Scientific Method, 2016

[jc456]

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?

Frank is like a parrot, he repeats in any language short phrases he has been taught to repeat. In fact, he is well known as the developer of the Idiot-Gram, a short one sentence or phrase which lacks substance, evidence and links to the dogma all members of the far right worship.

Freddo, did you read AR5?

Frank, we still got squat from these wannabe scientists. they never read or comprehend if they do. To date, there hasn't been one piece of evidence to the scientific method to confirm AGW.

Confirm? As to establish a law, as opposed to a hypothesis or a theory? In science what is confirmed is constantly tested, new theories emerge and they too are tested.

tested in a lab, got one? I laugh, cause so far for three years I've been here there hasn't been one posted. To any of us asking.

BTW, the only reason we're here is because of money. You know this right?

Someone wants my dollars, gots to show me why. And like I said three years and it's been bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[Wry Catcher]

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?

Frank is like a parrot, he repeats in any language short phrases he has been taught to repeat. In fact, he is well known as the developer of the Idiot-Gram, a short one sentence or phrase which lacks substance, evidence and links to the dogma all members of the far right worship.

Freddo, did you read AR5?

I'm sorry, the party you have tried to reach is not available now, please check the number and try again in 2050.

BTW, I have now looked over the AR5. Please refer me to the Executive Summary. The detail in the report is voluminous, and thus beyond my level of interest and my willingness to give the time to understand, given the esoteric language and detail.

I'll admit I'm slightly obsessed with the "science" behind the AGW Scam so I started this thread

Climate "Science" 101: Excess Heat

Being "obsessed" is not a benefit to someone seeking to make their hypothesis into a theory - we won't know if the human species contribute to or caused the climate to change until it's too late. Isn't it better to plan for the worst and prepare seawalls, seek new, renewable and less polluting forms of energy, and not quibble about the cause?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank is like a parrot, he repeats in any language short phrases he has been taught to repeat. In fact, he is well known as the developer of the Idiot-Gram, a short one sentence or phrase which lacks substance, evidence and links to the dogma all members of the far right worship.

Freddo, did you read AR5?

I'm sorry, the party you have tried to reach is not available now, please check the number and try again in 2050.

BTW, I have now looked over the AR5. Please refer me to the Executive Summary. The detail in the report is voluminous, and thus beyond my level of interest and my willingness to give the time to understand, given the esoteric language and detail.

I'll admit I'm slightly obsessed with the "science" behind the AGW Scam so I started this thread

Climate "Science" 101: Excess Heat

Being "obsessed" is not a benefit to someone seeking to make their hypothesis into a theory - we won't know if the human species contribute to or caused the climate to change until it's too late. Isn't it better to plan for the worst and prepare seawalls, seek new, renewable and less polluting forms of energy, and not quibble about the cause?

There's nothing wrong with being prudent.

My issue is that the AGW Cult keeps telling us the "Science is settled" and I'm not seeing anything that remotely resembles science. The climate is an extremely complex system, if, in fact they've controlled all the variables (Earth orbit, cosmic rays, cloud cover, et.al.) save for a 120PPM increase in CO2 they should be able to show that in a lab. But asking for lab work is like asking Dracula to meet me at sunrise in a garlic field.

 

[jc456]

Frank is like a parrot, he repeats in any language short phrases he has been taught to repeat. In fact, he is well known as the developer of the Idiot-Gram, a short one sentence or phrase which lacks substance, evidence and links to the dogma all members of the far right worship.

Freddo, did you read AR5?

I'm sorry, the party you have tried to reach is not available now, please check the number and try again in 2050.

BTW, I have now looked over the AR5. Please refer me to the Executive Summary. The detail in the report is voluminous, and thus beyond my level of interest and my willingness to give the time to understand, given the esoteric language and detail.

I'll admit I'm slightly obsessed with the "science" behind the AGW Scam so I started this thread

Climate "Science" 101: Excess Heat

Being "obsessed" is not a benefit to someone seeking to make their hypothesis into a theory - we won't know if the human species contribute to or caused the climate to change until it's too late. Isn't it better to plan for the worst and prepare seawalls, seek new, renewable and less polluting forms of energy, and not quibble about the cause?

so we're back to this place. Ok, what is your solution to this hypothetical condition?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Freddo, did you read AR5?

