Science is falsifiable

[mamooth]

No it's not falsifiable....Every got-damned odd weather event gets blamed by you cranks on Goebbels warming...That's classic unfalsifiability.

No, that's you lying, and it only makes you look dishonest and desperate.

Now, cult boi, why don't you tell us what hard data would falsify _your_ theory? If your theory isn't junk pseudoscience, you'll be able to name many examples of hard data that would falsify it, just as we have.

You can run now. I've asked that question many times, and no hardcore denier has ever given an answer. Their theory is obviously junk pseudoscience.

At this stage, most hardcore deniers understand that they're lying. They just believe any lie is justifiable if it gets them closer to their Stalinist utopia. The only moral principle they hold is "The ends always justify the means, but only for my own side."

 

[westwall]

Provably false. The Sun is indeed getting cooler, and the only way the climate fraudsters can make the claim you just made is by running raw data through computer models which magically show warming

It's good that Westwall isn't even trying to defend his lunatic cult pseudoscience any longer. He always sucked at it, and everyone just laughed.

Now, he just jumps straight to shrieking conspiracy propaganda. I agree he should use that tactic. It's the only thing he's ever been able to do, and one should always do what they're good at.

Here's a falsifiable experiment you can do in the lab. Create a sealed environment, then create a terrarium, add in a representative atmosphere that is accurate. Then increase by correct volume the infinitisimal amount of CO2 that has been added to the Earths atmosphere, and see what happens.

Done. The result is it gets warmer.

It's fascinating, the way conspiracy cultists actually believe they can change the physical properties of greenhouse gases if they just repeat enough propaganda and BELIEVE hard enough.

Are you going to actually address what i said or are you simply too stupid to do anything other than make personal attacks?

 

[westwall]

No it's not falsifiable....Every got-damned odd weather event gets blamed by you cranks on Goebbels warming...That's classic unfalsifiability.

No, that's you lying, and it only makes you look dishonest and desperate.

Now, cult boi, why don't you tell us what hard data would falsify _your_ theory? If your theory isn't junk pseudoscience, you'll be able to name many examples of hard data that would falsify it, just as we have.

You can run now. I've asked that question many times, and no hardcore denier has ever given an answer. Their theory is obviously junk pseudoscience.

At this stage, most hardcore deniers understand that they're lying. They just believe any lie is justifiable if it gets them closer to their Stalinist utopia. The only moral principle they hold is "The ends always justify the means, but only for my own side."

You never answer a damned thing. All you do is insult and then run. How about addressing what is actually being said.

 

[mamooth]

Are you going to actually address what i said

I did. Pointing out that it's paranoid conspiracy gibberish addressed it directly. If someone says the Unibomber Manifesto is correct and demands others refute it, they are not required to go through the Manifesto point by point. They only need to point out that it's farkin nuts.

You never answer a damned thing. All you do is insult and then run. How about addressing what is actually being said.

Since you jumped in, why don't you tell us what hard data would falsify your theory? If your theory isn't garbage pseudoscience, that shouldn't be a problem. After all, we were easily able to provide such examples for our theory, given how our theory is such rock-hard science.

 

[Oddball]

We're not the ones with the theory, fool....You warmers are the ones with the hypothesis (theories require a level of proof that you haven't yet assembled), the onus of proof is on you.

 

[westwall]

Are you going to actually address what i said

I did. Pointing out that it's paranoid conspiracy gibberish addressed it directly. If someone says the Unibomber Manifesto is correct and demands others refute it, they are not required to go through the Manifesto point by point. They only need to point out that it's farkin nuts.

You never answer a damned thing. All you do is insult and then run. How about addressing what is actually being said.

Since you jumped in, why don't you tell us what hard data would falsify your theory? If your theory isn't garbage pseudoscience, that shouldn't be a problem. After all, we were easily able to provide such examples for our theory, given how our theory is such rock-hard science.

Wrong, silly kitty, blathering on your opinion, without presenting facts, is nothing more than screaming the "end is nigh" while wearing your sandwich boards. We present actual science, you present falsified data and opinion. Huuuuge difference. Are you too stupid to understand, or just a paid shill pushing the fraud for money?

 

[mamooth]

Wrong, silly kitty, blathering on your opinion, without presenting facts, is nothing more than screaming the "end is nigh" while wearing your sandwich boards. We present actual science, you present falsified data and opinion. Huuuuge difference. Are you too stupid to understand, or just a paid shill pushing the fraud for money?

Absent from that rambling evasion was your list of what hard data would falsify your theory.

You don't need to say more. You've made it clear that you know you're peddling cult pseudoscience.

 

[Oddball]

Wrong, silly kitty, blathering on your opinion, without presenting facts, is nothing more than screaming the "end is nigh" while wearing your sandwich boards. We present actual science, you present falsified data and opinion. Huuuuge difference. Are you too stupid to understand, or just a paid shill pushing the fraud for money?

Absent from that rambling evasion was your list of what hard data would falsify your theory.

You don't need to say more. You've made it clear that you know you're peddling cult pseudoscience.

We're not the ones with the hypothesis, nitwit.

 

[mamooth]

We're not the ones with the theory, fool...

