Remember me
▼ Content

American High School Students React to Climate Change


American High School Students React to Climate Change17-12-2016 09:23
studentmeetsworld
☆☆☆☆☆
(1)
I am a high school student and I am doing a class project to record high school student's reaction to climate change. Below is the video series that I am making.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9snxFVJ01wg&index=2&list=PLt3fW28z_BQpf7PUd8lJFnHJIEz0qmh8u

Not strong debates, mostly entertaining.
17-12-2016 12:24
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
That looks like a very well made video. I am surprised that a high school student is producing that level of quality. Well done.

I suggest that you ask students what they think will happen in the climate catastrophy, the flooding of cities etc. Then tell them what the actual numbers are in terms of the increased sea levels predicted, worste case of course, and video their reaction to a 3 feet sea level increase by 2100.

Edited on 17-12-2016 12:24
18-12-2016 00:58
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
It's a nicely made video, but it does look a bit too much like laying a guilt trip on Americans for consuming too much energy. I'm not sure that's very productive. The reason that Europeans* use about half as much energy per capita as Americans is not because Europeans are particularly virtuous or self-sacrificing; it is because energy (and particularly gasoline) is much more expensive in Europe as a result of government policy. So people use energy more economically and European infrastructure has developed accordingly. You can't brow-beat people into changing their behaviour; you have to give concrete reasons to do so. And that is a matter for governments rather than individual consciences.

tl;dr: Energy taxes are far more effective than making people feel guilty when it comes to reducing energy consumption.

*Yes, I know the video refers to India, but I think the comparison between the US and Europe is informative since their populations have similar living standards.
18-12-2016 01:06
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Tim the plumber wrote:
That looks like a very well made video. I am surprised that a high school student is producing that level of quality. Well done.

I suggest that you ask students what they think will happen in the climate catastrophy, the flooding of cities etc. Then tell them what the actual numbers are in terms of the increased sea levels predicted, worste case of course, and video their reaction to a 3 feet sea level increase by 2100.

Here's a recent interesting article on predicted sea level changes:

The maddening, uncertain reality of sea-level rise

This figure from the article summarises how best estimates of future sea level rise have changed since 1990:

18-12-2016 13:53
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Surface Detail wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
That looks like a very well made video. I am surprised that a high school student is producing that level of quality. Well done.

I suggest that you ask students what they think will happen in the climate catastrophy, the flooding of cities etc. Then tell them what the actual numbers are in terms of the increased sea levels predicted, worste case of course, and video their reaction to a 3 feet sea level increase by 2100.

Here's a recent interesting article on predicted sea level changes:

The maddening, uncertain reality of sea-level rise

This figure from the article summarises how best estimates of future sea level rise have changed since 1990:



Yep. The predictions of sea level rise keep changing even when the predicted temperature rise stays the same.

I remember listening to a radio show where an expert was saying that the expansion of the oceans due to increased temperature was going to be the thing that caused the sea level rise. That was before the IPCC gave the job of saying how much this would be to some mechanical engineers. They came back with the answer of about 7cm per degree c rise by 2100.

So even though the guy on the radio said that ice melt would not be significant back then now it's all ice melt. Even when physics says it will never be a lot.

Desperation to keep the doom going.

How would a 3 foot high sea level rise affect you?
18-12-2016 22:08
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
That looks like a very well made video. I am surprised that a high school student is producing that level of quality. Well done.

I suggest that you ask students what they think will happen in the climate catastrophy, the flooding of cities etc. Then tell them what the actual numbers are in terms of the increased sea levels predicted, worste case of course, and video their reaction to a 3 feet sea level increase by 2100.

Here's a recent interesting article on predicted sea level changes:

The maddening, uncertain reality of sea-level rise

This figure from the article summarises how best estimates of future sea level rise have changed since 1990:



Yep. The predictions of sea level rise keep changing even when the predicted temperature rise stays the same.

I remember listening to a radio show where an expert was saying that the expansion of the oceans due to increased temperature was going to be the thing that caused the sea level rise. That was before the IPCC gave the job of saying how much this would be to some mechanical engineers. They came back with the answer of about 7cm per degree c rise by 2100.

