Science is falsifiable

[skookerasbil]

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

lol.....whats up with all the anger s0n? You know what that screams on a community message board? It screams, "Im losing!"

 

[Crick]

Where do you see anger? I only see emphasis.

 

[Wuwei]

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...

Cut the crap. You have no understanding of experiments nor instruments because you don't believe in physics. That puts you at the bottom of the credibility hole.

 

[Oddball]

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.

More of the purposefully deceitful language I've been speaking of..."Consensus"is a political word, not a scientific one...Science isn't up for a vote.

But you're doing a ripper job of falling for the dishonest hustle of the warmers, like a good little mark.

 

[Crick]

Both of your statements above, Mr Oddball, indicate a woeful infamiliarity with science and the scientific method. A hypothesis does not become a theory with the assistance of "falsified data". And science IS up to a vote: the vote of the experts. I strongly suggest you steer clear of discussions involving science until you have something like a tenth grade science education.

 

[Oddball]

Both of your statements above, Mr Oddball, indicate a woeful infamiliarity with science and the scientific method. A hypothesis does not become a theory with the assistance of "falsified data". And science IS up to a vote: the vote of the experts. I strongly suggest you steer clear of discussions involving science until you have something like a tenth grade science education.

I've already pointed out the elements in scientific method that are entirely absent from Goebbels warming hoaxery....They still aren't there.

Language, which is my forte, further underscores the deceit that rubes like you are falling for....BTW, a good chunk of my knowledge of semantics and language was learned from career leftist shill, Noam Chomsky.

 

[SSDD]

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...

Cut the crap. You have no understanding of experiments nor instruments because you don't believe in physics. That puts you at the bottom of the credibility hole.

The experiment was side show hucksterism....but it apparently was good enough to fool you because you have faith.....you wanted to be fooled...were you a critical thinker, that bit of showmanship wouldn't have had a chance of fooling you.

 

[SSDD]

Both of your statements above, Mr Oddball, indicate a woeful infamiliarity with science and the scientific method. A hypothesis does not become a theory with the assistance of "falsified data". And science IS up to a vote: the vote of the experts. I strongly suggest you steer clear of discussions involving science until you have something like a tenth grade science education.

If the scientific method is being followed, how many predictive failures is a hypothesis allowed before it is either scrapped, or fundamentally altered in order to bring its predictions more in line with reality? We know that in pseudoscience, a hypothesis can have as many predictive failures as it gets so long as the funding continues....but in real science, following the scientific method...what is the number?

 

[Oddball]

 

[cnm]

More of the purposefully deceitful language I've been speaking of..."Consensus"is a political word, not a scientific one...Science isn't up for a vote.

Yes it is. More Dunning-Kruger at work. First Newton was voted in, then Einstein, as the best available knowledge. You know nothing about it yet witter on unceasingly.

 

[westwall]

More of the purposefully deceitful language I've been speaking of..."Consensus"is a political word, not a scientific one...Science isn't up for a vote.

Yes it is. More Dunning-Kruger at work. First Newton was voted in, then Einstein, as the best available knowledge. You know nothing about it yet witter on unceasingly.

"Voted" Are you retarded? There was no consensus you moron. His theories were TESTED by other scientists, and when they passed every test available at the time, they were accepted as fact.

You need to read up on the history of science because you don't know a damned thing about it.

 

[SSDD]

More of the purposefully deceitful language I've been speaking of..."Consensus"is a political word, not a scientific one...Science isn't up for a vote.

Yes it is. More Dunning-Kruger at work. First Newton was voted in, then Einstein, as the best available knowledge. You know nothing about it yet witter on unceasingly.

"Voted" Are you retarded? There was no consensus you moron. His theories were TESTED by other scientists, and when they passed every test available at the time, they were accepted as fact.

You need to read up on the history of science because you don't know a damned thing about it.

Anyone who argues in favor of a hypothesis which has produced not one predictive failure, but failure after failure clearly doesn't know much about science....

 

[Billy_Bob]

More of the purposefully deceitful language I've been speaking of..."Consensus"is a political word, not a scientific one...Science isn't up for a vote.

Yes it is. More Dunning-Kruger at work. First Newton was voted in, then Einstein, as the best available knowledge. You know nothing about it yet witter on unceasingly.

"Voted" Are you retarded? There was no consensus you moron. His theories were TESTED by other scientists, and when they passed every test available at the time, they were accepted as fact.

You need to read up on the history of science because you don't know a damned thing about it.

Anyone who argues in favor of a hypothesis which has produced not one predictive failure, but failure after failure clearly doesn't know much about science....

It really is amazing how many people do not have a clue what REAL SCIENCE dictates as proof. So many fooled by fantasy modeling that has no predictive powers. The IPCC papers that Crick cite as proof of man made global warming are all modeling fantasy and only fools are fooled by it.

 

[Crick]

It really is amazing how many people do not have a clue that THERE ARE NO PROOFS IN THE NATURAL SCIENCES

Even people that claim to be working on a PhD.

 

[SSDD]

It really is amazing how many people do not have a clue that THERE ARE NO PROOFS IN THE NATURAL SCIENCES

Even people that claim to be working on a PhD.

And you can't even produce a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variably...what a laugh.

 

[Billy_Bob]

It really is amazing how many people do not have a clue that THERE ARE NO PROOFS IN THE NATURAL SCIENCES

Even people that claim to be working on a PhD.

Science requires that your proof be empirical, observed, repeatable, and quantifiable. Natural Sciences have all kinds of PROOF.. You really are an idiot. This post real science you profess is why were in the fantasy world were are in today and as a doctoral candidate I know the difference between fact and fantasy. Its time you learned the difference.

 

[Wuwei]

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...

Cut the crap. You have no understanding of experiments nor instruments because you don't believe in physics. That puts you at the bottom of the credibility hole.

The experiment was side show hucksterism....but it apparently was good enough to fool you because you have faith.....you wanted to be fooled...were you a critical thinker, that bit of showmanship wouldn't have had a chance of fooling you.

Cut the crap. Eunice Foote did not engage in hucksterism She published a controlled experiment on the absorption of heat by CO2 in The American Journal of Science and Arts. But of course you don't understand it because you don't believe science.

.


.

 

[Wuwei]

And you can't even produce a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variably...what a laugh.

And you have not defined natural variability.

 

[Oddball]

More of the purposefully deceitful language I've been speaking of..."Consensus"is a political word, not a scientific one...Science isn't up for a vote.

Yes it is. More Dunning-Kruger at work. First Newton was voted in, then Einstein, as the best available knowledge. You know nothing about it yet witter on unceasingly.

Actually, you're right....As Dunning-Kruger demonstrates, I have been underselling my strong acumen, viz. linguistics and semantics.

Conversely, and supporting the D-K model, you have convinced me that you are an absolutely ignorant and illiterate dilettante....You literally know nothing of which you speak, yet attempt to present yourself as an expert.

So, once again, we've circled back to my observation about Freudian projection.

 

[cnm]

As Dunning-Kruger demonstrates, I have been underselling my strong acumen, viz. linguistics and semantics.

No, they're the only thing you've based your opinions on, in a science discussion where you either refuse to read and/or ignore the scientific evidence, basing your opinions on your prejudices.