask yourself why you feel the need to add something to the laws of thermodynamics that isn't there...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

God are you stupid.

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

And by "evidence" do you mean rigorous lab work and repeated scientific experiments, or something else

 

[SSDD]

God are you stupid.

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

And by "evidence" do you mean rigorous lab work and repeated scientific experiments, or something else

By evidence, he means a big enough trough of money to generate some consensus.

 

[Crick]

I'm the one that keeps linking to hard science on these issues. The amount of hard scientific evidence deniers have supporting their claims wouldn't fill the teacup of a mouse.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I'm the one that keeps linking to hard science on these issues. The amount of hard scientific evidence deniers have supporting their claims wouldn't fill the teacup of a mouse.

It's Hard science because it's very hard to even claim you're doing science when you avoid the lab like Dracula avoids daylight

 

[martybegan]

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?

its because in the case of AGW the science is merely a backup for the social and economic policies that it's proponents want to enact, namely more government control of more things in life, and at higher and higher levels, insulated from the pesky proles who watch the elites ignore the rules they impose on others.

Leo can fly his private jets to fundraisers, but I have to give up my incandescent bulbs.

 

[Crick]

When you have to result to that level of vagueness ("more government control of more things in life") wee alarm bells should go off in your head that say "No argument, no argument, no argument".

Do you actually think Leo's private jet has any bearing on the validity of the science?

 

[martybegan]

When you have to result to that level of vagueness ("more government control of more things in life") wee alarm bells should go off in your head that say "No argument, no argument, no argument".

Do you actually think Leo's private jet has any bearing on the validity of the science?

No, it shows the contempt of the elites vs. the rest of us.

And my argument is very valid. AGW people have come to a conclusion, and they search for "evidence" to back up that conclusion. That "more government" is always the answer to their purported problems is telling. Nothing but a bunch of Watermelons.