Remember me
▼ Content

Are falsifiable models the only way to validate science?


Are falsifiable models the only way to validate science?07-10-2015 00:45
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Recently, many threads on this website have been predominated by the notion that Karl Popper's concept of falsifiable models is the only acceptable way of demarcating man-made climate change as being either science or non-science. Unfortunately, this has been expressed in a manner which has drawn many of these threads off topic, resulting in content that seems most intent upon character assassination and shooting the messenger. This has lead me to withdraw my participation from several of these threads, including but not limted to Well, that's another forum trolled to death, The SCIENCE of the "Greenhouse Effect," and There is still no Global Warming science.

That said, I do believe that there is value in the question "Are falsifiable models the only way to validate science?" So I've created this thread to discuss the following topics:

1. If falsifiable models are the only way to determine what is science, then what do we do with things (people, events, statements, etc.) that have not already been shown to have successfully satisfied a falsifiable model? For example, Alexander Fleming (1881-1955) discovered penicillin in 1928. Unfortunately, Karl Popper (1902-1994) outlined and published most of his seminal works, including those concerning falsifiable models, after 1930. This means that Fleming could not have fully employed Karl Popper's concepts into his discovery. Therefore, if falsifiable models are the only way to determine what is science, should we relegate Fleming and his work to realms outside of science, perhaps say to those of theologian and theology?

2. If falsifiable models are not the only way to determine what is science, then what are some of the other options which we might employ in addition to falsifiable models when discussing man-made climate change?

To assist in maintaining a welcoming and inclusive atmosphere here, I'm going to suggest the following guidelines:

1. Please stay on topic. If you find this thread inspires tangential ideas which you'd like to share with others, then create a new thread of your own for that purpose and post an invitation to it from this thread.

2. Please direct your critical posts/comments to the message and not the messenger (i.e. - anyone expressing themselves either on this website or outside of this website). Agreement is not required, but respect is requested.

3. Please avoid posting road blocks. Repetitive and redundant posts serve only to draw attention to oneself and create conflict.

Your comments are welcome.
Edited on 07-10-2015 01:06
17-10-2015 03:31
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
From "Understanding Science - how science really works"

http://undsci.berkeley.edu/teaching/misconceptions.php#a6

*MISCONCEPTION: Science can only disprove ideas.

CORRECTION: This misconception is based on the idea of falsification, philosopher Karl Popper's influential account of scientific justification, which suggests that all science can do is reject, or falsify, hypotheses — that science cannot find evidence that supports one idea over others. Falsification was a popular philosophical doctrine — especially with scientists — but it was soon recognized that falsification wasn't a very complete or accurate picture of how scientific knowledge is built. In science, ideas can never be completely proved or completely disproved. Instead, science accepts or rejects ideas based on supporting and refuting evidence, and may revise those conclusions if warranted by new evidence or perspectives.


*Falsifiable: The word falsifiable isn't used much in everyday language, but when it is, it is often applied to ideas that have been shown to be untrue. When that's the case — when an idea has been shown to be false — a scientist would say that it has been falsified. A falsifiable idea, on the other hand, is one for which there is a conceivable test that might produce evidence proving the idea false.

Scientists and others influenced by the ideas of the philosopher Karl Popper sometimes assert that only falsifiable ideas are scientific. However, we now recognize that science cannot once-and-for-all prove any idea to be false (or true for that matter). Furthermore, it's clear that evidence can play a role in supporting particular ideas over others — not just in ruling some ideas out, as implied by the falsifiability criterion. When a scientist says falsifiable, he or she probably actually means something like testable, the term we use in this website to avoid confusion. A testable idea is one about which we could gather evidence to help determine whether or not the idea is accurate.


17-10-2015 04:43
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Hi Ceist,

Nice post. I've come to find that falsifiable models are most useful when you already have lots of knowns and you're just trying to sort out a few unknowns, as it's a very efficient method by which to quickly separate the wheat from the chaff.

Unfortunately, with M2C2 (man-made climate change) we're still dealing with so many unknowns that using Popper's concepts now to draw conclusions only results in ending the conversation before the dialogue has really even begun.

I think that in 10-20 years, falsifiable models will be very useful in advancing the field of climate change science. For now, we still need to think outside that falsifiable box.


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
17-10-2015 04:53
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5234)
Ceist wrote:
From "Understanding Science - how science really works"

http://undsci.berkeley.edu/teaching/misconceptions.php#a6

You've got to be kidding me! You cite bogus crap from Berekely (I know, redundant) and expect someone to somehow consider it authoritative.

Ceist wrote: *MISCONCEPTION: Science can only disprove ideas.

I know of no one that has this misconception.

It is the scientific method that can only disprove falsifiable models.

Science, on the other hand, is a wonderful collection of falsifiable ideas.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
17-10-2015 04:56
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5234)
trafn wrote:I think that in 10-20 years, falsifiable models will be very useful in advancing the field of climate change science.

Well, yeah, seeing as how you need a falsifiable model to have any science whatsoever.

trafn wrote: For now, we still need to think outside that falsifiable box.

Sure, as long as you leave the "science" word out of it completely.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
17-10-2015 05:21
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@IBdaMann - I've never met a field of science that wasn't accused of being dogma by the prevalent belief system which preceded it. I guess you're just not ready to move over.
17-10-2015 05:26
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5234)
trafn wrote:
@IBdaMann - I've never met a field of science that wasn't accused of being dogma by the prevalent belief system which preceded it. I guess you're just not ready to move over.

I guess you're not ready to produce anything that will make it into the body of science.

Hey, don't blame me. It won't be me that keeps the deviations out, and it won't be you that is able to get them in.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
17-10-2015 05:41
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@IBdaMann - I think the tide has already turned in favor of doing something about M2C2. I don't see an international conference happening in Paris anytime soon for "Let's just wait and see about Climate Change."

You can deny it, but you can't avoid it, so why not join in the fun?
17-10-2015 05:48
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5234)
trafn wrote: @IBdaMann - I think the tide has already turned in favor of doing something about M2C2.

I think the tide has already turned in the upswing of popularity of Global Warming conferences, paid for by governments using redistributed money from the people.

trafn wrote: I don't see an international conference happening in Paris anytime soon for "Let's just wait and see about Climate Change.

What I do see is a boondoggle "Let's just have a conference in Paris...for Climate Change, of course, (nudge, nudge, wink, wink)."


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
17-10-2015 05:56
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@IBdaMann - exactly. You even admit that regardless of what you believe (climate change or climate hoax) it's now all about what's the best response to M2C2, with no response no longer being an option.

You can stand on the sidelines and boo, or you can get involved and contribute (maybe even make the process better by keeping it from ending up in some of the pitfalls you keep predicting).

You're too smart to sit on the sidelines.
17-10-2015 06:02
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5234)
trafn wrote:You even admit that regardless of what you believe (climate change or climate hoax) it's now all about what's the best response to M2C2, with no response no longer being an option.

I did? I admitted this? I don't quite remember; could you refresh my memory as to when?

After all, you admit that regardless of what you believe (real or hoax) it's now all about what's the best response to voodoo, with no response no longer being an option.

You can stand on the sidelines and boo, or you can get involved and contribute (maybe even make the process better by keeping it from ending up in some of the pitfalls we all anticipate).

You're WAY too smart to sit on the sidelines.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
17-10-2015 08:39
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
IBdaMann wrote:
Ceist wrote:
From "Understanding Science - how science really works"

http://undsci.berkeley.edu/teaching/misconceptions.php#a6

You've got to be kidding me! You cite bogus crap from Berekely (I know, redundant) and expect someone to somehow consider it authoritative.

Ceist wrote: *MISCONCEPTION: Science can only disprove ideas.

I know of no one that has this misconception.

It is the scientific method that can only disprove falsifiable models.

Science, on the other hand, is a wonderful collection of falsifiable ideas.


You have zero background in science, cannot present any sources to support your ideologically driven non-science claims, cannot address the science and the consilience of evidence which refutes your non-science claims, spend most of your time posting ideological rants, bullying bluster and childish insults, and expect everyone to consider YOU authoritative?