So even though the guy on the radio said that ice melt would not be significant back then now it's all ice melt. Even when physics says it will never be a lot.

Desperation to keep the doom going.

How would a 3 foot high sea level rise affect you?

So you either didn't read or didn't understand the article. OK.
18-12-2016 23:12
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
Surface Detail wrote:

This figure from the article summarises how best estimates of future sea level rise have changed


You can't predict sea level rise. You can't even measure current sea level.


The Parrot Killer
18-12-2016 23:20
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:

This figure from the article summarises how best estimates of future sea level rise have changed


You can't predict sea level rise. You can't even measure current sea level.

Yes, you can measure and predict sea level, and numerous scientific papers have been written explaining and demonstrating how it is done. The website of the University of Colorado Sea Level Research Group is a good place to start your research.
19-12-2016 02:45
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4211)
Surface Detail wrote: Yes, you can measure and predict sea level, and numerous scientific papers have been written explaining and demonstrating how it is done.

Confirmed: you don't know what a scientific paper is. Then again, you don't know what science is. You think science is religious propaganda with the preceding qualifier "scientific."


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
19-12-2016 03:12
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4211)
Surface Detail wrote:The website of the University of Colorado Sea Level Research Group is a good place to start your research.

Chalk this one up to your religious prohibition against getting information from any non-warmizombie website. The fact that you would preach obvious misinformation crafted for the gullible and scientifically illiterate serves as a strong incentive for one to summarily dismiss anything you post, just as you summarily dismiss any science that runs counter to your WACKY religious dogma.

I know for a fact that you have received two straightforward and intuitively obvious explanations as to why a satellite cannot do what you claim. Of course your WACKY religious dogma requires unquestioning faith in satellites' ability to do the impossible in order to claim that your WACKY religious faith grants divine knowledge unavailable to "deniers."

Neither you nor anyone else knows the sea level to any accuracy that would, say, allow a pilot to land a plane.

Re The following link, I am not posting it because I accept any of NASA's data, but because they admit that their data is guaranteed to be hosed for the reasons Into the Night has been patiently trying to explain to you.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/30/finally-jpl-intends-to-get-a-grasp-on-accurate-sea-level-and-ice-measurements/amp/?client=ms-opera-mobile&espv=1

@ Into the Night, did you ever get a "thank you" from Surface Detail or from spot for your straightforward explanations? You showed far more patience than I would be inclined to offer, but again, that's just the helpful kind of guy you are.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
19-12-2016 03:57
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
IBdaMann wrote:
@ Into the Night, did you ever get a "thank you" from Surface Detail or from spot for your straightforward explanations? You showed far more patience than I would be inclined to offer, but again, that's just the helpful kind of guy you are.
.


No.

Got a few insults though.


The Parrot Killer
19-12-2016 20:01
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:The website of the University of Colorado Sea Level Research Group is a good place to start your research.

Chalk this one up to your religious prohibition against getting information from any non-warmizombie website. The fact that you would preach obvious misinformation crafted for the gullible and scientifically illiterate serves as a strong incentive for one to summarily dismiss anything you post, just as you summarily dismiss any science that runs counter to your WACKY religious dogma.

I know for a fact that you have received two straightforward and intuitively obvious explanations as to why a satellite cannot do what you claim. Of course your WACKY religious dogma requires unquestioning faith in satellites' ability to do the impossible in order to claim that your WACKY religious faith grants divine knowledge unavailable to "deniers."

Neither you nor anyone else knows the sea level to any accuracy that would, say, allow a pilot to land a plane.

Re The following link, I am not posting it because I accept any of NASA's data, but because they admit that their data is guaranteed to be hosed for the reasons Into the Night has been patiently trying to explain to you.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/30/finally-jpl-intends-to-get-a-grasp-on-accurate-sea-level-and-ice-measurements/amp/?client=ms-opera-mobile&espv=1

@ Into the Night, did you ever get a "thank you" from Surface Detail or from spot for your straightforward explanations? You showed far more patience than I would be inclined to offer, but again, that's just the helpful kind of guy you are.

Science is not intuitive (see quantum mechanics, relativity); all theories must be supported by actual evidence. Evidence is the bedrock of science.

You may not be aware of this, but Anthony Watts, like you, has no scientific training and is therefore prone to making the same sort of blunders as you, ITN and Tim when attempting to interpret scientific literature. His site is not a reliable source of information. That's why it's best to stick to websites run by scientific organisations and universities if you genuinely want to understand scientific issues.
19-12-2016 20:33
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:The website of the University of Colorado Sea Level Research Group is a good place to start your research.

Chalk this one up to your religious prohibition against getting information from any non-warmizombie website. The fact that you would preach obvious misinformation crafted for the gullible and scientifically illiterate serves as a strong incentive for one to summarily dismiss anything you post, just as you summarily dismiss any science that runs counter to your WACKY religious dogma.

I know for a fact that you have received two straightforward and intuitively obvious explanations as to why a satellite cannot do what you claim. Of course your WACKY religious dogma requires unquestioning faith in satellites' ability to do the impossible in order to claim that your WACKY religious faith grants divine knowledge unavailable to "deniers."

Neither you nor anyone else knows the sea level to any accuracy that would, say, allow a pilot to land a plane.

Re The following link, I am not posting it because I accept any of NASA's data, but because they admit that their data is guaranteed to be hosed for the reasons Into the Night has been patiently trying to explain to you.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/30/finally-jpl-intends-to-get-a-grasp-on-accurate-sea-level-and-ice-measurements/amp/?client=ms-opera-mobile&espv=1

@ Into the Night, did you ever get a "thank you" from Surface Detail or from spot for your straightforward explanations? You showed far more patience than I would be inclined to offer, but again, that's just the helpful kind of guy you are.

Science is not intuitive (see quantum mechanics, relativity); all theories must be supported by actual evidence. Evidence is the bedrock of science.

Supporting evidence is not used in science at all.
Surface Detail wrote:
You may not be aware of this, but Anthony Watts, like you, has no scientific training and is therefore prone to making the same sort of blunders as you, ITN and Tim when attempting to interpret scientific literature.
Despite this, he knows a hell of a lot more about science than you do. You may find this hard to cope with, but you don't need any credentials at all to understand and use science.
Surface Detail wrote:
His site is not a reliable source of information.
I don't particularly use his site, so I wouldn't know.
Surface Detail wrote:
That's why it's best to stick to websites run by scientific organisations and universities if you genuinely want to understand scientific issues.

So in other words, only listen to government sites. The government never lies.


The Parrot Killer
19-12-2016 22:29
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:The website of the University of Colorado Sea Level Research Group is a good place to start your research.

Chalk this one up to your religious prohibition against getting information from any non-warmizombie website. The fact that you would preach obvious misinformation crafted for the gullible and scientifically illiterate serves as a strong incentive for one to summarily dismiss anything you post, just as you summarily dismiss any science that runs counter to your WACKY religious dogma.

I know for a fact that you have received two straightforward and intuitively obvious explanations as to why a satellite cannot do what you claim. Of course your WACKY religious dogma requires unquestioning faith in satellites' ability to do the impossible in order to claim that your WACKY religious faith grants divine knowledge unavailable to "deniers."

Neither you nor anyone else knows the sea level to any accuracy that would, say, allow a pilot to land a plane.

Re The following link, I am not posting it because I accept any of NASA's data, but because they admit that their data is guaranteed to be hosed for the reasons Into the Night has been patiently trying to explain to you.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/30/finally-jpl-intends-to-get-a-grasp-on-accurate-sea-level-and-ice-measurements/amp/?client=ms-opera-mobile&espv=1

@ Into the Night, did you ever get a "thank you" from Surface Detail or from spot for your straightforward explanations? You showed far more patience than I would be inclined to offer, but again, that's just the helpful kind of guy you are.

Science is not intuitive (see quantum mechanics, relativity); all theories must be supported by actual evidence. Evidence is the bedrock of science.

You may not be aware of this, but Anthony Watts, like you, has no scientific training and is therefore prone to making the same sort of blunders as you, ITN and Tim when attempting to interpret scientific literature. His site is not a reliable source of information. That's why it's best to stick to websites run by scientific organisations and universities if you genuinely want to understand scientific issues.


Or even better look at the actual facts and work things out for yourself. Actual evidence not the word from on high.
19-12-2016 22:55
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:The website of the University of Colorado Sea Level Research Group is a good place to start your research.

Chalk this one up to your religious prohibition against getting information from any non-warmizombie website. The fact that you would preach obvious misinformation crafted for the gullible and scientifically illiterate serves as a strong incentive for one to summarily dismiss anything you post, just as you summarily dismiss any science that runs counter to your WACKY religious dogma.

I know for a fact that you have received two straightforward and intuitively obvious explanations as to why a satellite cannot do what you claim. Of course your WACKY religious dogma requires unquestioning faith in satellites' ability to do the impossible in order to claim that your WACKY religious faith grants divine knowledge unavailable to "deniers."

Neither you nor anyone else knows the sea level to any accuracy that would, say, allow a pilot to land a plane.

Re The following link, I am not posting it because I accept any of NASA's data, but because they admit that their data is guaranteed to be hosed for the reasons Into the Night has been patiently trying to explain to you.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/30/finally-jpl-intends-to-get-a-grasp-on-accurate-sea-level-and-ice-measurements/amp/?client=ms-opera-mobile&espv=1

@ Into the Night, did you ever get a "thank you" from Surface Detail or from spot for your straightforward explanations? You showed far more patience than I would be inclined to offer, but again, that's just the helpful kind of guy you are.

Science is not intuitive (see quantum mechanics, relativity); all theories must be supported by actual evidence. Evidence is the bedrock of science.

You may not be aware of this, but Anthony Watts, like you, has no scientific training and is therefore prone to making the same sort of blunders as you, ITN and Tim when attempting to interpret scientific literature. His site is not a reliable source of information. That's why it's best to stick to websites run by scientific organisations and universities if you genuinely want to understand scientific issues.


Or even better look at the actual facts and work things out for yourself. Actual evidence not the word from on high.

So when were you last in Greenland? How did you measure the ice mass balance? What method have you been using to measure global average sea level?
20-12-2016 01:38
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4211)
Surface Detail wrote: Science is not intuitive (see quantum mechanics, relativity);

I will do the explaining to you, since you can't even distinguish science from religion and you aren't even allowed to visit authoritative websites.

All science is a collection of essentially intuitive "oh yeah, of course!" ideas that often get wrapped around the axle of the math, which often requires effort to fully grasp.

Surface Detail wrote: all theories must be supported by actual evidence. Evidence is the bedrock of science.

This is evidence of your self-induced delusion disorder. I realize that your WACKY religion requires you to believe this without question, even though you cannot identify a single observation that is captured in the body of science.

You are a science denier.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
20-12-2016 01:46
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: Science is not intuitive (see quantum mechanics, relativity);

I will do the explaining to you, since you can't even distinguish science from religion and you aren't even allowed to visit authoritative websites.

All science is a collection of essentially intuitive "oh yeah, of course!" ideas that often get wrapped around the axle of the math, which often requires effort to fully grasp.

Surface Detail wrote: all theories must be supported by actual evidence. Evidence is the bedrock of science.

This is evidence of your self-induced delusion disorder. I realize that your WACKY religion requires you to believe this without question, even though you cannot identify a single observation that is captured in the body of science.

You are a science denier.

What complete gibberish. Can you give any links to websites supporting your view that science exists independently of evidence? I doubt it; I suspect that you are probably unique in holding such a bizarre world view.
20-12-2016 02:27
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4211)
Surface Detail wrote: What complete gibberish.

Your ongoing denial.


Surface Detail wrote: Can you give any links to websites supporting your view that science exists independently of evidence?

So you still have never learned that principle about proving a negative. Can you give any links to websites supporting the idea that blue gremlins have never been discovered in Mississippi briar patches? Why do you think not?

Identify one observation captured in the body of science. Just one. What? There arent any? Since observations have no place in the body of science, no one of which I am aware has dedicated any websites to that lack of observations in the body of science just like no one has dedicated any websites to the lack of blue gremlins in Mississippi briar patches.

But let's stay focused on you providing an example of an observation captured in the body of science.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
20-12-2016 13:42
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Surface Detail wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:The website of the University of Colorado Sea Level Research Group is a good place to start your research.

Chalk this one up to your religious prohibition against getting information from any non-warmizombie website. The fact that you would preach obvious misinformation crafted for the gullible and scientifically illiterate serves as a strong incentive for one to summarily dismiss anything you post, just as you summarily dismiss any science that runs counter to your WACKY religious dogma.

I know for a fact that you have received two straightforward and intuitively obvious explanations as to why a satellite cannot do what you claim. Of course your WACKY religious dogma requires unquestioning faith in satellites' ability to do the impossible in order to claim that your WACKY religious faith grants divine knowledge unavailable to "deniers."

Neither you nor anyone else knows the sea level to any accuracy that would, say, allow a pilot to land a plane.

Re The following link, I am not posting it because I accept any of NASA's data, but because they admit that their data is guaranteed to be hosed for the reasons Into the Night has been patiently trying to explain to you.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/30/finally-jpl-intends-to-get-a-grasp-on-accurate-sea-level-and-ice-measurements/amp/?client=ms-opera-mobile&espv=1

@ Into the Night, did you ever get a "thank you" from Surface Detail or from spot for your straightforward explanations? You showed far more patience than I would be inclined to offer, but again, that's just the helpful kind of guy you are.

Science is not intuitive (see quantum mechanics, relativity); all theories must be supported by actual evidence. Evidence is the bedrock of science.

You may not be aware of this, but Anthony Watts, like you, has no scientific training and is therefore prone to making the same sort of blunders as you, ITN and Tim when attempting to interpret scientific literature. His site is not a reliable source of information. That's why it's best to stick to websites run by scientific organisations and universities if you genuinely want to understand scientific issues.


Or even better look at the actual facts and work things out for yourself. Actual evidence not the word from on high.

So when were you last in Greenland? How did you measure the ice mass balance? What method have you been using to measure global average sea level?


I am able to look at Greenland's rivers and glaciers by using google maps. This method rates as 3 out of 10 in terms of its' accuracy. But that is good enough to get a rough idea of the numbers.

I am able to measure global sea levels when I go to the sea side. Not very good or indeed with any accuracy to anything more than a foot. I also need to consider the possibility of any fast hydrstatic movements but that does not happen in many places around the globe so as long as I am not on a small island in a big ocean I am OK.

I am able to measure, using data collected by others, the movement of mass to or from the poles very well using the day length data.
20-12-2016 13:44
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: What complete gibberish.

Your ongoing denial.


Surface Detail wrote: Can you give any links to websites supporting your view that science exists independently of evidence?

So you still have never learned that principle about proving a negative. Can you give any links to websites supporting the idea that blue gremlins have never been discovered in Mississippi briar patches? Why do you think not?

Identify one observation captured in the body of science. Just one. What? There arent any? Since observations have no place in the body of science, no one of which I am aware has dedicated any websites to that lack of observations in the body of science just like no one has dedicated any websites to the lack of blue gremlins in Mississippi briar patches.

But let's stay focused on you providing an example of an observation captured in the body of science.


Recently the body of science captured the observation that gravity waves do exist.

This supplied evidence that the theory of black holes is correct.
20-12-2016 19:46
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: What complete gibberish.

Your ongoing denial.


Surface Detail wrote: Can you give any links to websites supporting your view that science exists independently of evidence?

So you still have never learned that principle about proving a negative. Can you give any links to websites supporting the idea that blue gremlins have never been discovered in Mississippi briar patches? Why do you think not?

Identify one observation captured in the body of science. Just one. What? There arent any? Since observations have no place in the body of science, no one of which I am aware has dedicated any websites to that lack of observations in the body of science just like no one has dedicated any websites to the lack of blue gremlins in Mississippi briar patches.

But let's stay focused on you providing an example of an observation captured in the body of science.

You're completely missing the point. You need observations in order to create and verify theories, not to incorporate into theories. They are part of the process of science rather than the body of science.

Newton's law of universal gravitation, for example, says nothing about apples and planets, but observations of apples and planets were essential to its formulation and verification (and ultimately to its replacement with Einstein's general relativity).
20-12-2016 19:51
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
Tim the plumber wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: What complete gibberish.

Your ongoing denial.


Surface Detail wrote: Can you give any links to websites supporting your view that science exists independently of evidence?

