Scientific Method, 2016

[CrusaderFrank]

AGW, it's just not science, folks

 

[Crick]

AGW is a scientific theory supported by the research - by the science - conducting in tens of thousands of peer-reviewed, published studies by thousands of degreed, professional scientists. What have you got that says otherwise? A blog? Your opinion?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

AGW is a scientific theory supported by the research - by the science - conducting in tens of thousands of peer-reviewed, published studies by thousands of degreed, professional scientists. What have you got that says otherwise? A blog? Your opinion?

1. State your hypothesis
2. Show us the rigorous testing it survived refuting it
3. Insult me for calling you out on your bullshit
4. Run away

 

[CrusaderFrank]

No reply?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Hypothesis: agw is a total scam whose practitoners never present lab work and merely try to pass off the top weather story as "evidence" of either, man-made global warming or climate change or whatever they call it today

 

[Crick]

Care to show us where it says the scientific method requires lab work?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Care to show us where it says the scientific method requires lab work?

LOL

Fucking clown

Did you even read the OP?

"Test hypothesis via rigorous experimentation"

 

[Crick]

What I see in you OP is an IMG file that will not open and a line from you reading "AGW, it's just not science folks".

As to the point your attempting to make: what makes you think the term "experimentation" requires experiments done in a laboratory setting?

Is English a second language for you Frank?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What I see in you OP is an IMG file that will not open and a line from you reading "AGW, it's just not science folks".

As to the point your attempting to make: what makes you think the term "experimentation" requires experiments done in a laboratory setting?

Is English a second language for you Frank?

What's your "Hypothesis"?

 

[Crick]

It's not "my" anything, Frank. I'm not a researcher. The general AGW hypothesis WAS precisely what is stated in the theory: that human activity in the form of GHG emissions and deforestation are the primary cause of the warming observed over the last 150 years. Surely you've heard it before.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Care to show us where it says the scientific method requires lab work?

What a fucking retard.... Tell me Crick if you do not 'observe' how in the hell are you supposed to derive anything... Fucking idiot!

The first step in ALL SCIENCE RELATED WORK... requires OBSERVATION...Lab Work! How the fuck do you think a hypothesis is formed?

You have just confirmed that you are a paid poster shill..

 

[Wuwei]

1. State your hypothesis
2. Show us the rigorous testing it survived refuting it
3. Insult me for calling you out on your bullshit
4. Run away

You don't have it right. General Relativity was called a theory before rigorous testing. String Theory in quantum mechanics has been called a theory from day one, although there is no rigorous testing. This link shows one conceptual idea of theory in the sciences.

There are two kinds of proof in scientific theories.
The first is mathematical or logical proof. Mathematical proof about the consistency of the theory, essentially that all the pieces play together well. ​

Climate science is not a rigorous theory, but is a composite of physical pieces that all play together well. Climate science shows how back-radiation can keep the earth from loosing heat. It shows how the surface can radiate 400 W/m2 while absorbing only 160 W/m2 from the sun. It shows how CO2 can increase that heat retention, etc. There is no other meaningful theory that covers that.

The "alternate theories" proposed by skeptics, such as the adiabatic ideal gas law, or the rejection of two way radiant energy flow are outright wrong, and are all full of holes.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

1. State your hypothesis
2. Show us the rigorous testing it survived refuting it
3. Insult me for calling you out on your bullshit
4. Run away

You don't have it right. General Relativity was called a theory before rigorous testing. String Theory in quantum mechanics has been called a theory from day one, although there is no rigorous testing. This link shows one conceptual idea of theory in the sciences.

There are two kinds of proof in scientific theories.
The first is mathematical or logical proof. Mathematical proof about the consistency of the theory, essentially that all the pieces play together well. ​

Climate science is not a rigorous theory, but is a composite of physical pieces that all play together well. Climate science shows how back-radiation can keep the earth from loosing heat. It shows how the surface can radiate 400 W/m2 while absorbing only 160 W/m2 from the sun. It shows how CO2 can increase that heat retention, etc. There is no other meaningful theory that covers that.

The "alternate theories" proposed by skeptics, such as the adiabatic ideal gas law, or the rejection of two way radiant energy flow are outright wrong, and are all full of holes.

Wait. I thought your stupid hypothesis was that increasing CO2 from 280 to 400 PPM causes cataclysmic, irreversible global Warming?

What the fuck is your hypothesis?

 

[Wuwei]

Wait. I thought your stupid hypothesis was that increasing CO2 from 280 to 400 PPM causes cataclysmic, irreversible global Warming?

I have never ever said that.

What the fuck is your hypothesis?

You just quoted it.

 

[LaDexter]

Scientific Method in Action -

Theory - CO2 causes warming in the atmosphere

Data - highly correlated satellite and balloon raw data shows NO WARMING in the atmosphere despite rising CO2

THEORY REJECTED


Theory - CO2 is causing sea ice to melt

Data - Arctic Sea Ice melting, Antarctic Sea Ice growing

THEORY REJECTED


Theory - CO2 is causing bigger, more dangerous hurricanes

Data - 2015 was the lowest hurricane season in the Atlantic in 19 years, we are setting a 150+ year record for no cat 3 or higher canes hitting the US coast

THEORY REJECTED

Theory - tippy toppiest "top climate scientists," aware Earth is not warming or experiencing a net ice melt, lie about "sinking" Pacific Islands by cherry picking those on the lip of the Pacific Ring of Fire, and then blame the "sinking" on fictitious "sea level rise"

Data - all three "sinking" islands are on the lip of the Pacific Ring of Fire

THEORY ACCEPTED

 

[Billy_Bob]

Scientific Method in Action -

Theory - CO2 causes warming in the atmosphere

Data - highly correlated satellite and balloon raw data shows NO WARMING in the atmosphere despite rising CO2

THEORY REJECTED


Theory - CO2 is causing sea ice to melt

Data - Arctic Sea Ice melting, Antarctic Sea Ice growing

THEORY REJECTED


Theory - CO2 is causing bigger, more dangerous hurricanes

Data - 2015 was the lowest hurricane season in the Atlantic in 19 years, we are setting a 150+ year record for no cat 3 or higher canes hitting the US coast

THEORY REJECTED

Theory - tippy toppiest "top climate scientists," aware Earth is not warming or experiencing a net ice melt, lie about "sinking" Pacific Islands by cherry picking those on the lip of the Pacific Ring of Fire, and then blame the "sinking" on fictitious "sea level rise"

Data - all three "sinking" islands are on the lip of the Pacific Ring of Fire

THEORY ACCEPTED

None of there hypothesis's meet the criteria for being labeled a theory..

Just sayin..

 

[LaDexter]

There is no theory stating that increased CO2 in the atmosphere is causing warming??

I agree. A deliberately false "theory" is not a "theory," it is FRAUD...

 

[Crick]

Care to show us where it says the scientific method requires lab work?

What a fucking retard.... Tell me Crick if you do not 'observe' how in the hell are you supposed to derive anything... Fucking idiot!

The first step in ALL SCIENCE RELATED WORK... requires OBSERVATION...Lab Work! How the fuck do you think a hypothesis is formed?

You have just confirmed that you are a paid poster shill..

Is that right?

In what lab was the Big Bang Theory tested? Stellar Evolution? Plate Tectonics?

What a stupid git!

 

[Crick]

There is no theory stating that increased CO2 in the atmosphere is causing warming??

I agree. A deliberately false "theory" is not a "theory," it is FRAUD...

That would be the Greenhouse Effect, not a theory but a well identified process in atmospheric physics.

God are you stupid.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Wait. I thought your stupid hypothesis was that increasing CO2 from 280 to 400 PPM causes cataclysmic, irreversible global Warming?

I have never ever said that.

What the fuck is your hypothesis?

You just quoted it.

So where's the lab working showing temperature increase from the additional 120ppm of CO2