Is "Climate Change" Complex?

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Is "Climate Change" Complex? > Page 2

Page 2 of 2

13-11-2015 02:42
Surface Detail ★★★★☆ (1673)	That's about the size of it. If it weren't for the fact that many people stand to lose large amounts of money if action is taken to mitigate global warming, the theory wouldn't be remotely contentious.
13-11-2015 02:45
gctimes ☆☆☆☆☆ (24)	Man-made climate change is a proven scientific fact, not a theory. http://www.greencitytimes.com https://about.me/gctimes
13-11-2015 02:47
Surface Detail ★★★★☆ (1673)	gctimes wrote: Man-made climate change is a proven scientific fact, not a theory. It's a well-founded scientific theory. There's no such thing as a "proven scientific fact".
13-11-2015 02:51
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	Surface Detail wrote: gctimes wrote: Man-made climate change is a proven scientific fact, not a theory. It's a well-founded scientific theory. There's no such thing as a "proven scientific fact". Well funded does not include a 'u'.
13-11-2015 02:53
Surface Detail ★★★★☆ (1673)	Into the Night wrote: Surface Detail wrote: gctimes wrote: Man-made climate change is a proven scientific fact, not a theory. It's a well-founded scientific theory. There's no such thing as a "proven scientific fact". Well funded does not include a 'u'. Presumably you meant an 'o'. Well done for trying though.

13-11-2015 02:54
gctimes ☆☆☆☆☆ (24)	clever - but, guess what? the earth isn't flat either! Gravity, evolution, man-made climate change are indisputable facts. http://www.greencitytimes.com https://about.me/gctimes
13-11-2015 02:59
Surface Detail ★★★★☆ (1673)	gctimes wrote: clever - but, guess what? the earth isn't flat either! Gravity, evolution, man-made climate change are indisputable facts. No, its not especially clever. All of science is potentially discardable in the event that new evidence arises. Granted, theories such as gravity, evolution and man-made climate change are supported by large amounts of evidence in their favour, which makes it very unlikely that they will be discarded. Nevertheless, there is no such thing as 100% certainty in science. Certainty is the preserve of mathematics and religion.
13-11-2015 03:02
gctimes ☆☆☆☆☆ (24)	Surface Detail wrote: gctimes wrote: clever - but, guess what? the earth isn't flat either! Gravity, evolution, man-made climate change are indisputable facts. No, its not especially clever. All of science is potentially discardable in the event that new evidence arises. Granted, theories such as gravity, evolution and man-made climate change are supported by large amounts of evidence in their favour, which makes it very unlikely that they will be discarded. Nevertheless, there is no such thing as 100% certainty in science. Certainty is the preserve of mathematics and religion. Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement http://www.greencitytimes.com https://about.me/gctimes
13-11-2015 03:18
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	Surface Detail wrote: Into the Night wrote: Surface Detail wrote: gctimes wrote: Man-made climate change is a proven scientific fact, not a theory. It's a well-founded scientific theory. There's no such thing as a "proven scientific fact". Well funded does not include a 'u'. Presumably you meant an 'o'. Well done for trying though. Quite right! Good catch!
13-11-2015 03:19
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	gctimes wrote: clever - but, guess what? the earth isn't flat either! Gravity, evolution, man-made climate change are indisputable facts. Only to the religious that has left science behind.
13-11-2015 03:40
Surface Detail ★★★★☆ (1673)	Into the Night wrote: gctimes wrote: clever - but, guess what? the earth isn't flat either! Gravity, evolution, man-made climate change are indisputable facts. Only to the religious that has left science behind. They're not indisputable, just, so far, not seriously disputed. At least, no-one's yet come up with any theories that better fit the evidence from observations and measurement.
13-11-2015 04:41
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	Surface Detail wrote: Into the Night wrote: gctimes wrote: clever - but, guess what? the earth isn't flat either! Gravity, evolution, man-made climate change are indisputable facts. Only to the religious that has left science behind. They're not indisputable, just, so far, not seriously disputed. At least, no-one's yet come up with any theories that better fit the evidence from observations and measurement. What observations and measurement are you referring to? The composite, manufactured, and fudged data you are so fond of quoting?
13-11-2015 04:54
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14404)	Surface Detail wrote:Granted, theories such as gravity, evolution and man-made climate change are supported by large amounts of evidence in their favour, which makes it very unlikely that they will be discarded. No quantity of supporting "evidence" has any role in science. Theories of gravity and genetics are unlikely to be discarded because no one can think of a potential way to prove the falsifiable models false, not because of any "supporting evidence" that those models might be true. Global Warming, "Climate Change," "Greenhouse Effect" and "forcings" cannot be discarded because they are simply not part of the body of science in the first place. They are completely unfalsifiable or, as in the case of "greenhouse effect" they have falsifiable elements that are all false. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles 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
13-11-2015 14:33
Surface Detail ★★★★☆ (1673)	IBdaMann wrote: Surface Detail wrote:Granted, theories such as gravity, evolution and man-made climate change are supported by large amounts of evidence in their favour, which makes it very unlikely that they will be discarded. No quantity of supporting "evidence" has any role in science. Theories of gravity and genetics are unlikely to be discarded because no one can think of a potential way to prove the falsifiable models false, not because of any "supporting evidence" that those models might be true. Global Warming, "Climate Change," "Greenhouse Effect" and "forcings" cannot be discarded because they are simply not part of the body of science in the first place. They are completely unfalsifiable or, as in the case of "greenhouse effect" they have falsifiable elements that are all false. . As has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions, global warming is eminently falsifiable. If, for example, the ongoing rise in global sea level were to reverse for a sustained period, this would falsify global warming. Thus far, we have no evidence that falsifies global warming. Edited on 13-11-2015 14:33
13-11-2015 16:39
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14404)	Surface Detail wrote:As has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions, global warming is eminently falsifiable. Eminently? As in of someone's divine "eminence"? You need a falsifiable model to show falsifiability. Surface Detail wrote: If, for example, the ongoing rise in global sea level were to reverse for a sustained period, this would falsify global warming. There are two egregious problems with this. 1. That's what you assert at the present moment, but there is no falsifiable Global Warming model that makes any mention of anything related to sea level. If there were to be any sort of noticeable sea level decrease, for example, warmizombies would create some lame rationalization for how "Global Warming, like, totally predicts this would happen because of Global Warming." 2. It's not testable. You are asking the world to just sit around and wait for your conditions to transpire, and of course all the while we wait we are supposed to just assume that your conjecture is absolutely true until proven false. We can't use your assertion to tailor an experiment to check the veracity of your assertion. Not testable. Not falsifiable. Not useful. Thus far we have no falsifiable model to keep us from simply dismissing any Global Warming conjecture. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles 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

13-11-2015 16:49
Surface Detail ★★★★☆ (1673)	IBdaMann wrote: Surface Detail wrote:As has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions, global warming is eminently falsifiable. Eminently? As in of someone's divine "eminence"? You need a falsifiable model to show falsifiability. Surface Detail wrote: If, for example, the ongoing rise in global sea level were to reverse for a sustained period, this would falsify global warming. There are two egregious problems with this. 1. That's what you assert at the present moment, but there is no falsifiable Global Warming model that makes any mention of anything related to sea level. If there were to be any sort of noticeable sea level decrease, for example, warmizombies would create some lame rationalization for how "Global Warming, like, totally predicts this would happen because of Global Warming." 2. It's not testable. You are asking the world to just sit around and wait for your conditions to transpire, and of course all the while we wait we are supposed to just assume that your conjecture is absolutely true until proven false. We can't use your assertion to tailor an experiment to check the veracity of your assertion. Not testable. Not falsifiable. Not useful. Thus far we have no falsifiable model to keep us from simply dismissing any Global Warming conjecture. . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/eminently Definition of eminently in English: adverb [often as submodifier] To a notable degree; very: 'an eminently readable textbook' Global warming theory has long predicted rising sea level due to both melting ice and thermal expansion of sea water. If the sea level were to stop rising for an extended period of time (longer than, say, 5 years), this would be falsify the current theory. We can't experiment on stars either, but this doesn't mean that astrophysics isn't a science. So long as theories can be falsified by observation, then they remain valid theories.
13-11-2015 18:19
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14404)	Surface Detail wrote: Definition of eminently in English: The definition was not necessary. I was messing with you. Did you see how I worked "eminence" in there? Falsifiability is a boolean value. An assertion is either falsifiable or it isn't. You, however, decided to make falsifiability more of a quantitative range with Global Warming being "eminently" falsifiable! It gave me a good chuckle and I thank you. Surface Detail wrote: Global warming theory has long predicted rising sea level due to both melting ice and thermal expansion of sea water. There has never been a falsifiable Global Warming model. Period. Global Warming remains unfalsifiable and it cannot be shown to be false any more than Christianity can be proven false. However, all you need to do is to find a falsifiable Global Warming model that involves sea level rise and you will have a Global Warming model that can be falsified via some aspect of sea level. Falsifiability is inherent in a falsifiable model; no one gets to arbitrarily establish falsifiability conditions for a model as you are trying to do. Surface Detail wrote: We can't experiment on stars either, but this doesn't mean that astrophysics isn't a science. I can certainly craft experiments involving stars to test our existing models, and I can break out a telescope (and other equipment) to make observations. Did someone lead you to believe otherwise? . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles 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
13-11-2015 20:48
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14404)	gctimes wrote: Climate change is simple, and man-made climate change is even more so. On the one side of the "debate", you have facts & science - on the other side, you have Big Oil, Big Coal, money and fiction. I'll tell you what. I'll bring the science and the facts, and you can bring the religious dogma and we'll have ourselves a ball. I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles 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 2 of 2

Join the debate Is "Climate Change" Complex?: