3 ms·

> You know what makes modern physics true? Falsifiability and verifiability. You build a theory, make predictions, develop an experiment, and then conduct the e

by Aeolos 11y ago

> You know what makes modern physics true? Falsifiability and verifiability. You build a theory, make predictions, develop an experiment, and then conduct the experiment, multiple times. Climatology stops after the first two. This is, obviously and demonstrably, wrong. The data is out there, the methodologies are out there, and there is tons of related open-source software. You can conduct your own experiments and come to your own conclusions. This guy [1][2], for example, did, and imagine what: he independently verified what 99% of climate scientists have been saying. Why don't you give it a go? Put your money where your mouth is and see for yourself what is true and what isn't. Edit: to the poster below, the data is public, just a quick google search away. For example [3]. [1] http://forums.sandiegouniontribune.com/showpost.php?p=5337377&postcount=222 http://forums.sandiegouniontribune.com/showpost.php?p=533737... [2] http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/thorough-not-thoroughly-fabricated-the-truth-about-global-temperature-data/?comments=1&post=30509481# http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/thorough-not-thorough... [3] ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/

dozzie 11y ago
I don't think we're on the same page. First, we seem to call different things an experiment. The guy didn't made any experiment, he just charted some data. He didn't change CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, keeping everything else equal, to check if it would affect the resulting temperature. Next, he only charted temperatures. This doesn't prove anything related to carbon concentration by itself, and we don't have proven models to have a causality implied one way or another. (Proven with analogous strictness and confidence as the theory of gravity.) And finally, I don't claim there is no change to the climate whatsoever. Quite the contrary; humanity has seen the climate to change over its recent history (few hundred years). I just doubt highly that the change is caused by human carbon emissions. And personally, I think it's really arrogant to assume that humanity is powerful enough to change the climate of the whole planet at this point.
- Aeolos 11y ago
  > First, we seem to call different things an experiment. The guy didn't made any experiment, he just charted some data. He didn't change CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, keeping everything else equal, to check if it would affect the resulting temperature. Right, and the LIGO didn't create two colliding black holes to measure gravity waves, but measure gravity waves it did. "To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry is commonly based on empirical or measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning." [1] > And personally, I think it's really arrogant to assume that humanity is powerful enough to change the climate of the whole planet at this point. So your disagreement is based on superstitious beliefs, not the scientific method. Exactly as predicted in my previous post. [1] "Rules for the study of natural philosophy", Newton transl 1999, pp. 794–6, after Book 3, The System of the World.
  - dozzie 11y ago
    >> First, we seem to call different things an experiment. The guy didn't made any experiment, he just charted some data. He didn't change CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, keeping everything else equal, to check if it would affect the resulting temperature. > Right, and the LIGO didn't create two colliding black holes to measure gravity waves, but measure gravity waves it did. You think that some guy that merely charted some data is equivalent to some guy that developed a model, predicted what should be seen when some event Q happens, patiently waited for Q to happen, and then observed if his predictions matched what was measured while Q was happening? > So your disagreement is based on superstitious beliefs, not the scientific method. Exactly as predicted in my previous post. No, it's not based on superstitions. It's based on climatology's inability to deliver any explaination that actually make sense when one starts estimating how big values are in play (those that don't make sense ignore one of the basic principles, like only accounting the signal that exceeds measurement errors, or laws of thermodynamics).
    - Aeolos 11y ago
      > No, it's not based on superstitions. It's based on climatology's inability to deliver any explaination [...] You have already established that you don't believe humans are (or even could be) causing global warming. You are not seeking any scientific proof for that - it is merely a superstitious belief that you are holding. A personal bias, if you will. The rest of your posts are merely rationalizations for this bias. The problem is not that the science is not explaining climate change enough. The problem is that no possible explanation will penetrate your mind's defenses against the terrifying notion that you might be wrong. Think of this: if thousands upon thousands of scientists, using hundreds of different methodologies and dozens of different datasets to arrive at the same conclusion, can't convince you; if the fact that, since the industrial revolution, humanity released into the environment energy equivalent to 50% the Triasic-Jurassic extinction event can't convince you; then nothing ever will. At this point, there's only one thing left: grab one of those datasets and run any sort of analysis you wish. See for yourself what kind of results you come up with. Unless you are willing to walk the walk, there is no point in continuing this discussion.

by Aeolos 11y ago

dozzie 11y ago

I don't think we're on the same page. First, we seem to call different things an experiment. The guy didn't made any experiment, he just charted some data. He didn't change CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, keeping everything else equal, to check if it would affect the resulting temperature. Next, he only charted temperatures. This doesn't prove anything related to carbon concentration by itself, and we don't have proven models to have a causality implied one way or another. (Proven with analogous strictness and confidence as the theory of gravity.) And finally, I don't claim there is no change to the climate whatsoever. Quite the contrary; humanity has seen the climate to change over its recent history (few hundred years). I just doubt highly that the change is caused by human carbon emissions. And personally, I think it's really arrogant to assume that humanity is powerful enough to change the climate of the whole planet at this point.

Aeolos 11y ago
> First, we seem to call different things an experiment. The guy didn't made any experiment, he just charted some data. He didn't change CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, keeping everything else equal, to check if it would affect the resulting temperature. Right, and the LIGO didn't create two colliding black holes to measure gravity waves, but measure gravity waves it did. "To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry is commonly based on empirical or measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning." [1] > And personally, I think it's really arrogant to assume that humanity is powerful enough to change the climate of the whole planet at this point. So your disagreement is based on superstitious beliefs, not the scientific method. Exactly as predicted in my previous post. [1] "Rules for the study of natural philosophy", Newton transl 1999, pp. 794–6, after Book 3, The System of the World.
- dozzie 11y ago
  >> First, we seem to call different things an experiment. The guy didn't made any experiment, he just charted some data. He didn't change CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, keeping everything else equal, to check if it would affect the resulting temperature. > Right, and the LIGO didn't create two colliding black holes to measure gravity waves, but measure gravity waves it did. You think that some guy that merely charted some data is equivalent to some guy that developed a model, predicted what should be seen when some event Q happens, patiently waited for Q to happen, and then observed if his predictions matched what was measured while Q was happening? > So your disagreement is based on superstitious beliefs, not the scientific method. Exactly as predicted in my previous post. No, it's not based on superstitions. It's based on climatology's inability to deliver any explaination that actually make sense when one starts estimating how big values are in play (those that don't make sense ignore one of the basic principles, like only accounting the signal that exceeds measurement errors, or laws of thermodynamics).
  - Aeolos 11y ago
    > No, it's not based on superstitions. It's based on climatology's inability to deliver any explaination [...] You have already established that you don't believe humans are (or even could be) causing global warming. You are not seeking any scientific proof for that - it is merely a superstitious belief that you are holding. A personal bias, if you will. The rest of your posts are merely rationalizations for this bias. The problem is not that the science is not explaining climate change enough. The problem is that no possible explanation will penetrate your mind's defenses against the terrifying notion that you might be wrong. Think of this: if thousands upon thousands of scientists, using hundreds of different methodologies and dozens of different datasets to arrive at the same conclusion, can't convince you; if the fact that, since the industrial revolution, humanity released into the environment energy equivalent to 50% the Triasic-Jurassic extinction event can't convince you; then nothing ever will. At this point, there's only one thing left: grab one of those datasets and run any sort of analysis you wish. See for yourself what kind of results you come up with. Unless you are willing to walk the walk, there is no point in continuing this discussion.