I'm sorry, the party you have tried to reach is not available now, please check the number and try again in 2050.

BTW, I have now looked over the AR5. Please refer me to the Executive Summary. The detail in the report is voluminous, and thus beyond my level of interest and my willingness to give the time to understand, given the esoteric language and detail.

I'll admit I'm slightly obsessed with the "science" behind the AGW Scam so I started this thread

Climate "Science" 101: Excess Heat

Being "obsessed" is not a benefit to someone seeking to make their hypothesis into a theory - we won't know if the human species contribute to or caused the climate to change until it's too late. Isn't it better to plan for the worst and prepare seawalls, seek new, renewable and less polluting forms of energy, and not quibble about the cause?

so we're back to this place. Ok, what is your solution to this hypothetical condition?

My solution is to defer to the experts. My undergrad major was Poli Sci and History; my graduate one was interdisciplinary under the topic of Human Relations. I enjoyed science in Jr. and Sr High School but planned on a career in LE.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I'm sorry, the party you have tried to reach is not available now, please check the number and try again in 2050.

BTW, I have now looked over the AR5. Please refer me to the Executive Summary. The detail in the report is voluminous, and thus beyond my level of interest and my willingness to give the time to understand, given the esoteric language and detail.

I'll admit I'm slightly obsessed with the "science" behind the AGW Scam so I started this thread

Climate "Science" 101: Excess Heat

Being "obsessed" is not a benefit to someone seeking to make their hypothesis into a theory - we won't know if the human species contribute to or caused the climate to change until it's too late. Isn't it better to plan for the worst and prepare seawalls, seek new, renewable and less polluting forms of energy, and not quibble about the cause?

so we're back to this place. Ok, what is your solution to this hypothetical condition?

My solution is to defer to the experts. My undergrad major was Poli Sci and History; my graduate one was interdisciplinary under the topic of Human Relations. I enjoyed science in Jr. and Sr High School but planned on a career in LE.

I'm a scientific layman also, but I can tell when people are bullshitting me and trying to hid behind a degree. I'm not intimidated by the literature and have been a reader of AGW material even since Scarfetta & West tried to allocate the Sun's contribution to climate change based upon the "just because we say so" method. I've been a confirmed skeptic ever since and the more I learn the less I believe that there's anything resembling science in AGW

 

[psikeyhackr]

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

We can't fit a planet in a lab.

Infrared absorption by greenhouse gas


psik

 

[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

We can't fit a planet in a lab.

Infrared absorption by greenhouse gas


psik

We can't fit condition a few nanoseconds after the Big Bang into a lab....

er, wait

 

[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

We can't fit a planet in a lab.

Infrared absorption by greenhouse gas


psik

So you can't test for difference in temperature by varying CO2 from 280 to 400PPM?

 

[LaDexter]

"
So you can't test for difference in temperature by varying CO2 from 280 to 400PPM?"

The highly correlated raw data from satellites and balloons showing precisely no warming in the atmosphere does that completely...

 

[jc456]

I'm sorry, the party you have tried to reach is not available now, please check the number and try again in 2050.

BTW, I have now looked over the AR5. Please refer me to the Executive Summary. The detail in the report is voluminous, and thus beyond my level of interest and my willingness to give the time to understand, given the esoteric language and detail.

I'll admit I'm slightly obsessed with the "science" behind the AGW Scam so I started this thread

Climate "Science" 101: Excess Heat

Being "obsessed" is not a benefit to someone seeking to make their hypothesis into a theory - we won't know if the human species contribute to or caused the climate to change until it's too late. Isn't it better to plan for the worst and prepare seawalls, seek new, renewable and less polluting forms of energy, and not quibble about the cause?

so we're back to this place. Ok, what is your solution to this hypothetical condition?

My solution is to defer to the experts. My undergrad major was Poli Sci and History; my graduate one was interdisciplinary under the topic of Human Relations. I enjoyed science in Jr. and Sr High School but planned on a career in LE.

What experts are you looking to fix your supposed issue?

 

[mamooth]

I'm a scientific layman also, but I can tell when people are bullshitting me and trying to hid behind a degree.

No, you can't. You fail completely at recognizing bullshit. That's why your masters can exert such complete control over you, and convince you to say such stupid things.

And, as Dunning-Kruger points out, you're too incompetent to recognize how incompetent you are. That's why we have to do it.

I'm not intimidated by the literature and have been a reader of AGW material even since Scarfetta & West tried to allocate the Sun's contribution to climate change based upon the "just because we say so" method.

Clearly, you've been falling for kook denier blog spin for a long time, without being able to recognize it as bullshit. That further confirms the point.

And stop lying about the lab work. It's been shown to you over and over, and in response you lie about it over and over. That sort of lying is what confirms to everyone that you're merely another brainwashed cultist pushing dishonest dogma for the glory of the cult.

Now, have you made any progress concerning your Grand Unified Theory of Kookdom? You know, the one that links Guam tipping over, smart photons, floating bowling balls, nobody having thermometers in the past, and socialists taking over the world. The world awaits your kookdom masterpiece.

 

[LaDexter]

The above was brought to you by the President of the FLAT EARTH SOCIETY, Mamooooooo...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I'm a scientific layman also, but I can tell when people are bullshitting me and trying to hid behind a degree.

No, you can't. You fail completely at recognizing bullshit. That's why your masters can exert such complete control over you, and convince you to say such stupid things.

And, as Dunning-Kruger points out, you're too incompetent to recognize how incompetent you are. That's why we have to do it.

I'm not intimidated by the literature and have been a reader of AGW material even since Scarfetta & West tried to allocate the Sun's contribution to climate change based upon the "just because we say so" method.

Clearly, you've been falling for kook denier blog spin for a long time, without being able to recognize it as bullshit. That further confirms the point.

And stop lying about the lab work. It's been shown to you over and over, and in response you lie about it over and over. That sort of lying is what confirms to everyone that you're merely another brainwashed cultist pushing dishonest dogma for the glory of the cult.

Now, have you made any progress concerning your Grand Unified Theory of Kookdom? You know, the one that links Guam tipping over, smart photons, floating bowling balls, nobody having thermometers in the past, and socialists taking over the world. The world awaits your kookdom masterpiece.

Crick, unlike you I have no masters. I read the papers, I post the threads. I take full credit and blame.

You still never posted a single experiment showing how a cow fart worth of CO2 will raise temperature

 

[Uncensored2008]

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?

It's a religion, supported by graft and delusional morons who want to appear smart by reciting bullshit rather than learning to think.

You know this, it is your entire motivation to follow this absurd cult.

 

[Crick]

AGW is a scientific theory supported by the research - by the science - conducted 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?

It's a religion, supported by graft and delusional morons who want to appear smart by reciting bullshit rather than learning to think.

I asked "what have you got that says otherwise". Apparently, nothing.

You know this, it is your entire motivation to follow this absurd cult.

Working to prevent my children's future from going in to the shithole that you and yours seem intent on creating is my motivation. What's yours?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

AGW is a scientific theory supported by the research - by the science - conducted 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?

It's a religion, supported by graft and delusional morons who want to appear smart by reciting bullshit rather than learning to think.

I asked "what have you got that says otherwise". Apparently, nothing.

You know this, it is your entire motivation to follow this absurd cult.

Working to prevent my children's future from going in to the shithole that you and yours seem intent on creating is my motivation. What's yours?

What's going on with German electricity prices?

 

[Crick]

Who cares? Do they somehow refute AGW?

Dealing with this problem will cost money. Sorry, but no such thing as a free lunch.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Who cares? Do they somehow refute AGW?

Dealing with this problem will cost money. Sorry, but no such thing as a free lunch.

Who cares?

Me.

Do they somehow refute AGW?

They refute the claim that solar and wind are cheaper than other sources of electricity.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well Todd, you had better look at the present costs of wind and solar. And then factor in the fact that Tesla has gone $100 below the break even cost of grid scale storage, and is manufacturing the units as we post.