|Edinburgh University - Dr Richard Milne - Final Nail For Climate Change Disinformation25-11-2017 17:46|
|Into the Night★★★★★
|Consensus isn't used in science. Supporting evidence isn't used in science. Science is only interested in conflicting evidence.|
Peer review is not part of science. Neither is observation. Observation is subject to the problems of phenomenology. People observe differently depending on their own personal model of the universe which is as unique as a fingerprint to each of us.
There is no 'official' scientific method.
Here is what science is in a nutshell:
Science is a set of falsifiable theories that describe nature.
That's it. No consensus needed, no 'elite' gatekeepers needed, no supporting evidence needed, etc.
Any theory may be inspired by anything...an observation...a thought experiment...analyzing an equation a new way...watching an episode of Sponge Bob...anything.
A theory is an explanatory argument...that is, a conclusion and a predicate (like all arguments) but one that explains something. All theories start out initially as circular arguments. This is NOT a fallacy. Only the failure to recognize a circular argument for what it is becomes the fallacy.
The theory has a model. This is essentially the noun for the argument. The first part of making the theory a scientific one is to find the null hypothesis stemming from the theory itself and it's model. An example is the theory that cannonballs travel in a parabolic path. The null hypothesis is that some other curve is described.
You go out and fire cannons and view the cannonballs from a side view as they travel. You plot their arc in your notes.
You compare these arcs to a normalized parabola. You find your numbers match very well. What you are trying to do is falsify your own theory by seeing if the numbers describe anything besides parabolas.
You now have all you need to formalize the theory into mathematics. You can now predict where cannonballs will go. You instruct the gunner to use the new math.
Gunner hits the target much more consistently. You have just created theory that has become part of the body of science.
You try to extend this theory to all objects. You test it to try to break the theory again with as many objects you can find. Now you can generalize your theory and formalize that into a general equation.
Today...that theory is still part of the body of science. It is falsifiable...in other words, a null hypothesis can be found, the test is specific, and it produces a specific result. The theory remains a theory, even though it is a scientific one. The original observation of cannonballs is not part of the theory. The theory stands on its own. Observation is not part of any theory.
Today, that theory is expressed in the equation F=ma and is known as Newton's law of motion.
Note that it did not require a peer review. It did not require a consensus. It did not require any blessing or sanctification by some 'elite' gatekeepers. It did not require anything but Newton himself and his willingness to write a book about it.
Several well known scientists had no degree or credentials at all when they came up with their theories. No university or credential is science. You are using their science right now by using your computer to read this.
Now...your first task:
Define 'global warming' or 'climate change' without using circular definitions. No theory can exist based on a void argument. You have to be able to do this to escape the buzzword usage of these phrases.
Religions can exist on buzzwords alone. The Church of Global Warming is one such religion.
|Are you on the right forum?|
I mean the intention is clear ... "Climate-Debate.com is an independent and neutral web community for climate change, energy and related topics..."
But you've raised the problem of your interpretation of the phrase 'çlimate change' versus it's common usage.
What did they say?
Edited on 25-11-2017 22:13
|Into the Night★★★★★
Yes...I raise the question. What exactly does 'global warming' or 'climate change' mean? Are they more than buzzwords? Can they be defined in some other way than in a circular definition?
The Parrot Killer
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebag steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW deneir liar whiner badnight" bluffs: Consensus isn't used in science."old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebag steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW deneir liar whiner badnight" enjoys that science isn't used in AGW denier liar whiner "sigh-ants".
"We here in the UK have an unbiased news source in the BBC"?????
"Other countries are dominated by right-wing news sources". With a picture of FOX broadcast insignia?
FOX is slightly left of middle. Further we have ABC, CBS, NBC and PBS that are all so far to the left that they could be reading Mao's Little Red Book to people nightly.
Why would people NOT believe that MAN-MADE climate change is happening?
1. Because it isn't. Too much data is being shown to have been purposely counterfeited. Sea level changes being blamed on man-made global warming when the sea levels were rising since the end of the civil war. The "increase in sea level rising" in FACT is not due to any increases in sea level rising but in NASA switching to satellite measuring and then adding totally theoretical Earth mantle shrinkage in such a manner that it appears that sea levels started increasing with twice the speed since 1992.
The REAL effects of CO2 could easily be measured under controlled circumstances but we do not see NASA doing so. The first paper positive for AGW that was presented to the IPCC showed 600 "climate scientists" agreeing that it was occurring.
Since that time fully 2/3rds of that group have reported that their papers were either misrepresented as positive or they were in fact totally misreported.
Meanwhile over 31,000 scientists have signed the Oregon Petition saying that either there is no AGW or that there is insufficient information to be talking about it in the first place.
The lies of the "environmentalists" continue nonetheless.
[b]Wake wrote: FOX is slightly left of middle........says the old sick silly sleepy sleazy slimy slimebag steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time (plus 1) threatener, who now approves the re-pubic-lick-uns(correct spelling) supporting roy moore, a pedophile.
|Richard Lindzen paid by ExxonMobil for his lies||2||10-08-2017 18:51|
|Opinion Poll for final thesis Climate change and automobile industry||2||12-06-2017 19:23|
|Stockholm University is looking for a Arctic Climate Doctorate||7||24-04-2017 18:09|
|In Obama's final State of the Union Address, he mocked deniers. He bad person?||5||13-03-2017 03:59|
|University Physics textbook re the 'greenhouse' effect||19||21-07-2016 23:58|