You've got to be kidding yourself - because you're not fooling anyone else.




Edited on 17-10-2015 09:03
17-10-2015 09:49
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
.
Science relies on evidence
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_06

"Ultimately, scientific ideas must not only be testable, but must actually be tested — preferably with many different lines of evidence by many different people. This characteristic is at the heart of all science. Scientists actively seek evidence to test their ideas — even if the test is difficult and means, for example, spending years working on a single experiment, traveling to Antarctica to measure carbon dioxide levels in an ice core, or collecting DNA samples from thousands of volunteers all over the world. Performing such tests is so important to science because in science, the acceptance or rejection of a scientific idea depends upon the evidence relevant to it — not upon dogma, popular opinion, or tradition. In science, ideas that are not supported by evidence are ultimately rejected."


IBdaMann probably thinks this is 'bogus crap' because he claims that "evidence plays no role in science".

Evidence certainly plays no role in his posts. Neither does logic. Or science. Or sources.



Edited on 17-10-2015 09:54
17-10-2015 17:16
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Ceist - sadly, I do agree that IBdaMann does spend a lot of time in an inefficient manner, kinda like the guy who sees a huge avalanche coming at him and instead of running just picks up a snow shovel and waits for it to arrive. On the other hand, I think he is at least as intelligent and well educated as the rest of us here (i.e. - keep in mind that good education includes both formal and informal teachings). All that said, it would be nice to see him talk about more effective ways of dealing with the avalanche (the avalanche here being the momentum that's built up to do something about M2C2).

17-10-2015 17:25
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5234)
Ceist wrote: You have zero background in science, cannot present any sources to support your ideologically driven non-science claims, cannot address the science and the consilience of evidence which refutes your non-science claims, spend most of your time posting ideological rants, bullying bluster and childish insults, and expect everyone to consider YOU authoritative?

Says the guy who knows nothing and has never been able to contribute anything of value in any discussion on this forum.

I notice you have made yet another post sans any science, yet you continue believing your strange delusion that your unfalsifiable dogma is steeped in "evidence" of "The Science" of the miracles of "Climate." Oh, but then you want people to think you know what science is. But then you cite radical Berkeley websites that seek to redefine science for political purposes, revealing your vast ignorance on the matter. Oh, and you want people to think highly of your words when you, of all people, begin flailing with the insults, but at the same time you wonder why no one pays you any mind.

It must suck to be you.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
17-10-2015 18:28
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Ceist - looks like someone lost their snow shovel.

Who knows, maybe they've just had a hard day's night:




The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
17-10-2015 19:37
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
trafn wrote:
@Ceist - looks like someone lost their snow shovel.

Who knows, maybe they've just had a hard day's night:

If by snow shovel, you mean 'mind', then I agree.


17-10-2015 19:40
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
trafn wrote:
@Ceist - sadly, I do agree that IBdaMann does spend a lot of time in an inefficient manner, kinda like the guy who sees a huge avalanche coming at him and instead of running just picks up a snow shovel and waits for it to arrive. On the other hand, I think he is at least as intelligent and well educated as the rest of us here (i.e. - keep in mind that good education includes both formal and informal teachings). All that said, it would be nice to see him talk about more effective ways of dealing with the avalanche (the avalanche here being the momentum that's built up to do something about M2C2).



I've known people with psychosis who are quite intelligent who can also be completely delusional.

It's sad when a person who might be otherwise intelligent suffers from what seems to be ideologically induced stupidity. Even sadder when they have left a record of their delusional rants all over the internet that their children or grandchildren may find in the future.



Edited on 17-10-2015 19:51
17-10-2015 19:57
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Ceist - there's a definition of insanity that goes something like this: Doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result.

Stop arguing with him, really!
17-10-2015 20:46
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
trafn wrote:
@Ceist - there's a definition of insanity that goes something like this: Doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result.

Stop arguing with him, really!

But I don't expect a different result from him. That's kind of the point. The more he rants on about the same delusions in the same way over and over again, the more he exposes himself


Don't fret. I'm not going to respond to his comments anymore. I'm happy to let him play with himself




Edited on 17-10-2015 20:57
17-10-2015 22:31
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Ceist - think of it this way. If IBdaMann were on the Titanic, he would save himself this way:

Scene: The Titanic, it's stern pointing heavenward, its propellers exposed as if to symbolize praying hands, we find our unflappable hero - IBdaMann - clinging by both hands to the rear-most aft rail, his feet dangling downward towards the merciless, chilly waves. As we watch our helpless hero stranded in this precarious position, we can hear the innermost thoughts that are running through his head:

"Okay, quick, think of something. This is getting out of hand."

"Oh, wait, I know. Ah, let's see... it goes like this!"

"The Titanic is a ship and all ships sail the seas."

"All ships that sail the seas sail the seas parallel to the seas' surface."

"This ship is sailing perpendicular to the sea's surface."

"Therefore, I am not on the Titanic."

"Ahhhhhh, that feels so much better!"
18-10-2015 03:51
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
trafn wrote:
@Ceist - think of it this way. If IBdaMann were on the Titanic, he would save himself this way:

Scene: The Titanic, it's stern pointing heavenward, its propellers exposed as if to symbolize praying hands, we find our unflappable hero - IBdaMann - clinging by both hands to the rear-most aft rail, his feet dangling downward towards the merciless, chilly waves. As we watch our helpless hero stranded in this precarious position, we can hear the innermost thoughts that are running through his head:

"Okay, quick, think of something. This is getting out of hand."

"Oh, wait, I know. Ah, let's see... it goes like this!"

"The Titanic is a ship and all ships sail the seas."

"All ships that sail the seas sail the seas parallel to the seas' surface."

"This ship is sailing perpendicular to the sea's surface."

"Therefore, I am not on the Titanic."

"Ahhhhhh, that feels so much better!"

LOL!

The human brain is fascinating. When a person's 'fight-flight-freeze' response is triggered by a threat to their safety (or a perceived threat), some people dissociate and 'reframe reality' to convince themselves of anything, no matter how irrational, to self-soothe their fear. What you described is an example of a 'freeze' response to threat. It can be a useful adaptive response (coping mechanism) in some instances when a person can neither fight a real threat nor run away from it.

However, what happens when a person has a 'fight-flight-freeze' response to a perceived threat? For example, a perceived threat to their religious or ideological beliefs. Or a perceived threat to their sense of self and their need to feel respected and valued etc?

This could lead to whole other topic on denial of science as a coping mechanism to perceived threat and why some people rigidly cling to irrational ideas and aggressively attack any evidence (or any person) that they feel threatens their coping mechanism.


https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evolution-the-self/201507/trauma-and-the-freeze-response-good-bad-or-both

http://www.mvbcn.org/shop/images/the_human_stress_response.pdf



Edited on 18-10-2015 04:03
18-10-2015 04:12
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Ceist - yes, it's true, humans will resort to irrational behavior in order to protect what they value most which can result in things like the Crusades. Yet, given that's the case, maybe the rational thing to do is to recognize their underlying fear (i.e. - threatened value) and find a way to lessen that threat/fear for them so that they can finally take a rational look at what's really happening.

Or we could just shoot them. Crusade anyone?


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
18-10-2015 04:35
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
trafn wrote:
@Ceist - yes, it's true, humans will resort to irrational behavior in order to protect what they value most which can result in things like the Crusades. Yet, given that's the case, maybe the rational thing to do is to recognize their underlying fear (i.e. - threatened value) and find a way to lessen that threat/fear for them so that they can finally take a rational look at what's really happening.

Or we could just shoot them. Crusade anyone?

Actually I agree with you. A 'trauma informed' or 'neurobiologically informed' approach. But putting it into practice in words on an anonymous forum with strangers is not exactly simple, is very time consuming, and very likely to fail when it's so entrenched to the point of psychosis that they probably need a good therapist in real life. I see what you are trying to do with some posters and applaud you for trying.


18-10-2015 04:42
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Ceist - thanks. It's a big wheel with a long way to go. If all goes well, I'll get to push it a little bit of the way
18-10-2015 05:11
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5234)
Ceist wrote:Don't fret. I'm not going to respond to his comments anymore.

Thank you, and I'm going to hold you to it. I'm thinking of all the bandwidth we'll recoup that you would have otherwise wasted.

So while you're not wasting people's time and system resources, this will be an excellent opportunity for you to read up on the "Attempt to Shift the Burden of Proof" fallacy.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
18-10-2015 05:21
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@IBdaMann - okay, so I went to my authoritative bible - you know, Wikipedia - and I typed in "Attempt to Shift the Burden of Proof," and all it said was:

"If IBdaMann don't believe it exists, then don't you be wastin' none o' my time! You make him tell you why."

Now isn't that strange?
18-10-2015 05:33
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5234)
trafn wrote:
@IBdaMann - okay, so I went to my authoritative bible - you know, Wikipedia - and I typed in "Attempt to Shift the Burden of Proof," and all it said was:

"If IBdaMann don't believe it exists, then don't you be wastin' none o' my time! You make him tell you why."

Now isn't that strange?

No, of course not. I put it there. I told you I was a Wikipedia contributor. I wanted to ensure it was completely correct.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
18-10-2015 05:52
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@IBdaMann - so that's why all the footnotes referenced Karl Popper!

PS - point to you - good one!
18-10-2015 07:47
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
trafn wrote:
@Ceist - thanks. It's a big wheel with a long way to go. If all goes well, I'll get to push it a little bit of the way


Good luck with that. It can certainly work with fairly reasonable people. But dealing with abusive adult males who have the emotional regulation of a toddler is tough work. I have no desire to waste my energy trying to engage with 6ft two year olds in an empathetic way in my leisure time.



Edited on 18-10-2015 07:54
18-10-2015 17:59
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Ceist - understood. Personally, I'm at a point where I have reached a high degree of certainty regarding my views, but to safeguard against getting too confident (i.e. - when you are 100% certain is when you are most likely 100% wrong), I find it helpful to engage with those who hold contrary viewpoints like IBdaMann so as to constantly reasses, refine and hone my own understanding of this issue. Of course, there is the danger of getting pulled over the side in situations like this, but so far, so good.

By the way, I've been researching IBdaMann's background, and it ends up that in a previous life he was actually Captain Ahab:




The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!

Edited on 18-10-2015 18:00
18-10-2015 18:48
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5234)
trafn wrote:By the way, I've been researching IBdaMann's background, and it ends up that in a previous life he was actually Captain Ahab:

Nobody ever talks about my 'Save the Whales" campaign. I cruised around to all the whales I could find and told them "Don't be a Dick!"


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
18-10-2015 19:06
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5234)
trafn wrote:@Ceist - think of it this way. If IBdaMann were on the Titanic, he would save himself this way:

Warmazombies justify their dogma not by providing science that supports their assertions but by attacking the ridiculous positions they assign to those who ask for the scientific support.

Warmazombies don't ever meet their burden of support because they cannot; their dogma is unfalsifiable. Instead they attempt to shift the burden of proof to those asking for the scientific support to prove the dogma false, which cannot be done because it is completely unfalsifiable.

The end result is an entire "Climate" discussion website devoid of any science that supports anything about "Climate" dogma. The only science on this site is that which runs counter to the dogma. Still, there are gullible people who refuse to notice this inconvenient fact.

Of course you have posters like Creist and Climate Scientist who point to other wacked-out warmazombies who simply spout the same unfalsifiable dogma and say "See, these guys are really experts and this is really The Science!" ...and then they wipe the drool off their keyboards.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
18-10-2015 19:35
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@IBdaMann - score to you! Yet, a mobius dick, now that might be truly impressive, as you could never fathom its true length.





Join the debate Are falsifiable models the only way to validate science?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
About the damage that Obama did to science.15513-12-2019 17:21
Argument against AGW science314-08-2019 20:51
Objectivity of Environmental Science109-08-2019 02:13
Still No Climate Change Science1111-07-2019 04:23
Trump Administration's Attempts to Limit Climate Change Science 'Like Designing Cars Without Seat128-05-2019 20:13
▲ 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