Quite correct, and good of you to admit it. That's why nobody pays attention to you. You have no science of any sort backing you up. All you have is your cult conspiracy theories and your precious butthurt.

You warmers are the ones with the hypothesis (theories require a level of proof that you haven't yet assembled), the onus of proof is on you.

And it's been met, thanks for playing. Our theory correctly explains all the observed data, and it makes many testable predictions that have come true, so it passes the test of good science.

This is one reason why it's so good to be part of the rational community. Reality never contradicts our politics, because if it does, we change our politics to match reality.

In stark contrast, when reality contradicts your politics, you attempt to fudge reality to match your politics.

 

[Oddball]

We're not the ones with the theory, fool...

Quite correct, and good of you to admit it. That's why nobody pays attention to you. You have no science of any sort backing you up. All you have is your cult conspiracy theories and your precious butthurt.

You warmers are the ones with the hypothesis (theories require a level of proof that you haven't yet assembled), the onus of proof is on you.

And it's been met, thanks for playing. Our theory correctly explains all the observed data, and it makes many testable predictions that have come true, so it passes the test of good science.

This is one reason why it's so good to be part of the rational community. Reality never contradicts our politics, because if it does, we change our politics to match reality.

In stark contrast, when reality contradicts your politics, you attempt to fudge reality to match your politics.

You hypothesis doesn't have enough tested and falsified data to qualify for being a theory...All you clowns have are some pretty three-color charts, jimmied computer models, and highly politicized "peer review"....IOW, you don't have so much as a popcorn fart.

And that bit about fudging reality to fit one's politics is weapons grade projection.

 

[SSDD]

Are you going to actually address what i said or are you simply too stupid to do anything other than make personal attacks?

You do realize who you are talking to don't you? What else could you expect from her?

 

[Wuwei]

Your idiot lists were based on assumptions...you assume that CO2 can warm the air...you assume that IR can warm the air...you assume that CO2 is responsible for warming...AGW was falsified long ago....but being pseudoscience, it just keeps going so long as the funding keeps going...

You were proven wrong long ago by both experiment and theory. Troll.

 

[cnm]

You hypothesis doesn't have enough tested and falsified data to qualify for being a theory.

But you don't get a vote in the consensus, only scientists, especially climate scientists. Of course you can reject it, there are always nay sayers, it's a consensus not a unanimity. Welcome to the fringe.

 

[cnm]

Posting the dude's background was an attack on him? He must have done some pretty nasty stuff for you to think that. You may very well think so. I couldn't possibly comment.

 

[cnm]

Haven't you heard? No one has ever shown that absorbing energy raises the temperature of a gas. Same Shit told me man. It's gotta be true.

At last, free refrigeration. We're saved.

 

[SSDD]

Your idiot lists were based on assumptions...you assume that CO2 can warm the air...you assume that IR can warm the air...you assume that CO2 is responsible for warming...AGW was falsified long ago....but being pseudoscience, it just keeps going so long as the funding keeps going...

You were proven wrong long ago by both experiment and theory. Troll.

The experiment fooled you....unfortunate, but when you operate on faith, rather than actual curiosity to find the truth, it is easy to be fooled by things that may look like they are telling you what you want to hear but aren't.....much the same as the ease with which you are fooled by instruments...

 

[SSDD]

You hypothesis doesn't have enough tested and falsified data to qualify for being a theory.

But you don't get a vote in the consensus, only scientists, especially climate scientists. Of course you can reject it, there are always nay sayers, it's a consensus not a unanimity. Welcome to the fringe.

And the logical fallacies roll on...no argument about the quality or quantity of experiments...no argument about how observable, measurable evidence rules out natural variability....only a direct leap into the logical fallacy of assuming that consensus means anything without actual observed, measured evidence.

 

[SSDD]

Posting the dude's background was an attack on him? He must have done some pretty nasty stuff for you to think that. You may very well think so. I couldn't possibly comment.

If it has the purpose of making an attempt to smear him in some fashion and doesn't begin to actually address the issue, then yes, it is a ad hom fallacy...his back ground has no bearing whatsoever on whether he is correct or not...if you can't address that then your logic is flawed....

 

[SSDD]

Haven't you heard? No one has ever shown that absorbing energy raises the temperature of a gas. Same Shit told me man. It's gotta be true.

At last, free refrigeration. We're saved.

Guess you are unaware of the work required to produce refrigeration....can you point to the mechanism in the atmosphere that provides the work necessary..and describe how it works...and show some observed, measured evidence of it? Perhaps a published paper in which the warming caused by our activities has been empirically measured, quantified, and ascribed to so called greenhouse gasses would help. Care to provide an author and title? What's that? No such paper has ever been published....

Sarcasm is only funny if it hits very close to the truth.....if your sarcasm exposes great gaping holes in your knowledge and logic, it is just sad...

 

[Crick]

Idiocy is only funny... well, it's pretty funny almost all the time.

I hate to actually respond; to tell you that your science concepts are complete idiocy, because I know the only reason you put out such obvious and demonstrable BULLSHIT is to get a rise. That some folks are so stupid they actually accept your utter nonsense as correct must give you an incredible chuckle. That would be because

YOU ARE A TROLL