Remember me
▼ Content

Are you a theologian or scientist? Ask Karl Popper.



Page 1 of 212>
Are you a theologian or scientist? Ask Karl Popper.07-10-2015 00:36
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Recently, many threads on this website have been predominated by the notion that if someone makes a statement about man-made climate change which has not already been proven to have satisfied Karl Popper's concepts of falsifiable models, then they are excluded from scientific discourse and should be labeled as a propagator of theological dogma. 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 of whether or not fulfilling Karl Popper's proposition is a prerequisite for speaking from a scientific perspective when discussing man-made climate change. So I've created this thread to discuss the following topic:

If someone makes a statement about man-made climate change which has not already been proven to have satisfied Karl Popper's concepts of falsifiable models, does that exclude them from scientific discourse, and should they be labeled as a propagator of theological dogma?

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 01:08
07-10-2015 00:59
Totototo
★☆☆☆☆
(117)
I hope not. I think whether or not they are falsifiable, we still accept them if they have a reliable source. This is, of course, until we have evidence that suggest the statement is incorrect as science is not a set of static rules. If we stopped at every turn to check if it satisfies Karl Popper's model, we would go nowhere and the discussion will go from scientific to phylosophical.

PS: English is not my first language, feel free to correct grammar or spelling mistakes.
07-10-2015 01:20
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Hi Totototo,

Yes I would agree with you. While falsifiable models have been invaluable to many of the recent advancements of science, Karl Popper wasn't even born until the twentieth century. If his work is to be the dividing line between science and non-science, then we'd have to re-write scientific history to exclude anyone who made any discoveries or remarkable conclusions prior to the 1900's. Perhaps we could reanalyze and accept their work posthumously, but they themselves would have to be relegated a title other than scientist (theologian, maybe?).

Also, Popper's concept, while very useful, places such a high level of burden of proof that it is extremely specific (it potentially results in very few false positives), but it lacks sensitivity (it potentially produces many false negatives). This might be okay when you have decades or centuries to accumulate and review data, but it may hinder efficiency and effectiveness in cases where a more rapid response is required.

Personally, I like to look at an issue through several different lenses to see what commonalities and differences they illuminate. And yes, sometimes falsifiable models are of use, but they are by no means my only options.

PS - Your English is fine.
07-10-2015 01:34
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5011)
[quote]trafn wrote:If someone makes a statement about man-made climate change which has not already been proven to have satisfied Karl Popper's concepts of falsifiable models, does that exclude them from scientific discourse, and should they be labeled as a propagator of theological dogma?

As worded, you have a false dichotomy.

Someone who insists that an unfalsifiable dogma is science is clearly regurgitating what s/he has been told to believe. Someone who preaches a religious dogma, who considers non-believers to be stupid for not sharing the faith and whose religious sensitivities become ruffled at science that runs counter to the dogma is clearly religiously indoctrinated.

However, someone who is mistaken about a model and who makes corrections as more is learned or as science is introduced instead of denying the science then said individual could be engaging inscientific or philiosophical discourse.


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
Edited on 07-10-2015 01:35
07-10-2015 01:43
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5011)
trafn wrote: If his work is to be the dividing line between science and non-science, then we'd have to re-write scientific history to exclude anyone who made any discoveries or remarkable conclusions prior to the 1900's.

I'd be interested to learn why all the earlier falsifiable models would need to be excluded.

trafn wrote:Also, Popper's concept, while very useful, places such a high level of burden of proof that it is extremely specific

There is no burden of proof in science.

There is only burden of falsification and that is borne by the scientific method.


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
Edited on 07-10-2015 01:43
07-10-2015 02:29
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5011)
tafn, I'm going to answer some of your questions from another thread in this thread. The issue with most of your post is one of semantics. Most of your questions or assertions simply use mistaken wording. This alone tends to address your questions.


trafn wrote:1. In order for data or discussions to fall within the realm of science, then they must have successfully satisfied Karl Popper's concept of falsifiable models.

Data are not models.

For anything to be "of science" it must be of a falsifiable model that helps predict nature. I could make a falsifiable model of the regional subway system that might very well be useful but it won't help me predict nature and it won't be science.

Falsifiabllity is not science. It is a requirement for science.

trafn wrote: 2. To date, no one has presented any evidence anywhere on this website that any hypotheses or theorems in support of man-made climate change have successfully satisfied Karl Popper's concepts of falsifiable models.

Correct.

You need a falsifiable model to derive an hypothesis. Those who use the word "hypothesis" to mean "assertion" or "statement" are mistaken. Ergo, there are no Global Warming hypotheses.

trafn wrote: 3. Anyone who expresses an opinion about man-made climate change which has not already successfully satisfied Karl Popper's concepts of falsifiable models is presenting a dogmatic theological point of view and not a science based one.

