Why ManMade Global Warm Fails as real science

CrusaderFrank

Diamond Member
May 20, 2009
144,447
66,838
2,330
According to Wiki

"Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[2] The Oxford English Dictionary says that scientific method is: "a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."[3]

Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methods of obtaining knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses via predictions which can be derived from them. These steps must be repeatable, to guard against mistake or confusion in any particular experimenter. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many independently derived hypotheses together in a coherent, supportive structure. Theories, in turn, may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.

Scientific inquiry is generally intended to be as objective as possible, to reduce biased interpretations of results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, giving them the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
 
Lets take the Epic Fail that is ManMade Global Warming ("AGW")as science one step at a time.

First, " Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena"

As we have seen in numerous challenges all we get from the Warmers are links to weather related events where it's warmer and that supposed to mean AGW is real.

Say that atmospheric CO2 really has increased by 100PPM in the last 150 years (150 years ago they measured in parts per 10,000 so the baseline is subject to question), how much of the increase is mankinds and therefore even theoretically preventable?

Has anyone every actually stated that "a 150PPM increase in CO2 will raise temperatures by __ degrees?"

That's a testable hypothesis!
 
Second, "Scientific inquiry is generally intended to be as objective as possible, to reduce biased interpretations of results"

How can Warmers meet this test when the IPCC is on record as being driven by the predetermined outcome that they need to strangle western civilization through manmade global warming?

"...one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy." -- IPCC

The IPCC has been caught redhanded with their thumb on the data scales
 
Third, "Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, giving them the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established."

Climategate has exposed the Warmers as data tampering frauds so the reliability of their data is zero.

There is not a single shred of real science or scientific method in what passes for the "science" of manmade global warming
 
Lets take the Epic Fail that is ManMade Global Warming ("AGW")as science one step at a time.

First, " Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena"

As we have seen in numerous challenges all we get from the Warmers are links to weather related events where it's warmer and that supposed to mean AGW is real.

Say that atmospheric CO2 really has increased by 100PPM in the last 150 years (150 years ago they measured in parts per 10,000 so the baseline is subject to question), how much of the increase is mankinds and therefore even theoretically preventable?

Has anyone every actually stated that "a 150PPM increase in CO2 will raise temperatures by __ degrees?"

That's a testable hypothesis!

How? Unless you use "tricks" of the statistical trade to "hide the decline" from other sources, it's not necessarily a simple experiment and has to be done in the field rather than in the lab, due to the plethora of variables involved. How can we even convince a determined skeptic/denier, when they label standard scientific practice as "fraud". I guess it's a necessity, since neither science nor logic is on their side.
 
Second, "Scientific inquiry is generally intended to be as objective as possible, to reduce biased interpretations of results"

How can Warmers meet this test when the IPCC is on record as being driven by the predetermined outcome that they need to strangle western civilization through manmade global warming?

"...one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy." -- IPCC

The IPCC has been caught redhanded with their thumb on the data scales

Cherry-picked quotes once again prove that the skeptic/denier side is purely political in nature, since neither science nor logic are on their side.
 
Third, "Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, giving them the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established."

Climategate has exposed the Warmers as data tampering frauds so the reliability of their data is zero.

There is not a single shred of real science or scientific method in what passes for the "science" of manmade global warming

Advanced statistics IS NOT data tampering, no matter how much you say it's so. The proponents of Climategate were the ones committing fraud in this case. They stole emails, misinterpreted them and now refuse to acknowledge that the people in question had been cleared of the charges.
 
Lets take the Epic Fail that is ManMade Global Warming ("AGW")as science one step at a time.

First, " Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena"

As we have seen in numerous challenges all we get from the Warmers are links to weather related events where it's warmer and that supposed to mean AGW is real.

Say that atmospheric CO2 really has increased by 100PPM in the last 150 years (150 years ago they measured in parts per 10,000 so the baseline is subject to question), how much of the increase is mankinds and therefore even theoretically preventable?

Has anyone every actually stated that "a 150PPM increase in CO2 will raise temperatures by __ degrees?"

That's a testable hypothesis!

How? Unless you use "tricks" of the statistical trade to "hide the decline" from other sources, it's not necessarily a simple experiment and has to be done in the field rather than in the lab, due to the plethora of variables involved. How can we even convince a determined skeptic/denier, when they label standard scientific practice as "fraud". I guess it's a necessity, since neither science nor logic is on their side.

If there are too many variables, how can you say you've eliminated all of them but for an increase in the deminimus atmospheric trace element CO2?

It can't be both. Now do you see why AGW fails as science?
 
Second, "Scientific inquiry is generally intended to be as objective as possible, to reduce biased interpretations of results"

How can Warmers meet this test when the IPCC is on record as being driven by the predetermined outcome that they need to strangle western civilization through manmade global warming?

"...one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy." -- IPCC

The IPCC has been caught redhanded with their thumb on the data scales

Cherry-picked quotes once again prove that the skeptic/denier side is purely political in nature, since neither science nor logic are on their side.

The above quote clearly shows that IPCC is purely political. Thank you for underlining that
 
Third, "Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, giving them the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established."

Climategate has exposed the Warmers as data tampering frauds so the reliability of their data is zero.

There is not a single shred of real science or scientific method in what passes for the "science" of manmade global warming

Advanced statistics IS NOT data tampering, no matter how much you say it's so. The proponents of Climategate were the ones committing fraud in this case. They stole emails, misinterpreted them and now refuse to acknowledge that the people in question had been cleared of the charges.

Need I remind you.

"BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?

Phil Jones: Yes..."

BBC News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones
 
Lets take the Epic Fail that is ManMade Global Warming ("AGW")as science one step at a time.

First, " Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena"

As we have seen in numerous challenges all we get from the Warmers are links to weather related events where it's warmer and that supposed to mean AGW is real.

Say that atmospheric CO2 really has increased by 100PPM in the last 150 years (150 years ago they measured in parts per 10,000 so the baseline is subject to question), how much of the increase is mankinds and therefore even theoretically preventable?

Has anyone every actually stated that "a 150PPM increase in CO2 will raise temperatures by __ degrees?"

That's a testable hypothesis!

How? Unless you use "tricks" of the statistical trade to "hide the decline" from other sources, it's not necessarily a simple experiment and has to be done in the field rather than in the lab, due to the plethora of variables involved. How can we even convince a determined skeptic/denier, when they label standard scientific practice as "fraud". I guess it's a necessity, since neither science nor logic is on their side.

If there are too many variables, how can you say you've eliminated all of them but for an increase in the deminimus atmospheric trace element CO2?

It can't be both. Now do you see why AGW fails as science?

Don't accept your characterization of "deminimus". An increase of 30-40% over historical values is hardly that.
 
How? Unless you use "tricks" of the statistical trade to "hide the decline" from other sources, it's not necessarily a simple experiment and has to be done in the field rather than in the lab, due to the plethora of variables involved. How can we even convince a determined skeptic/denier, when they label standard scientific practice as "fraud". I guess it's a necessity, since neither science nor logic is on their side.

If there are too many variables, how can you say you've eliminated all of them but for an increase in the deminimus atmospheric trace element CO2?

It can't be both. Now do you see why AGW fails as science?

Don't accept your characterization of "deminimus". An increase of 30-40% over historical values is hardly that.

380PPM makes CO2 deminimus, a "trace element" Just deal with it.

What is your hypothesis?
 
Third, "Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, giving them the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established."

Climategate has exposed the Warmers as data tampering frauds so the reliability of their data is zero.

There is not a single shred of real science or scientific method in what passes for the "science" of manmade global warming

Advanced statistics IS NOT data tampering, no matter how much you say it's so. The proponents of Climategate were the ones committing fraud in this case. They stole emails, misinterpreted them and now refuse to acknowledge that the people in question had been cleared of the charges.

Need I remind you.

"BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?

Phil Jones: Yes..."

BBC News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

So what? With sunspot activity going down we should be seeing cooling. Despite the sun's lowered activity, temps remained relatively constant. Once again you're cherry-picking a quote without providing the proper context, a standard denier trick(no quotes this time, because unlike the scientists who used the word as an expression, for the deniers it's their modus operandi.
 
If there are too many variables, how can you say you've eliminated all of them but for an increase in the deminimus atmospheric trace element CO2?

It can't be both. Now do you see why AGW fails as science?

Don't accept your characterization of "deminimus". An increase of 30-40% over historical values is hardly that.

380PPM makes CO2 deminimus, a "trace element" Just deal with it.

What is your hypothesis?

WHY? Because Rush says so? In science it often isn't the absolute values that are important, but the changes in those values. Barring a large standard error, 30-40% change IS significant.
 
Advanced statistics IS NOT data tampering, no matter how much you say it's so. The proponents of Climategate were the ones committing fraud in this case. They stole emails, misinterpreted them and now refuse to acknowledge that the people in question had been cleared of the charges.

Need I remind you.

"BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?

Phil Jones: Yes..."

BBC News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

So what? With sunspot activity going down we should be seeing cooling. Despite the sun's lowered activity, temps remained relatively constant. Once again you're cherry-picking a quote without providing the proper context, a standard denier trick(no quotes this time, because unlike the scientists who used the word as an expression, for the deniers it's their modus operandi.

And that doesn't strike you odd that Warmers keep telling us that CO2 is responsible for x degree increase in temp and them in the face of what could be new data (y), you just say oh, CO2 is responsible for x+y increase?

It's just not science
 
Don't accept your characterization of "deminimus". An increase of 30-40% over historical values is hardly that.

380PPM makes CO2 deminimus, a "trace element" Just deal with it.

What is your hypothesis?

WHY? Because Rush says so? In science it often isn't the absolute values that are important, but the changes in those values. Barring a large standard error, 30-40% change IS significant.

It may be significant. Certainly on a bigger baseline it would be, but we're talking about wisps here and you can't show us how an instantaneous 40% increase raises temps in a lab setting. You put your thumb on the scale and show a 4,000,000% increase.
 
Third, "Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, giving them the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established."

Climategate has exposed the Warmers as data tampering frauds so the reliability of their data is zero.

There is not a single shred of real science or scientific method in what passes for the "science" of manmade global warming

Advanced statistics IS NOT data tampering, no matter how much you say it's so. The proponents of Climategate were the ones committing fraud in this case. They stole emails, misinterpreted them and now refuse to acknowledge that the people in question had been cleared of the charges.
They cleared themselves of the charges. Would you have trusted Nixon to investigate Watergate? I wouldn't.
 
What is the insuperable line? What will it take to convince the naysayers? Apparently, for them, the true test of science is not empirical evidence but political correctness. They will face the reality of global warming at the grocery store when they are fighting in the isles for the food on the shelves. Then it will be a real problem - one that we should have done something about when we had the chance.
 
What is the insuperable line? What will it take to convince the naysayers? Apparently, for them, the true test of science is not empirical evidence but political correctness. They will face the reality of global warming at the grocery store when they are fighting in the isles for the food on the shelves. Then it will be a real problem - one that we should have done something about when we had the chance.

The problem is, you don't have true science on your side.

Answer this question: "If the promoters of man-made climate fears truly believed the "debate is over" and the science is "settled", why is there such a strong impulse to shut down debate and threaten those who disagree?"

Because people on your side want skeptics killed. That's not science, it's a cult.
 

Forum List

Back
Top