Science is falsifiable

[cnm]

"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.

No theory is accepted as fact.
Newtonian physics previously had the consensus of scientists as the best explanation of the evidence until a better explanation/new evidence was available. As the greenhouse gas theory has the scientific consensus as the best explanation of the evidence. People who don't understand science believe they know better.

 

[abu afak]

"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.

No theory is accepted as fact.
Newtonian physics previously had the consensus of scientists as the best explanation of the evidence until a better explanation/new evidence was available. As the greenhouse gas theory has the scientific consensus as the best explanation of the evidence.

Yes they are.
Many theories are accepted as fact when they are affirmed over time.
Evolution is a theory and a fact.
No theories are proven.
Science doesn't deal in proofs. Math does.
`

 

[cnm]

Ok, I stand corrected.

In science, a "fact" typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions.
Evolution Resources from the National Academies​

 

[abu afak]

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
Scientific American
JOHN RENNIE, editor-in-chief
June 2002
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/15-answers-to-creationist/

1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.

Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty -- above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do Not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution -- or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter -- they are Not expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the Fact of evolution."..."
​

`

 

[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.

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.

It never fails to amuse me how easily you guys are fooled...you want to be fooled so you get fooled...the funny thing is that you walk around thinking that there is actual evidence to support your beliefs...all you have in reality is evidence of how easily you are made a fool of...

She has an air pump and two cylinders...and she puts a thermometer in each of them..In one, she pumps out the air...and in the other she compresses the air...then puts them out in the sun...does it surprise you that a cylinder with compressed air will be warmer in the sun than a cylinder which holds only a vacuum of some degree...and she admits that she has no idea how much pressure one contains and how much vacuum the other contains.? You think that is evidence that IR warms the air? Laughable...absolutely laughable...

At first sight, it looks like she is just measuring energy emitting from the walls of her containers...the one with partial vacuum would certainly conduct less energy to the air inside...

And imagine the surprise of air full of water vapor transmitting energy more efficiently than dry air...this is the sort of thing 6th graders do now...and in your mind it is high science...

Then she fills a cylinder with CO2 and another with air...snaps a lid on them and measures the heat of compression...and what do you know...CO2 is more dense than common air...again...not actual evidence that supports your claim...just gross misunderstanding on your part and belief...lots of belief...it is amazing to me that people could be fooled that sort of thing...but if you want to be fooled, then fooled you will be...

 

[Billy_Bob]

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.

Projection is the name of your game...

Your opinions are biased and you do not base your position on facts.. You base your position on failed modeling..

A theroy is considered when the multiple reviews of a hypothesis show it to be greater in probability, than that of the Null Hypothesis. AGW has had predictive failure after predictive failure. Your hypothesis is not a theroy and can not be as the process of verification has failed over and over again!

 

[Billy_Bob]

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
Scientific American
JOHN RENNIE, editor-in-chief
June 2002
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.

Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty -- above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do Not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution -- or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter -- they are Not expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the Fact of evolution."..."
​

`

As the hypothesis of evolution has been discredited, your left wing attempt at discrediting religion over your own religion is hilarious...

 

[Oddball]

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.

There is no scientific evidence...Just computer models that have never ever been predictive, fudged data when the predictions fail, and highly political shenanigans, all wrapped up in the the most qualifying, nebulous, parsing, and downright deceitful language I've witnessed anywhere.

You have neither jack nor shit.

 

[Crick]

That contention is pure nonsense.

 

[Wuwei]

It never fails to amuse me how easily you guys are fooled...you want to be fooled so you get fooled...the funny thing is that you walk around thinking that there is actual evidence to support your beliefs...all you have in reality is evidence of how easily you are made a fool of...

She has an air pump and two cylinders...and she puts a thermometer in each of them..In one, she pumps out the air...and in the other she compresses the air...then puts them out in the sun...does it surprise you that a cylinder with compressed air will be warmer in the sun than a cylinder which holds only a vacuum of some degree...and she admits that she has no idea how much pressure one contains and how much vacuum the other contains.? You think that is evidence that IR warms the air? Laughable...absolutely laughable...

At first sight, it looks like she is just measuring energy emitting from the walls of her containers...the one with partial vacuum would certainly conduct less energy to the air inside...

And imagine the surprise of air full of water vapor transmitting energy more efficiently than dry air...this is the sort of thing 6th graders do now...and in your mind it is high science...

Then she fills a cylinder with CO2 and another with air...snaps a lid on them and measures the heat of compression...and what do you know...CO2 is more dense than common air...again...not actual evidence that supports your claim...just gross misunderstanding on your part and belief...lots of belief...it is amazing to me that people could be fooled that sort of thing...but if you want to be fooled, then fooled you will be...

You still don't understand that she proved CO2 warms by radiation. It was such a simple experiment too. You don't understand that any compression would come from heat. Heat in the cylinder was not caused by compression. In short heat causes higher pressure.