So you still have never learned that principle about proving a negative. Can you give any links to websites supporting the idea that blue gremlins have never been discovered in Mississippi briar patches? Why do you think not?

Identify one observation captured in the body of science. Just one. What? There arent any? Since observations have no place in the body of science, no one of which I am aware has dedicated any websites to that lack of observations in the body of science just like no one has dedicated any websites to the lack of blue gremlins in Mississippi briar patches.

But let's stay focused on you providing an example of an observation captured in the body of science.


Recently the body of science captured the observation that gravity waves do exist.

This supplied evidence that the theory of black holes is correct.


An observation is not science. Observations aren't even required for science.
Supporting evidence is not part of science either.

The theory of black holes IS correct simply because it has not yet been falsified.


The Parrot Killer
20-12-2016 19:55
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: What complete gibberish.

Your ongoing denial.


Surface Detail wrote: Can you give any links to websites supporting your view that science exists independently of evidence?

So you still have never learned that principle about proving a negative. Can you give any links to websites supporting the idea that blue gremlins have never been discovered in Mississippi briar patches? Why do you think not?

Identify one observation captured in the body of science. Just one. What? There arent any? Since observations have no place in the body of science, no one of which I am aware has dedicated any websites to that lack of observations in the body of science just like no one has dedicated any websites to the lack of blue gremlins in Mississippi briar patches.

But let's stay focused on you providing an example of an observation captured in the body of science.


Recently the body of science captured the observation that gravity waves do exist.

This supplied evidence that the theory of black holes is correct.


An observation is not science. Observations aren't even required for science.
Supporting evidence is not part of science either.

The theory of black holes IS correct simply because it has not yet been falsified.

How could you falsify it without making observations?
20-12-2016 20:01
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: What complete gibberish.

Your ongoing denial.


Surface Detail wrote: Can you give any links to websites supporting your view that science exists independently of evidence?

So you still have never learned that principle about proving a negative. Can you give any links to websites supporting the idea that blue gremlins have never been discovered in Mississippi briar patches? Why do you think not?

Identify one observation captured in the body of science. Just one. What? There arent any? Since observations have no place in the body of science, no one of which I am aware has dedicated any websites to that lack of observations in the body of science just like no one has dedicated any websites to the lack of blue gremlins in Mississippi briar patches.

But let's stay focused on you providing an example of an observation captured in the body of science.

You're completely missing the point. You need observations in order to create and verify theories, not to incorporate into theories. They are part of the process of science rather than the body of science.

Newton's law of universal gravitation, for example, says nothing about apples and planets, but observations of apples and planets were essential to its formulation and verification (and ultimately to its replacement with Einstein's general relativity).


Newton did not use apples or planets at all. He simply created a theory that united the two other theories, one about planets, the other about apples (and any other falling body on Earth).

He needed to make no observations at all, either to inspire his theory, nor to test it.

The Moon's orbit, which was already well known at the time, was used mathematically to test it. He didn't even have to observe the Moon.

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics also used no observations at all for its formulation, formalization, or testing. The entire thing is the result of a thought experiment.


The Parrot Killer
20-12-2016 20:03
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: What complete gibberish.

Your ongoing denial.


Surface Detail wrote: Can you give any links to websites supporting your view that science exists independently of evidence?

So you still have never learned that principle about proving a negative. Can you give any links to websites supporting the idea that blue gremlins have never been discovered in Mississippi briar patches? Why do you think not?

Identify one observation captured in the body of science. Just one. What? There arent any? Since observations have no place in the body of science, no one of which I am aware has dedicated any websites to that lack of observations in the body of science just like no one has dedicated any websites to the lack of blue gremlins in Mississippi briar patches.

But let's stay focused on you providing an example of an observation captured in the body of science.


Recently the body of science captured the observation that gravity waves do exist.

This supplied evidence that the theory of black holes is correct.


An observation is not science. Observations aren't even required for science.
Supporting evidence is not part of science either.

The theory of black holes IS correct simply because it has not yet been falsified.

How could you falsify it without making observations?


So far...no one has been able to.


The Parrot Killer
20-12-2016 20:16
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: What complete gibberish.

Your ongoing denial.