Anyone expressing an opinion is not expressing science.

No one preaching the Global Warming faith has presented anything close to a falsifiable model (that isn't false out of the starting gate).

People behaving in religiously offended manners at science that runs counter to their dogma are preaching a dogmatic theism.

You also asserted my responses seemed "intended" to assigning a religious label. My responses have no intention other than to address points that are posted in this forum. Global Warming theism permeates this forum so naturally many of my responses will point out instances of preaching. If the sheer quantity of preaching and proselytising were to diminish, so would my out-pointing.


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
07-10-2015 02:57
drm
★☆☆☆☆
(67)
Question: does evolution have a falsifiable model?
07-10-2015 04:05
Totototo
★☆☆☆☆
(117)
First of all, I just wanted to say that I'm ignorant regarding global warming. I've only seen some documentaries and read "Our Choice" by Al Gore. So it caught my attention when IBdaMann said

No one preaching the Global Warming faith has presented anything close to a falsifiable model (that isn't false out of the starting gate).


Care to explain? I assumed there was a lot of evidence or a solid model if the matter got so much atention and exposure.

By the way, I joined this forum not expecting much but boy, really interesting stuff here.
07-10-2015 04:42
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5011)
IB DaMann wrote:No one preaching the Global Warming faith has presented anything close to a falsifiable model (that isn't false out of the starting gate).


Totototo wrote:Care to explain? I assumed there was a lot of evidence or a solid model if the matter got so much atention and exposure.


There's not much to explain yet much to explain. Global Warming has been a huge scam from inception. We humans still do not have the technology to measure the earth's average atmospheric temperature with any sort of usable accuracy so all the talk about earth's "global temperature" increasing is pure fabrication to incite fear and panic, as a tool to motivate people to join the religion.

Please notice that you have never seen published a complete, statistically valid raw dataset, the exact math used to compute the "average" temperature, and both the margin of error of the sensors and the overall margin of error.

Please notice that every single dataset you have ever reviewed was not raw data but already processed from data that was somehow "corrected," "adjusted," "weighted," "modified," etc..(all words for "fudged") and the math used to produce the final product was never supplied, not was the margin of error. How many such "July was the hottest month of the instrument record?" reports have you heard/read with the expectation that you were to just believe it?

Anyway, with no way to accurately measure the earth's average atmospheric temperature there is no way to accurately tell if that temperature is changing.

The people started noticing that winters were getting colder and longer and the summers were becoming milder and so the term "Climate Change" was quietly substituted for "Global Warming" as the headliner, with Global Warming still remaining due to the huge congregation it had formed.

I won't go into how the Marxists find Global Warming to be the utopia tax justifier and capitalism fighter which is why every single one is religiously devoted to Global Warming, despite being the most scientifically illiterate lot on the planet.

I'll tell you what. You pick something about Global Warming or "Climate Change" that you would like better explained and I'll be happy to clarify.


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
07-10-2015 04:52
drm
★☆☆☆☆
(67)
Toto - the science behind manmade climate change is overwhelming. The US National Academy of Sciences and the British Royal Society have combined for a decent primer here for example.

What him-be-the-man has done is to arbitrarily declare all that science, accepted by working scientists the world over, to not count. So it's him, and maybe a few of his buddies vs every science academy in the world. You choose.

By the way, as to the last link above, after pages and pages of academies supporting the consensus view, it has this:

As of 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement, no scientific body of national or international scientists rejects the findings of human-induced effects on climate change.

Edited on 07-10-2015 05:04
07-10-2015 05:33
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5011)
drm wrote: Toto - the science behind manmade climate change is overwhelming.

Toto, ask him why he can't show you any. (hint: he doesn't know the difference between religion and science)

Toto, while you're at it, ask him what science he has reviewed, and understands, that convinced him Global Warming is real.

Toto, ask him why he would speak of science as being "overwhelming"? (hint: he desperately wants to use the word "evidence" but that would reveal the faith-based nature of his beliefs)

drm wrote:
The US National Academy of Sciences and the British Royal Society have combined for a decent primer here for example.


Toto, ask him why they needed to put the word "Evidence" in the name?

Toto, ask him to extract the falsifiable Global Warming model (that doesn't violate the laws of physics) for you and post it here in this thread.

Also, ask him why he didn't just do that in the first place, and why he's making you read through lots of crap without telling you what's of importance to his point.

drm wrote: What him-be-the-man has done is to arbitrarily declare all that science, accepted by working scientists the world over, to not count. So it's him, and maybe a few of his buddies vs every science academy in the world. You choose.


Toto, ask him why he cites non-authoritative sources like Wikipedia, and name drops Global Warming preachers and activist organizations instead of just posting here, in this thread, the science he insists he has.

Toto, ask him why he sounds so much like a Christian who insists all the "evidence" points to "God being real and active in our lives" but who can only refer you to his minister (or to the Bible) when asked to support his claims.

drm wrote:
By the way, as to the last link above, after pages and pages of academies supporting the consensus view,


Toto, ask him if "consensus" or any amount of subjective opinion plays any role in science. Also, ask him if science is determined by democratic vote. Also, ask him if any organization or institution owns science, such that they determine by decree what is science and what is not.


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
07-10-2015 06:05
Greg
☆☆☆☆☆
(13)
I'm confused by your antagonism towards evidence. Is it your contention that any beliefs based on evidence are necessarily religious in nature? If I see rat droppings, and conclude there are rats, is laying out traps a exercise of religious dogma? If the traps catch rats, can I conclude my original theory was correct, or is that just more evidence feeding my non-scientific belief in my rat religion? I'm really trying to follow your line of thought, but so far it's eluding me. Can you give an example of non-evidence-based science, so I can have a basis for comparison?
07-10-2015 06:21
Totototo
★☆☆☆☆
(117)
That's a lot of questions you are suggesting haha. I guess she/he will answer accordingly to you, but I thank you both for your answers and time.

Drm, I don't have time right now, but I will gather as much as I can on the subject. Thanks for the links, will definitely check them out.

IBdaMann, I don't understand what's the problem with the word (and its meaning) "evidence" when you want to support your statement so if you could clarify that I would be grateful. Also, what would be the point of "Climate change" as a scheme? I know that probably has a very long answer so I understand if you haven't got the time right now. And if you don't mind me asking, what's your scientific background and studies?
07-10-2015 06:39
drm
★☆☆☆☆
(67)
Toto - Take your time. It makes no sense for me to try and type it out here when people with a lot more expertise than I have spent so much time doing so elsewhere. There is a lot of good information that is easy to find but I don't think any are more authoritative than the Natl Academy of Sciences. I won't be responding to daMann but if you need any clarifications, go ahead and ask here and maybe somebody could help out.
07-10-2015 09:39
Totototo
★☆☆☆☆
(117)
Thanks for the tip drm!
07-10-2015 15:58
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5011)
Greg wrote: I'm confused by your antagonism towards evidence.

I'm confused by your use of the word "antagonism."

I think "evidence" is a great thing. Where would law enforcement be without it? As I have stated many times, religions find "supporting evidence" to be very useful in inspiring greater levels of faith within the congregation. Science may not have any need for "supporting evidence" but it sure has a role in many other places.

Greg wrote: Is it your contention that any beliefs based on evidence are necessarily religious in nature?

No.

Greg wrote: I'm really trying to follow your line of thought, but so far it's eluding me.

Whatever line of thought you think you are trying to follow is eluding me.

Could you post a direct (and complete) quote of mine that "confuses" you?

Greg wrote: Can you give an example of non-evidence-based science, so I can have a basis for comparison?

What do you mean by "based"? Could you give me an example of a science model that includes its "evidence"?


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
07-10-2015 19:16
drm
★☆☆☆☆
(67)
If someone makes a statement about man-made climate change which has not already been proven to have satisfied Karl Popper's concepts of falsifiable models, does that exclude them from scientific discourse, and should they be labeled as a propagator of theological dogma?


To believe this is nothing other than silly. As the user on this site who goes by "climate scientist" has pointed out, greenhouse science is falsifiable. But given the lag times involves, it is not instantly falsifiable in all its realms. However, whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas is falsifiable instantly with the proper experiment and this has been tested many times. In fact if you take two jars, one full of regular air, and another filled with CO2 and hold them up to a light, the jar with CO2 will warm faster than the one with air. Nobody has falsified this test. The greenhouse effect was discovered 200 years ago and chemically explained in the mid-1800s. Scientists first suggested that large-scale industrial burning of fossil fuels would cause manmade global warming in the early 1900s. It is a mature science.

Falsifiability is an ideal but not a requirement of science. There are some fields where in the real world falsifiability is not available. This just means that some level of uncertainty remains, but over time that level of uncertainty can be reduced to very low levels. I believe that one example is evolution but maybe somebody can or has come up such tests that I am not aware of.

Another good example is in the medical field where ethical considerations greatly impact and limit how we test drugs. This does result in mistakes regarding the efficacy of medicines, but that is the real world we live in. If we waited a lot longer and did a lot more tests, we could be more sure of the safety and efficacy of drugs. But then people who might benefit would die in the mean time and the greater certainty doesn't do a dead person any good. So we struggle to find a balance between certainty and the needs of the present. Nor does it mean that drug testing is not "science".