You don't understand the difference between compression and pressure. Compression is when the volume is made smaller. She did not do compression. Her experiment was at constant volume. Look at the IGL then maybe you will get it.

.

.

 

[westwall]

That contention is pure nonsense.

The part you are missing is it is also factual. "Could" is NOT predictive. It is the language of the charlatan. An example of a predictive theory is that presented by H. C. van de Hulst who, in 1945 predicted that neutral-hydrogen radiations would be found in the 21cm wavelength. In 1950 his hypothesis was confirmed when those wavelengths were, in fact, detected.

He did not say "you could' find those radiations, he said you "WILL" find them.

The problem you morons have is you have no clue what predictive actually means. You are so blissfully ignorant of science, and its PROPER application, that the charlatans have no problem confusing and baffling you.

 

[Oddball]

That contention is pure nonsense.

That contention is 100% correct...The IPCC is the biggest band of political, pseudo-scientific bullshit artists the world has ever seen.

 

[Crick]

Then why do NO climate scientists or, for that matter, scientists of any other field, concur with your claim? Why aren't they outraged? Why doesn't someone in the several thousand people working for the IPCC spill the beans? Why haven't they been caught falsifying data?

And if none of this happens, where the FUCK do you get the idea you've got evidence for as perfect and massive a conspiracy as your bullshit contention would require?

 

[westwall]

Then why do NO climate scientists or, for that matter, scientists of any other field, concur with your claim? Why aren't they outraged? Why doesn't someone in the several thousand people working for the IPCC spill the beans? Why haven't they been caught falsifying data?

And if none of this happens, where the FUCK do you get the idea you've got evidence for as perfect and massive a conspiracy as your bullshit contention would require?

Some are, Curry for one. And when she makes an observation that calls into question one of your hero's bullshit claims, instead of presenting evidence to support that bullshit contention you instead attack her.

That is the action of the charlatan, not the scientist.

But you already know that, you simply don't care.

 

[mamooth]

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

Flat-earthers believe their claims about how the round earth isn't proven. Everyone laughs at them too, for the same reasons they laugh at you and the other deniers.

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.

Flat-earthers also like to chant their conspiracy theory about how all the data supporting the round-earth theory is fraudulent.

It's not a question of how you're like a Flat-earther. It's a question of whether you differ in any significant way. You don't.

 

[Oddball]

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

Flat-earthers believe their claims about how the round earth isn't proven. Everyone laughs at them too, for the same reasons they laugh at you and the other deniers.

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.

Flat-earthers also like to chant their conspiracy theory about how all the data supporting the round-earth theory is fraudulent.

It's not a question of how you're like a Flat-earther. It's a question of whether you differ in any significant way. You don't.

Oh fuck off...All you do is come here and fling poo....Your avatar should be a squirrel monkey.

 

[mamooth]

Some are, Curry for one.

In 2013, Curry's "stadium waves" theory predicted steady or declining temperatures, starting immediately.

That was followed immediate by 3 years of record-breaking warming.

She was as wrong as it was possible to be. She never explained why, or tried to modify her awful science that made that prediction. Instead, she screamed that everyone was persecuting her, and fled science completely. Her new chosen career was taking bribes from fossil-fuel interests in return for giving speeches they liked.

Because her science is crap, she's ignored. Except, that is, by failure-worshipping cultists. All denier "scientists" have that in common, failing at any actual science.

Because AGW science keeps making predictions that come true, it's not ignored. It's accepted by the whole intelligent world.

 

[mamooth]

Oh fuck off...All you do is come here and fling poo....Your avatar should be a squirrel monkey.

Sucks to be you.

All the hard data says you and your cult are lying outright.

Your cult forbids you from admitting that, so you're forced to fabricate ever-crazier conspiracy theories to explain why reality keeps smacking you in the face.

Nothing is going to change. The world will keep on laughing at you about this for the rest of your life. Being how you clearlty don't handle the laughter well, I suggest you retreat completely into your alternate reality and fortify your SafeSpace there.

 

[toobfreak]

What a clever change in propaganda when they directed their sheep is stop global warming chants to something far more ambiguous which would of course include any and all events in weather.

From droughts to floods. Feom less snowfall to more snowfall. From more hurricanes, to less hurricanes.

Deliberately far more ambiguous term.

Just remember:

 

[mamooth]

Just remember:

Your cult puts out such interesting propaganda.. Their propaganda ministry is very active. But then, the cultists do need to be kept hysterical. If they're allowed to calm down and think, they'd leave the cult.

So, what's your theory of climate, and what hard data would falsify it?

That is the thread topic, yet every denier is running from it.

It's very clear that all the deniers here know full well that their cult is pushing pseudoscience. They don't care. The cult tells them to push it, so that's what they're going to do.