|The argument is often made you are not qualified to question experts.|
1) There is no incentive to acquire an Enviroment degree unless you agree with "Climate Change." If you don'f, you are going nowhere.
2) The test of any theory is experiment under Controlled conditions. The fact that the "temperature" (whatever that is) may have increased 1/2 deg in the last decade is meaningless- I got older in the last decade.
3) A specific model, a list of parameters, and equations with specific boundary conditions, should be amenable to discussion by any good scientist or in part to any one with common sense- especially the early work that moved Al Gore and Michael Moore to declare a "Climate Emergency."
4) It's been changed to "Climate Change" rather than "global warming" because it's the only thing you can be sure of.
olyz wrote:The argument is often made you are not qualified to question experts.
Being able to breathe affords one the ability to question everyone and everything.
olyz wrote: 1) There is no incentive to acquire an Enviroment degree unless you agree with "Climate Change." If you don'f, you are going nowhere.
I'm not sure there is any reason to get an "Environment" degree. Can you think of any?
olyz wrote: 2) The test of any theory is experiment under Controlled conditions.
The test of any falsifiable model under the scientific method is an experiment.
olyz wrote: The fact that the "temperature" (whatever that is) may have increased 1/2 deg in the last decade is meaningless- I got older in the last decade.
The only limit placed on an experiment is that it not be accelerating, otherwise you are correct, it doesn't matter.
olyz wrote:3) A specific model, a list of parameters, and equations with specific boundary conditions, should be amenable to discussion by any good scientist or in part to any one with common sense- especially the early work that moved Al Gore and Michael Moore to declare a "Climate Emergency."
Sure, I'd like to discuss with Al Gore the science that he used to predict the demise of polar ice that did not happen. Somehow, I don't think Al Gore shares my interest in discussing the matter.
olyz wrote:4) It's been changed to "Climate Change" rather than "global warming" because it's the only thing you can be sure of.
Nope. Marxists stand in solidarity of being absolutely certain of Global Warming, Climate Change, Greenhouse Effect, Thermal Forcings, Climate Feedbacks, Ocean Acidification, Photon Saturation, Catastrophic Tipping Points, that fossils burn, and every possible violation of physics that supports destroying the world economy.
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
|Into the Night★★★★★
Anyone may question an expert. They may not be as 'expert' as they think they are!
Hence the preconclusion that it exists and that it's a problem. Such a preconclusion has a name: a circular argument. This is otherwise known as the argument of faith (or simply 'faith').
It's not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth at all, so any conclusion based on such a void of information is itself a circular argument.
Since they never specified a model, a list of parameters, any equation, or any specific boundary conditions, and indeed no falsifiable theory of any kind, neither Michael Moore nor Al Gore are using science. They are both evangelists for the Church of Global Warming. Indeed, Al Gore is the Holy Son, 'crucified' politically by hanging chad, he rises from the dead from time to time to say something stupid.
Climates don't change. They can't. There is such a thing as a desert climate, a tropical climate, a marine climate, etc. These stay the same even though whole deserts may come and go, whole rainforests may come and go, and so on. Nothing changes in climate. It is not a quantifiable value. It is a subject word.
There is no such thing as a global climate. Earth has many climates. None of them change.
The very phrase 'global warming' or 'climate change' is completely meaningless.
The Parrot Killer
Welcome to the forum and great post! Yes the "consequences" for challenging any idea in academia are real sign there are some questionable ideas being pushed forward. If the ideas weren't shaky people wouldn't worry.
I have never understood why they couldn't reproduce an earth system in the lab and prove the theory.
I mean how hard is it to mock up a ball with some gas around it and whip out the heat lamps. Certainly enough money and motivation available.
|What happens in a jar, in a controlled environment, so it can be measured, doesn't mean those results are going to scale up to a global scale. CO2, is only 0.04% of the atmosphere, so there is going to be a whole lot of other things influencing, and interfering with what happened in the lab jar. The air is constantly moving around. The wind speed near the surface might be relatively calm, only a hundred feet up, it can getting pretty strong and gusty. I fly RC helicopters and quads, and have experienced this many times. It's really easy to see when it's having a rough time, and harder to control which direction you want to go. Not sure how you would form clouds in a lab jar, to see how much energy a CO2 molecule gets to play with. I know it's a much cooler day, when it's overcast here in Florida. Does CO2 always get all the energy it needs to do it's trick? In a lab, you can feed it all you want, but the sun only sends us so much, and there is competition.|
There are only two actual ways to study the effects, remove CO2, and observe any changes. Or you can add a bunch, and observe. Won't completely settle anything, but it's a test to see if CO2 even matters. The amount of temperature increase is so tiny, spread over a long period of time, in relation to our lifespan, few will be around to observe. I should still be around for the next two milestones. 2030 is the 'tipping-point', but they left enough room, for use still to be able to turn things around. 2050, if we haven't made any radical changes by then, we are F.B.R., and no chance of saving the planet from our evil, carbon burning ways. Unfortunately, I won't be here to to see the total destruction of all life on the planet starting in 2100 though. We've pass several milestones, since the Al Gore movie proclamations, with pretty much none of the prophecies fulfilled. But then again, how many of the democrat campaign promises actually happen...
|Into the Night★★★★★
tmiddles wrote:olyz wrote:
Okay. Let's imagine a scenario:
Let say we can build a stupendous super computer that can simulate the Universe. We can call it Deep Thought. We program it with all of our accumulated knowledge, and run the simulation.
A few problems:
* is all of our accumulated knowledge enough to run a valid simulation?
* the output is necessarily going to be very complex, require a lot of work interpreting it and making sense of it. Any conclusions we draw from it must be checked against this complex simulation and the real Universe. How would we know the conclusion is a correct one?
Fortunately, we already HAVE a Universe to study. The computer program has provided us with nothing.
No theory is ever proven True. It is not possible. Science does not use supporting evidence. It only uses conflicting evidence. All you can ever do in science is to show a theory (and associated model) is False. The theory is utterly destroyed.
The Parrot Killer
Edited on 07-08-2019 03:11
|I more or less agree with all comments. Thank you-|
A letter to the editor of Mechanical Engineering Magazine stated only experts could deny climate change, and if the science in climate change was incorrect planes wouldn't fly. Mind boggling nonsense of course but great politics.
There is man-made climate change and natural climate change. The lack of a clear distinction makes it impossible to superficially deny "climate change." Probably intentional.
Experiments to test theory are a valid scientific tool. Can environmentalists predict temperature increase of air with varying CO2 concentrations subject to the suns radiation in a controlled experiment?
|Into the Night★★★★★
Since 'climate change' hasn't even been defined, how does that prevent airplanes from flying?
How can there be any theory of science about something that is not defined?
The Parrot Killer
|Experts reveal that clouds have moderated warming triggered by climate change||3||28-03-2019 01:34|
|Climate Experts, Help!||2||22-03-2019 03:43|
|Flies and fungi: Climate change could make food less safe, experts warn||0||19-03-2019 14:09|
|Seeking experts for discussion in VR||1||22-05-2017 18:23|