For some aspects of climate change, falsifiability can take years or decades. By then the impacts will be massively larger, so again we must choose between a level of uncertainty and the needs of public policy to make a decision.
Edited on 07-10-2015 19:32
07-10-2015 21:36
Greg
☆☆☆☆☆
(13)

Could you post a direct (and complete) quote of mine that "confuses" you?


Most of them actually, but here's an example from this thread.


Toto, ask him why he would speak of science as being "overwhelming"? (hint: he desperately wants to use the word "evidence" but that would reveal the faith-based nature of his beliefs)


That says to me that believing evidence is not scientific. It is "faith-based" or religious. Why I'm confused is I think of evidence as the basis of science, and didn't even realize there was a countering point of view.

Greg wrote: Can you give an example of non-evidence-based science, so I can have a basis for comparison?

What do you mean by "based"? Could you give me an example of a science model that includes its "evidence"?[/quote]

I'm not sure, but let me try. Galileo based on observations came up with a theory that heavy and light objects would fall at the same rate. He then took a heavy and light object up the Tower of Pisa and dropped them out of a window. He saw that they hit the ground at the same time, so he took that as evidence that his theory was correct. I don't know if that's completely historically accurate, but if it were, would that be science, and isn't evidence part of it?
07-10-2015 21:39
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
drm - Great summary! Nicely written and to the point.

Greg - Read a bunch of the threads on this website and you'll get to see who here cannot be satisfied no matter what you say and then allot your time to them accordingly.

Totototo - It sounds like you're getting a good start at understanding man-made climate change. All I'd suggest is read all you can, make up your own mind, and don't worry too much about anyone one other person's opinion.

And remember everyone, often the amount a person posts is directly inproportional to the value of what they have to say

Edited on 07-10-2015 21:40
07-10-2015 22:29
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5011)
drm wrote:As the user on this site who goes by "climate scientist" has pointed out, greenhouse science is falsifiable.

He can't "point out" what he can only erroneously assert. Someone who is scientifically illiterate to the point of believing that "peer reviewed" papers constitute science could probably be duped into believing that Santa Claus is falsifiable.

drm wrote: But given the lag times involves, it is not instantly falsifiable in all its realms.

Say what? When did we transition into bad poetry?

drm wrote: However, whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas is falsifiable instantly with the proper experiment and this has been tested many times.

<major eye roll> CTM! </major eye roll> A falsifiable model is needed from which to derive an hypothesis around which to develop an experiment.

There is no falsifiable "greenhouse effect" model which defines a "greenhouse gas." Ergo, one cannot derive any "greenhouse gas" hypotheses around which to develop any experiments.

So no, there has never been any "greenhouse gas" experiment that supports any hypothesis derived from any "greenhouse effect" model...

...*and* no experiment can ever prove any model to be true. The scientific method can only show falsifiable models to be false.

drm wrote: In fact if you take two jars, one full of regular air, and another filled with CO2 and hold them up to a light, the jar with CO2 will warm faster than the one with air. Nobody has falsified this test.

<light chuckle>Someone else who fell for this.</light chuckle>
This is a parlor trick, nothing more. It will fool those who don't understand how the "trick" works.

For those who are unfamiliar with this particular performance, gullible Global Warming believers are ushered into a dark room to receive a sermon on "The Science." They are shown a lamp and are told that this lamp will simulate sunlight. None of the congregation think to ask "Why don't we walk outside and use real sunlight instead of sequestering ourselves in the dark where no actual sunlight can affect the outcome of the demonstration? Why must we simulate sunlight when we have plenty of it for free?"

Two transparent containers, each with a thermometer inside, are displayed to the anxious onlookers. One of the containers is filled with evil world-destroying CO2 while the fascinated worshipers gasp "Is it safe?" The lamp's light is directed at the containers and, as everyone anticipated, the temperature in the CO2 container rises faster than the regular air container.

As you might expect, no one points out that all gases have differing absorption signatures, and that that specific lamp radiates well within CO2's signature and not so much within the signatures of the others, and that if the containers were out in the open sunlight that all the gases absorption signatures would be excited and both containers would warm equally.

Thereafter, the amazed churchgoers are encouraged to relate their "witness to The Science" in public discussion forums, e.g. Climate-debate, etc..

drm wrote: The greenhouse effect was discovered 200 years ago and chemically explained in the mid-1800s.

It isn't real. It has never been "discovered." Several people erroneously conjectured that atmospheric composition had an affect on the atmospheric temperature, but that conjecture was trashed when it was difinitively shown that there is no correlation between atmospheric temperatures anywhere and any level of any atmospheric gas. No correlation whatsoever.

drm wrote: Scientists first suggested that large-scale industrial burning of fossil fuels would cause manmade global warming in the early 1900s. It is a mature science.

This conjecture didn't pan out. There is no Global Warming science.

drm wrote: Falsifiability is an ideal but not a requirement of science.

Falsifiability is an absolute requirement for science, which is why there is no science of Global Warming, "greenhouse effect," "greenhouse gas," or "climate change"...and likely never will be. It would also explain why neither you nor anyone else can ever seem to post any of this "mature" science you insist you have.

drm wrote: There are some fields where in the real world falsifiability is not available.

...and there will be no science of those "fields" of the real world.

drm wrote: This just means that some level of uncertainty remains, but over time that level of uncertainty can be reduced to very low levels.

Science doesn't care about anyone's subjective level of certainty. No scientist has ever created science by simply being sufficiently certain. Subjective consensus has no role in science. Science is not created by democratic vote.

Science only has room for falsifiable models that aren't false.

drm wrote: I believe that one example is evolution but maybe somebody can or has come up such tests that I am not aware of.

Rather than merely "believe", why don't you look up Darwin's model? You might be interested to learn that he wrote a book, in English. Did he define "species"? Why? Would you be able to draw from his model the hypothesis that a male rabbit and a female rabbit that mate will produce another rabbit and not, say, a cow? How are you able to do that?

Was that model refined over time to become the field of genetics that we have today? Are you even aware that we have models of DNA? Did you know that someone derived the hypothesis from this model that cells could be cloned? And guess what? They can!

Yes, we have a working, falsifiable model that has been continually refined since Darwin's original.

drm wrote: For some aspects of climate change, falsifiability can take years or decades.

Falsifiability only takes as long to achieve as it takes for someone to create the falsifiable model. If you'd go knock it out right now, we could have it for tomorrow's discussions.

drm wrote: By then the impacts

...but you can't say anything about any impacts for something for which you have no science.


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
07-10-2015 23:05
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5011)
trafn wrote:
Greg - Read a bunch of the threads on this website and you'll get to see who here cannot be satisfied no matter what you say and then allot your time to them accordingly.

Yes, Marxists and other leftists won't be satisfied until they get to determine what constitutes science.

Scientists will never be satisfied with any reduction in the current stringent requirements for science.


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
07-10-2015 23:35
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Hi IBdaMann,

Here's a little story I made up just for you. It's call The Farmer and The Hay.

Once upon a time there was a farmer who owned a cow. Now this farmer really appreciated his cow, because it gave him milk which he could drink or turn into cheese or yogurt, and the farmer really liked milk, cheese and yogurt. So the farmer took real good care of his cow, giving it only the best to eat.

One day the farmer went into his barn to get some hay to feed his beloved cow only to find that there wasn't any there. The farmer had forgotten to restock his hay and had run out. He asked around to all the farmers nearby, but none of them had any extra hay to spare, so he he hitched up his horse and cart and rode into town to buy some fresh hay for his cow.

Upon arriving at the farm supply store in town, the farmer told the clerk there that he wanted to buy only hay grown on southern slopes, because that's the hay his cow liked best. But the clerk replied that recently, all the hay manufacturers had been mixing their southern slope hay with northern slope hay.

"Why," cried out the farmer, "why would anyone do something like that?"

The clerk told him that the manufacturers did this to keep the price of hay down so that people could afford to buy it.

"But I need pure southern slope hay," the farmer angrily protested, "isn't there anything we can do?"

"Yes," the clerk replied. He told the farmer that if you picked up a strand of hay and held it up to the light that you could tell southern slope from northern slope hay, because the southern slope hay was lighter and more transparent to the light.

"Well," said that farmer, "if that's what I need to do to give my beloved cow the hay she likes, then that's what I'll do."

And so the farmer began picking up each individual strand of hay and holding it up to the light to see if it was grown on a southern or northern slope. If it was southern slope hay, he carefully placed it in his cart. If it was northern slope hay, he put it back in the store where it had come from.

Being he loved his cow so much, the farmer thought nothing of dedicating himself tirelessly to this task. And so he continued, strand by pain-staking strand, looking and sorting until he had finally filled up his cart with only southern slope hay. He then paid the clerk and rode back to his farm.

Unfortunately, when he arrived at his barn, the farmer found that his beloved cow was dead. Since he had been so insistent upon accepting only southern slope hay, he had lost track of the time as his all consuming strand-by-strand search had turned from hours, into days and then weeks. Sadly, by the time he had accumulated a full cart load of southern slope hay, his beloved cow had starved to death.

The moral of the story: if you're only willing to accept one perspective, the consequences will not be satisfying for you or anyone else.
Edited on 07-10-2015 23:44
07-10-2015 23:44
drm
★☆☆☆☆
(67)
Definitions of science:

the ​systematic ​study of the ​structure and ​behavior of the ​natural and ​physical ​world, or ​knowledge ​obtained about the ​world by ​watching it ​carefully and experimenting.


-- Cambridge Dictionary

Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence.


-- Science Council

Science is a way of knowing that is characterized by empirical criteria, logical argument, and skeptical review.


-- National Academy Press

Of course there are those who disagree with these definitions, but again and again you will find definitions where the primacy is observation, evidence, and experiment. Apparently Marxists all of them.


I would think that those who hold other views would acknowledge their tiny minority status while advocating for it rather than pretending that their definition is "current" and calling people names who think otherwise.
Edited on 07-10-2015 23:51
07-10-2015 23:50
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Actually drm, I think Bill Clinton would have put a Monica Lewinsky spin on it by asking:

"It depends on what the definition of the word 'definition' is."



(note to self: wasn't Bill Clinton a Marxist?)
Edited on 07-10-2015 23:51
08-10-2015 05:56
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5011)
tafn, I appreciate you taking the time to craft that story for me. I'd like to help you refine it so that you can reuse it for others with even greater effectiveness.

trafn wrote:
So the farmer took real good care of his cow, giving it only the best to eat.

Being he loved his cow so much, the farmer thought nothing of dedicating himself tirelessly to this task.

...but restocking the cow's hay wasn't a top priority.

...if the farmer had endeavored to stock his hay earlier, there would have been plenty of southern slope hay, yes? The not restocking of the hay was what caused the lack of the preferred feed?
_________

Now I'm going to return the favor:

Once upon a time, a Marxist farmer and a capitalist farmer each had a cow. The capitalist farmer looked around, saw a world of competition, and he set out to make his cow the best cow in all the county. He invested in the best feed, the best care, and the best grooming for his cow. The Marxist farmer hated competition and only allotted to his cow according to its minimum needs.

The capitalist farmer entered his cow in the county fair, took the blue ribbon, and reaped the rewards. Everyone in the entire county happily paid a premium for his cow's milk, cheese and other dairy products. People paid the capitalist farmer good money to lecture on cow care and was hired for a position on the county's agriculture board as obvious expert.

The Marxist farmer could not abide this. This was not fair! He began demanding new taxes on all dairy products. He began spreading rumors that the kind of cattle feed that produces champion cattle was having detrimental impacts on the county's climatic fabric and that if the people didn't act immediately, there might not be any county left for their grandchildren at the end of the century. The Marxist farmer insisted that the first step in fighting this "threat" was to ban all county fairs.

Unfortunately for the Marxist farmer, the people of the county thought he was out of his gourd and paid him no heed. But good fortune had not abandoned him completely. While in his barn, steaming over yet another recent victory of the capitalist's cow, the Marxist farmer happened upon a strange little lamp under some southern slope hay. He rubbed some of the dust off the lamp and poof, a genie appeared.
Genie: "I will grant you one wish; anything you want."
Marxist Farmer: "Anything at all?"
Genie: "Absolutely. Just name it."
Marxist Farmer: Well, I really HATE how the capitalist farmer's cow is so much better than my cow." (pointing to his underfed bovine in the corner)
Genie: Well, I assure you, I can change that, if that's what you want."
Marxist Farmer: "My cow shouldn't have to live under that cow's shadow and I shouldn't have to endure the capitalist farmer winning all the county fairs!"
Genie: (looking over at the sickly cow) "I see where you're going with this."
Marxist Farmer: "It's about time! This will be a glorious day."
Genie: "Just say the word..."
Marxist Farmer: "Yes! Genie...kill the capitalist farmer's cow."

The moral of the story: No one wants to listen to someone whose objective is the detriment of society. If you're only working to confiscate/destroy what others have earned, out of a sense of vengeance upon those who dared to earn what they have, you are not working to the benefit of the economy or of society.

Global Warming is just fear-mongering for the purpose of redistributing wealth on a large scale. It is not for anyone's benefit, it is simply intended vengeance upon the successful.


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
08-10-2015 06:20
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Bravo!.... LOL!... Bravo!... LOL!... Bravo!

That was MARVELOUS!

Now for the real way that actually happened.