Surface Detail wrote: Can you give any links to websites supporting your view that science exists independently of evidence?

So you still have never learned that principle about proving a negative. Can you give any links to websites supporting the idea that blue gremlins have never been discovered in Mississippi briar patches? Why do you think not?

Identify one observation captured in the body of science. Just one. What? There arent any? Since observations have no place in the body of science, no one of which I am aware has dedicated any websites to that lack of observations in the body of science just like no one has dedicated any websites to the lack of blue gremlins in Mississippi briar patches.

But let's stay focused on you providing an example of an observation captured in the body of science.


Recently the body of science captured the observation that gravity waves do exist.

This supplied evidence that the theory of black holes is correct.


An observation is not science. Observations aren't even required for science.
Supporting evidence is not part of science either.

The theory of black holes IS correct simply because it has not yet been falsified.

How could you falsify it without making observations?


So far...no one has been able to.

How could they, without making observations?
21-12-2016 00:10
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4211)
Surface Detail wrote:Newton's law of universal gravitation, for example, says nothing about apples and planets, but observations of apples and planets were essential to its formulation and verification (and ultimately to its replacement with Einstein's general relativity).

Then I politely request you use honest wording.

Observations are excellent for inspiring science, but nothing makes observations somehow required.

If someone just has a sudden epiphany unrelated to any observation, no one gets to veto the science on account of a lack of observations.

Ergo, I politely ask that you acknowledge the words "not required" just as I ask that you acknowledge that no science model records any observations.

We can hold a separate discussion on how most science was probably inspired by observations. In such a discussion, you'll have to anticipate non-observation-based models like curvature of space-time, string theory, etc...

For the current body of science, observations are not captured.


.
.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
21-12-2016 01:42
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:Newton's law of universal gravitation, for example, says nothing about apples and planets, but observations of apples and planets were essential to its formulation and verification (and ultimately to its replacement with Einstein's general relativity).

Then I politely request you use honest wording.

Observations are excellent for inspiring science, but nothing makes observations somehow required.

If someone just has a sudden epiphany unrelated to any observation, no one gets to veto the science on account of a lack of observations.

Ergo, I politely ask that you acknowledge the words "not required" just as I ask that you acknowledge that no science model records any observations.

We can hold a separate discussion on how most science was probably inspired by observations. In such a discussion, you'll have to anticipate non-observation-based models like curvature of space-time, string theory, etc...

For the current body of science, observations are not captured..

You are, of course, wrong. Fundamental constants such as the electronic charge and Planck's constant are used in many theories and have been derived purely from empirical data. The gravitational constant used in Newton's law of gravitation is based on observations and measurements. Indeed, it is only by making increasingly precise observations that we know the values of these constants to their current accuracy.
21-12-2016 02:36
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:Newton's law of universal gravitation, for example, says nothing about apples and planets, but observations of apples and planets were essential to its formulation and verification (and ultimately to its replacement with Einstein's general relativity).

Then I politely request you use honest wording.

Observations are excellent for inspiring science, but nothing makes observations somehow required.

If someone just has a sudden epiphany unrelated to any observation, no one gets to veto the science on account of a lack of observations.

Ergo, I politely ask that you acknowledge the words "not required" just as I ask that you acknowledge that no science model records any observations.

We can hold a separate discussion on how most science was probably inspired by observations. In such a discussion, you'll have to anticipate non-observation-based models like curvature of space-time, string theory, etc...

For the current body of science, observations are not captured..

You are, of course, wrong. Fundamental constants such as the electronic charge and Planck's constant are used in many theories and have been derived purely from empirical data. The gravitational constant used in Newton's law of gravitation is based on observations and measurements. Indeed, it is only by making increasingly precise observations that we know the values of these constants to their current accuracy.


You are confusing 'theory' with 'constant'. These two words have separate meanings.


The Parrot Killer




Join the debate American High School Students React to Climate Change:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
record high temp in france7808-07-2019 06:18
Need school answers201-05-2019 15:49
You will never ever see a single climate school strike in China because030-04-2019 06:17
Why don't they build really high poles to mount solar panels?723-04-2019 01:05
Global Climate Strike: Meet the teenagers skipping school to fight for a greener planet913-04-2019 20:34
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact