Mauna Loa shows that reducing economic Activity has NO EFFECT on CO2

[Crick]

Ummm, no. It is YOUR heroes who have put forth that hypothesis. Ice core data proves it is wrong.

You're not reading well. JC456 was the author of the hypothesis and attempted to support it with his Keeling Curve plot.

 

[Crick]

It is the position of the climatological mafia that everything happening now is somehow different from every other time.

Thus it is THEM who have to prove it.

That's how the scientific method works.

Neither you nor jc have demonstrated anything but profound ignorance regarding the scientific method.

 

[westwall]

You're not reading well. JC456 was the author of the hypothesis and attempted to support it with his Keeling Curve plot.

No, he wasn't. Try again.

 

[Crick]

Where? Where's your link for support? I provided your post.

You chose two of my posts well after the post containing the link and you obviously did that intentionally you TROLL

 

[Crick]

No, he wasn't. Try again.

Yes he was. You need to stop digging.

 

[westwall]

Neither you nor jc have demonstrated anything but profound ignorance regarding the scientific method.

The scientific method has been abandoned by climatologists pushing the fraud.

The idiot from New Zealand was so bold as to declare that his experiments didn't need to be repeatable.

A direct repudiation of the scientific method.

 

[Crick]

The scientific method has been abandoned by climatologists pushing the fraud.

The idiot from New Zealand was so bold as to declare that his experiments didn't need to be repeatable.

A direct repudiation of the scientific method.

As noted earlier, your posts on these topics do nothing but demonstrate your ignorance of the scientific method.

 

[westwall]

As noted earlier, your posts on these topics do nothing but demonstrate your ignorance of the scientific method.

Really? Tell us how claiming experiments need not be repeatable is following the scientific method?

This should be good.

 

[Crick]

Really? Tell us how claiming experiments need not be repeatable is following the scientific method?

This should be good.

I posted text from Wikipedia's article on the scientific method. If you think it's incorrect you can pit yourself against Isaac Newton, the Oxford English Dictionary and a number of science luminaries. There are obviously fields where experiments are not possible: astronomy, cosmology, climate science. I would ask if the scientists you believe have it right (Curry, Spencer, Ball, etc) conduct repeatable experiments on these topics and if so could you tell us about them. The underlined terms are active links back to Wikipedia. The article is extensive. Feel free to peruse it. We could all always use the refresher.

---

The scientific method is an empirical method for acquiring knowledge that has characterized the development of science since at least the 17th century (with notable practitioners in previous centuries; see the article history of scientific method for additional detail.) It involves careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation. It involves formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations; the testability of hypotheses, experimental and the measurement-based statistical testing of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings. These are principles of the scientific method, as distinguished from a definitive series of steps applicable to all scientific enterprises.[1][2][3]

Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, the underlying process is frequently the same from one field to another. The process in the scientific method involves making conjectures (hypothetical explanations), deriving predictions from the hypotheses as logical consequences, and then carrying out experiments or empirical observations based on those predictions.[a][4] 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.[5]

The purpose of an experiment is to determine whether observations[A][a]Scientific method - Wikipedia agree with or conflict with the expectations deduced from a hypothesis.[6]: Book I, [6.54] pp.372, 408 Scientific method - Wikipedia Experiments can take place anywhere from a garage to a remote mountaintop to CERN's Large Hadron Collider. There are difficulties in a formulaic statement of method, however. Though the scientific method is often presented as a fixed sequence of steps, it represents rather a set of general principles.[7] Not all steps take place in every scientific inquiry (nor to the same degree), and they are not always in the same order.[8][9] [Emphasis mine]

---

Notes​

1. ^ Jump up to:a b See, for example, Galileo Galilei 1638. His thought experiments disprove Aristotle's physics of falling bodies.
2. ^ Jump up to:a b c Book of Optics (circa 1027) After anatomical investigation of the human eye, and an exhaustive study of human visual perception, Alhacen characterizes the first postulate of Euclid's Optics as 'superfluous and useless' (Book I, [6.54] —thereby overturning Euclid's, Ptolemy's, and Galen's emission theory of vision, using logic and deduction from experiment. He showed Euclid's first postulate of Optics to be hypothetical only, and fails to account for his experiments.), and deduces that light must enter the eye, in order for us to see. He describes the camera obscura as part of this investigation.

Notes: Problem-solving via scientific method​

1. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e In the inquiry-based education paradigm, the stage of "characterization, observation, definition, ..." is more briefly summed up under the rubric of a Question. The question at some stage might be as basic as the 5Ws, or is this answer true?, or who else might know this?, or can I ask them?, and so forth. The questions of the inquirer spiral until the goal is reached.
2. ^ Jump up to:a b c Peirce 1899 First rule of logic (F.R.L)[21] Paragraph 1.136: From the first rule of logic, if we truly desire the goal of the inquiry we are not to waste our resources[22][23]

References​

1. ^ Newton, Issac (1999) [1726 (3rd ed.)]. Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica [Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy]. The Principia: Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy. Translated by Cohen, I. Bernard; Whitman, Anne; Budenz, Julia. Includes "A Guide to Newton's Principia" by I. Bernard Cohen, pp. 1–370. (The Principia itself is on pp. 371–946). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 791–796 ("Rules of Reasoning in Philosophy"); see also Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica#Rules of Reason. ISBN 978-0-520-08817-7.
2. ^ "scientific method", Oxford Dictionaries: British and World English, 2016, archived from the original on 2016-06-20, retrieved 2016-05-28
3. ^ Oxford English Dictionary (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2014 – via OED Online.
4. ^ Jump up to:a b c 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. 434–450, and elsewhere. N.B. 435.30 'living institution': Hibbert J. mis-transcribed 'living institution': ("constitution" for "institution")
5. ^ Popper 1959, p. 273.
6. ^ Jump up to:a b Alhacen (2001). Smith, A. Mark (ed.). Alhacen's Theory of Visual Perception: A Critical Edition, with English Translation and Commentary, of the First Three Books of Alhacen's "De Aspectibus", the Medieval Latin Version of Ibn al-Haytham's "Kitāb al-Manāẓir". Vol. 1: Introduction and Latin text; Vol. 2: English translation. Translated by A. Mark Smith. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society. ISBN 0-87169-914-1. OCLC 47168716.
7. ^ Jump up to:a b Gauch 2003, p. 3: "The scientific method 'is often misrepresented as a fixed sequence of steps,' rather than being seen for what it truly is, 'a highly variable and creative process' (AAAS 2000:18). The claim here is that science has general principles that must be mastered to increase productivity and enhance perspective, not that these principles provide a simple and automated sequence of steps to follow."
8. ^ Jump up to:a b Gauch 2003, p. 3.
9. ^ Jump up to:a b William Whewell, History of Inductive Science (1837), and in Philosophy of Inductive Science (1840)

 

[westwall]

I posted text from Wikipedia's article on the scientific method. If you think it's incorrect you can pit yourself against Isaac Newton, the Oxford English Dictionary and a number of science luminaries. There are obviously fields where experiments are not possible: astronomy, cosmology, climate science. I would ask if the scientists you believe have it right (Curry, Spencer, Ball, etc) conduct repeatable experiments on these topics and if so could you tell us about them. The underlined terms are active links back to Wikipedia. The article is extensive. Feel free to peruse it. We could all always use the refresher.

---

The scientific method is an empirical method for acquiring knowledge that has characterized the development of science since at least the 17th century (with notable practitioners in previous centuries; see the article history of scientific method for additional detail.) It involves careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation. It involves formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations; the testability of hypotheses, experimental and the measurement-based statistical testing of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings. These are principles of the scientific method, as distinguished from a definitive series of steps applicable to all scientific enterprises.[1][2][3]

Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, the underlying process is frequently the same from one field to another. The process in the scientific method involves making conjectures (hypothetical explanations), deriving predictions from the hypotheses as logical consequences, and then carrying out experiments or empirical observations based on those predictions.[a][4] 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.[5]

The purpose of an experiment is to determine whether observations[A][a]Scientific method - Wikipedia agree with or conflict with the expectations deduced from a hypothesis.[6]: Book I, [6.54] pp.372, 408 Scientific method - Wikipedia Experiments can take place anywhere from a garage to a remote mountaintop to CERN's Large Hadron Collider. There are difficulties in a formulaic statement of method, however. Though the scientific method is often presented as a fixed sequence of steps, it represents rather a set of general principles.[7] Not all steps take place in every scientific inquiry (nor to the same degree), and they are not always in the same order.[8][9] [Emphasis mine]

---

Notes​

1. ^ Jump up to:a b See, for example, Galileo Galilei 1638. His thought experiments disprove Aristotle's physics of falling bodies.
2. ^ Jump up to:a b c Book of Optics (circa 1027) After anatomical investigation of the human eye, and an exhaustive study of human visual perception, Alhacen characterizes the first postulate of Euclid's Optics as 'superfluous and useless' (Book I, [6.54] —thereby overturning Euclid's, Ptolemy's, and Galen's emission theory of vision, using logic and deduction from experiment. He showed Euclid's first postulate of Optics to be hypothetical only, and fails to account for his experiments.), and deduces that light must enter the eye, in order for us to see. He describes the camera obscura as part of this investigation.

Notes: Problem-solving via scientific method​

1. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e In the inquiry-based education paradigm, the stage of "characterization, observation, definition, ..." is more briefly summed up under the rubric of a Question. The question at some stage might be as basic as the 5Ws, or is this answer true?, or who else might know this?, or can I ask them?, and so forth. The questions of the inquirer spiral until the goal is reached.
2. ^ Jump up to:a b c Peirce 1899 First rule of logic (F.R.L)[21] Paragraph 1.136: From the first rule of logic, if we truly desire the goal of the inquiry we are not to waste our resources[22][23]

References​

1. ^ Newton, Issac (1999) [1726 (3rd ed.)]. Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica [Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy]. The Principia: Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy. Translated by Cohen, I. Bernard; Whitman, Anne; Budenz, Julia. Includes "A Guide to Newton's Principia" by I. Bernard Cohen, pp. 1–370. (The Principia itself is on pp. 371–946). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 791–796 ("Rules of Reasoning in Philosophy"); see also Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica#Rules of Reason. ISBN 978-0-520-08817-7.
2. ^ "scientific method", Oxford Dictionaries: British and World English, 2016, archived from the original on 2016-06-20, retrieved 2016-05-28
3. ^ Oxford English Dictionary (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2014 – via OED Online.
4. ^ Jump up to:a b c 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. 434–450, and elsewhere. N.B. 435.30 'living institution': Hibbert J. mis-transcribed 'living institution': ("constitution" for "institution")
5. ^ Popper 1959, p. 273.
6. ^ Jump up to:a b Alhacen (2001). Smith, A. Mark (ed.). Alhacen's Theory of Visual Perception: A Critical Edition, with English Translation and Commentary, of the First Three Books of Alhacen's "De Aspectibus", the Medieval Latin Version of Ibn al-Haytham's "Kitāb al-Manāẓir". Vol. 1: Introduction and Latin text; Vol. 2: English translation. Translated by A. Mark Smith. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society. ISBN 0-87169-914-1. OCLC 47168716.
7. ^ Jump up to:a b Gauch 2003, p. 3: "The scientific method 'is often misrepresented as a fixed sequence of steps,' rather than being seen for what it truly is, 'a highly variable and creative process' (AAAS 2000:18). The claim here is that science has general principles that must be mastered to increase productivity and enhance perspective, not that these principles provide a simple and automated sequence of steps to follow."
8. ^ Jump up to:a b Gauch 2003, p. 3.
9. ^ Jump up to:a b William Whewell, History of Inductive Science (1837), and in Philosophy of Inductive Science (1840)

That doesn't address how Trenberth, one of the leading lights of climate change, can deny a core principle of the scientific method.

Address that if you will.

 

[ReinyDays]

IPCC does

Politics? ... well maybe ... politics is always bad for the environment ... thus the IPCC ...

 

[Crick]

Politics? ... well maybe ... politics is always bad for the environment ... thus the IPCC ...

Why do you say politics is always bad for the environment? Politics created the Clean Air and Water Acts, politics created the EPA. Politics has elected people concerned about the environment. And the only effect of politics on the IPCC has been to tone down their early pronouncements.

 

[ReinyDays]

Why do you say politics is always bad for the environment? Politics created the Clean Air and Water Acts, politics created the EPA. Politics has elected people concerned about the environment. And the only effect of politics on the IPCC has been to tone down their early pronouncements.

IPCC doesn't allow for dispute ... or do you have book, chapter and verse where the IPCC report publishes those climatologists who disagree with the IPCC policies? ...

Politics causes dirty air, poisoned waters and dead places around the globe ... See how Texas oil refineries are "grandfathered" in? ... see how politics poisoned East Palestein, Ohio ... go to the beach and count the dead fish ... see? ... politics ... all the excess lawn fertilizer is draining into the sea causing the red algae bloom ... nature ahbors neat trimmed lawns ...

... or do you think Burmese Pythons are causing this death-zone in your ocean waters? ...

Lava didn't destroy the Keeling Facility ... just the road leading to it ... HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW ... fucking stupid people ...

 

[mamooth]

Are you completely unaware of the many manmade ruins that have now been underwater for ages?

That first image of pyramids underwater is faked, an "artist's conception" type of thing.

The second is of a natural rock formation. Yes, nature does often make square blocks. I could show you some rock formations by me that look like perfect paving stones, yet they are entirely natural.

I do understand why you think Egyptians can't build. They were brown people, after all. The ancient aliens hypothesis is based on the belief that only white people are smart enough to build big things. You never see them hypothesizing about how aliens must have helped build Notre Dame Cathedral.

So, any other deniers want to jump on Frank's ancient aliens bandwagon? I'll point it out as an example of how if someone falls for one idiot conspiracy theory (denialism), they most likely fall for a bunch of idiot conspiracy theories.

 

[ReinyDays]

That first image of pyramids underwater is faked, an "artist's conception" type of thing.

The second is of a natural rock formation. Yes, nature does often make square blocks. I could show you some rock formations by me that look like perfect paving stones, yet they are entirely natural.

I do understand why you think Egyptians can't build. They were brown people, after all. The ancient aliens hypothesis is based on the belief that only white people are smart enough to build big things. You never see them hypothesizing about how aliens must have helped build Notre Dame Cathedral.

So, any other deniers want to jump on Frank's ancient aliens bandwagon? I'll point it out as an example of how if someone falls for one idiot conspiracy theory (denialism), they most likely fall for a bunch of idiot conspiracy theories.

The funny part is that the largest ancient pyramids are in Meso-America ... at least the Egyptians had bronze and a little iron ... all the Mexicans had was rocks and death-threats ...

Great Pyramid of Cholula - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[mamooth]

That doesn't address how Trenberth, one of the leading lights of climate change, can deny a core principle of the scientific method.

Address that if you will.

Sure. You're making nonsense up again. That response covers every dishonest question you ask.

But please, go on. Tell everyone exactly how Dr. Trenberth ignored the scientific method. No, you can't just assert something. You have to actually show us the evidence. Link to it.

This is where you snarl out insults as an evasion, like you always do. That's the ironic part, how you always ignore the rules of evidence yourself.

 

[ReinyDays]

Sure. You're making nonsense up again. That response covers every dishonest question you ask.

But please, go on. Tell everyone exactly how Dr. Trenberth ignored the scientific method. No, you can't just assert something. You have to actually show us the evidence. Link to it.

This is where you snarl out insults as an evasion, like you always do. That's the ironic part, how you always ignore the rules of evidence yourself.

I read one of Trenberth's papers ... seems scientific enough ... I don't agree, but his work is still good science ... Link ...

 

[Sunsettommy]

Producing a big pile of projected climate models to year 2050 2100, 3100 and whatever into the future every 5 years is a sign of government generated pseudoscience with ZERO demonstrated forecast skill and doesn't conform with the ideals of the Scientific Method at all.

The IPCC is a Pseudoscience factory.

FACT: NO Lower Tropospheric Hot Spot exist.

FACT: NO Positive Feedback Loop exist.

FACT: NO developing Climate Crisis.

 

[westwall]

I read one of Trenberth's papers ... seems scientific enough ... I don't agree, but his work is still good science ... Link ...

It's not good science when he repudiates the scientific method. And not one of his experiments is repeatable.

You call that good science?

 

[ReinyDays]

It's not good science when he repudiates the scientific method. And not one of his experiments is repeatable.

You call that good science?

"In the first 11 months of 1998, there were major floods in China, Peru, and California, enormous damage from Hurricane Mitch in Central America, record-breaking heat waves in Texas, and extensive drought and fires in Indonesia; weather-related property losses were estimated at over $89 billion, tens of thousands of lives were lost, and hundreds of thousands of people were displaced."

How is this not repeatable? ... I'm not saying it has been repeated ... just that it is repeatable ... what are weather-related property damage costs for 2022? ... it's either above $89m, below $89m ... or exactly the same as $89m ...

Oh ... right ... brown people ... they don't count ...