The actual truth behind this story was that just like you said, up until the point where they both entered the county fair. Then, the following night, the Marxist farmer snuck his prize-winning cow out of it's barn and replaced it with a similarly looking but less well-nourished bovine. You see, the Marxist farmer, whose name by the way was Boris, knew that the Capitalist Farmer, whose name by the way was Rocky, had planted spies all around the Marxist farmer's property. Rocky had even gotten Boris' wife, Natasha, to spy on him. So Boris tried to get Rocky to think that his cow war far superior to Boris'.

Unfortunately, one of Boris' neighbors, Bo-Winkle, who was also one of Rocky's spies, had been out late that night and seen Boris exchanging the two cows. Bo-Winkle followed Boris deep into the forest and saw where the Marist's far superior cow was hidden. Bo-Winkle reported this information back to Rocky, and Boris' fate was sealed.

On the day of the competition, Boris awoke eager to fetch his soon to be prize-winning cow from it's hiding place deep in the forest. But as he was just about to walk out his farm house door, he was suddenly knocked backwards by an earth shattering thunderclap. Stumbling, poor Boris made his way to the broken doorway, and pushing the twisted and splintered remains of the door aside, he witnessed a gigantic mushroom cloud rising over the once pristine forest. Rocky, the evil capitalist had nuked the entire ancient and heavenly forest in his greed driven efforts to kill Boris' poor defenseless cow so that he, Rocky, would be declared winner of the competition.

After that, the lies continue on pretty much so the way you described them, ending with Boris hanging himself in frustration over the loss of his cow, Rocky paying off Bo-Winkle to keep his mouth shut (but later on had him bumped off anyways just to play it safe), and Natasha running off with Rocky for a long weekend in Bermuda.

Moral of the story: a nuke in the hand is better than a cow in the forest.
Edited on 08-10-2015 06:23
08-10-2015 07:13
Totototo
★☆☆☆☆
(117)
That got pretty intense. The stories I mean. IB, you didn't answer me what is your scientific background, I want to know if you are not just conspiracy crafting.

Global Warming is just fear-mongering for the purpose of redistributing wealth on a large scale. It is not for anyone's benefit, it is simply intended vengeance upon the successful.


Do you have any proof? I thought Global Warming was pointing towards changing the market, in a still capitalist system. As in the oil owners of now, would invest in clean energy and get a revenue out of it, just like they did before. What would be the scenario you talk about in which we redistribute wealth on a large scale and what would be the problemn with that?

I'm genuinely curious, not trying to insult you or anything. And remember people, don't get mad if I don't know much about this, but be glad I wan't to learn.

PS: Thank you Tranf, I will learn as much as I can.
08-10-2015 17:38
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
No problem Totototo. Rocky, Bo-Winkle, Boris, Natasha and I are always happy to lend a helping hand.



If you'd like to see my friends in action, check out this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65t-OzhlmvE


Edited on 08-10-2015 17:40
08-10-2015 21:17
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5011)
Totototo wrote: Do you have any proof?

No, I don't. It's an unfalsifiable assertion. I can't prove it to be true. My assertion is based on my conversations with Marxists. I'm just going by what they tell me.

Totototo wrote: I thought Global Warming was pointing towards changing the market, in a still capitalist system.

Marxists want to destroy capitalism. May I recommend the Communist Manifesto? (It's not long and it's very entertaining). Global Warming is currently the tool/weapon of choice.

Totototo wrote: As in the oil owners of now, would invest in clean energy and get a revenue out of it, just like they did before.

How are you imagining they would somehow get a revenue simply by increasing their operating expenses?

Totototo wrote: What would be the scenario you talk about in which we redistribute wealth on a large scale and what would be the problemn with that?

I'll treat this as a serious question.

Global Warming is used to frighten/spook/scare/horrify/petrify the people into approving new taxes that suck massive cash out of the economy and funnel it as new revenue to the government, who will then presumably use that money to bloat the government and pay money to people who would rather not have to work for it.

This would be very, very bad because it creates the kind of environment that ruins economies and has a chance at destroying capitalism. First, the government effectively ends up confiscating wealth from those who earned it (punishing the effort to add value to society) and distributing that wealth to people who did nothing to earn it (rewarding those for not adding any value to society). One by one, businesses succumb to the artificial expenses as they lose their ability to turn a profit. All employees of said businesses find themselves out of work as the unemployed accumulate. Taxes are increased to cover the lost revenue from the dwindling tax base. The downward cycle continues.

...and the funny thing about it all is that there is no such thing as Global Warming or "greenhouse gases" or the "greenhouse effect." It's all invisible royal clothing for the king.


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
08-10-2015 21:54
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Hi Totototo,

As far as the idea of climate science stealing money from "the people" and giving it to "the government," in the United States, where I live, the military's annual budget is larger than all other federal government expenditures combined, and most of it is hidden from public scrutiny (you can't see what they're spending it on even if you wanted to).

If you really want to get money back in the hands of the people, why not reduce military funding. After all, if you have to make progress through violence, then you're probably going about it the wrong way.


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!
08-10-2015 21:59
drm
★☆☆☆☆
(67)
I think the best way to make money off of global warming is to be a denier and go speak at a Heartland Conference. Sure there is a lot of funding for research, but there are a lot of people competing for those funds, and it's not like that much of it goes into the personal bank account.
09-10-2015 01:46
Totototo
★☆☆☆☆
(117)
Hi Tranf. Where I live, the situation described by IBdaMann is already happening and it has been this way for over 8 years, but Climate Change or Global Warming were never an excuse to increase taxes I think. Mainly by inventing new taxes based on property.
I don't know how the situation is in USA (you are from there right?) but I liked your example with the military funding. Here, it's the complete opposite, we have a virtually inexistent army, ever since the Military Government and the Malvinas War. And yet still, the government keeps finding excuses to take our money, more and more every year. It's a shame...With all the resources we have, we should be a rich country.

I still don't understand why adressing climate change would be a bad thing. I don't think it will change the system as I mentioned before, just the market.
09-10-2015 02:15
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5011)
trafn wrote: As far as the idea of climate science stealing money from "the people" and giving it to "the government," in the United States, where I live, the military's annual budget is larger than all other federal government expenditures combined, and most of it is hidden from public scrutiny (you can't see what they're spending it on even if you wanted to).

It is well known that the Defense Department is an accounting nightmare, and that we need legislation to fix the previous decades of accumulated accounting convolutions.

...but it sounds like you are saying that it is OK for a religion to bilk the people because we have convoluted Defense accounting.

trafn wrote: After all, if you have to make progress through violence, then you're probably going about it the wrong way.

The Defense Department prevents violence, like the huge bouncer no one wants to piss off. Definitely worth whatever price if you are against violence.


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
09-10-2015 20:19
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
IBdaMann - I guess whether or not you think the defense department prevents violence probably depends on whether you're the one they're shooting guns for, or at.
10-10-2015 01:31
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Totototo wrote:
First of all, I just wanted to say that I'm ignorant regarding global warming. I've only seen some documentaries and read "Our Choice" by Al Gore. So it caught my attention when IBdaMann said

No one preaching the Global Warming faith has presented anything close to a falsifiable model (that isn't false out of the starting gate).


Care to explain? I assumed there was a lot of evidence or a solid model if the matter got so much atention and exposure.

By the way, I joined this forum not expecting much but boy, really interesting stuff here.

Hi Totototo

I found it really helpful to have an understanding of how the science behind global warming developed over more than 150 years.
Prof Spencer Weart has a well referenced resource on the American Institute of Physics website that is well worth reading:

The Discovery of Global Warming
https://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm

A good place to start is:

https://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm


10-10-2015 20:11
Totototo
★☆☆☆☆
(117)
Thank you so much Ceist!
10-10-2015 23:18
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5011)
Ceist wrote:I found it really helpful to have an understanding of how the science behind global warming developed over more than 150 years.

So, how was "The Science" developed and how did it inspire you, personally? I bet your story is fascinating.

Was any of "The Science" falsifiable by any chance?


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
10-10-2015 23:44
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
This could be me....



...or maybe I just won't respond. How about you, Ceist?

11-10-2015 00:01
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5011)
trafn wrote:
...or maybe I just won't respond. How about you, Ceist?




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
Edited on 11-10-2015 00:01
11-10-2015 00:14
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5011)
trafn wrote:
IBdaMann - I guess whether or not you think the defense department prevents violence probably depends on whether you're the one they're shooting guns for, or at.

I take it you aren't aware of the massive violence that is averted in the Gulf of Oman just from our Navy's presence. That's just one small example.

I take it you aren't aware of the orders of magnitude greater cooperation between countries that exists when the US military will ensure protection. Of course this is just one of many examples.

So if you are for massively increased international cooperation, peace, productivity, safety, security and many other things we attribute to civilized society, on a global scale, without being a hypocrite, then you need to be a fan of the US Defense Department. You can't put a price on that kind of investment in humanity.


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
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate Are you a theologian or scientist? Ask Karl Popper.:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
The most honest climate scientist among the most dishonest climate scientists203-09-2019 04:38
An alternative theory from a non-scientist529-04-2019 18:28
This scientist thinks she has the key to curb climate change: super plants121-04-2019 03:43
Italy sees 57% drop in olive harvest as result of climate change, scientist says106-03-2019 21:56
It's a gas - Russian scientist who killed with Novichok named...008-04-2018 04:58
▲ 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