An Earth Day Reminder: “Global Warming” Is Only ~50% Of What Models Predict

Primavera said:
Again so what? Truth will win out in the end. Look how long it took to prove that bacteria caused stomach ulcers,
Click to expand...
No such proof. Science has no proofs. It is an open functional system. Attempted proof by circular argument (fundamentalism).
Primavera said:
or that plate tectonics explained volcanoes and earthquakes.
Click to expand...
They don't. Both volcanoes and earthquakes occur far away from any plate edge.
Primavera said:
It took the Michelson-Morley experiment to disprove the luminiferous aether theory
Click to expand...
This was a valid falsification of that theory. That was a theory of science that was falsified. It is now no longer science.
Primavera said:
and The phlogiston theory was discredited by Antoine Lavoisier finally between 1770 and 1790 having been believed for hundreds of years.
Click to expand...
Again, a valid falsification of a theory of science.

Science has no proofs. It is an open functional system. It is just a set of falsifiable theories. No theory is ever proven True. Science does not use supporting evidence at all. It only uses conflicting evidence.
The test of a theory of science to try to falsify it must be specific, definable, and produce a specific result. As long as a theory withstands such tests against it (called the test of the null hypothesis), the theory is automatically part of science until it is falsified. It is this test against the null hypothesis that makes a theory of science something more than a simple circular argument (or argument of faith).

There is no 'procedure' or 'method'. There is no voting bloc. There is no one 'approving' or 'blessing theories' in any form. A theory of science must be falsifiable. That is the only requirement.
Non-scientific theories certainly do exist. They are not falsifiable. They remain the circular arguments they started as, leaving them as theories based on faith, and faith alone. Such, for example, is the Theory of Creation, the Theory of Abiogenesis, the Theory of Evolution. The Theory of the Big Bang, the Theory of the Continuum. None of these are theories of science. They are instead religions.

Science has no theories about past unobserved events. They are not falsifiable.

No theory can exist that is based on meaningless buzzwords. Thus 'global warming', 'pollution', 'climate change', are not theories. They are just a meaningless junk as 'assault rifle', 'temperature trend', etc. No theory can exist based on a buzzword, since it creates a void argument. All theories, scientific ones or not, must pass the internal consistency check. All theories of science must pass the external consistency check. No theory of science may conflict with any other theory of science. One or both must be falsified.
 
Into the Night said:
Not possible. You are denying the Stefan-Boltzmann law again. The emissivity of Earth is unknown. Satellites are incapable of measuring the absolute temperature of anything.

Nope. Denial of the Stefan-Boltzmann law. There is no frequency component in that law.

You are making shit up. Such a 'standard' is completely meaningless.
Click to expand...

Oh do shut up, not my fault you're stupid and ill informed.
 
Into the Night said:
No such proof. Science has no proofs. It is an open functional system. Attempted proof by circular argument (fundamentalism).

They don't. Both volcanoes and earthquakes occur far away from any plate edge.

This was a valid falsification of that theory. That was a theory of science that was falsified. It is now no longer science.

Again, a valid falsification of a theory of science.

Science has no proofs. It is an open functional system. It is just a set of falsifiable theories. No theory is ever proven True. Science does not use supporting evidence at all. It only uses conflicting evidence.
The test of a theory of science to try to falsify it must be specific, definable, and produce a specific result. As long as a theory withstands such tests against it (called the test of the null hypothesis), the theory is automatically part of science until it is falsified. It is this test against the null hypothesis that makes a theory of science something more than a simple circular argument (or argument of faith).

There is no 'procedure' or 'method'. There is no voting bloc. There is no one 'approving' or 'blessing theories' in any form. A theory of science must be falsifiable. That is the only requirement.
Non-scientific theories certainly do exist. They are not falsifiable. They remain the circular arguments they started as, leaving them as theories based on faith, and faith alone. Such, for example, is the Theory of Creation, the Theory of Abiogenesis, the Theory of Evolution. The Theory of the Big Bang, the Theory of the Continuum. None of these are theories of science. They are instead religions.

Science has no theories about past unobserved events. They are not falsifiable.

No theory can exist that is based on meaningless buzzwords. Thus 'global warming', 'pollution', 'climate change', are not theories. They are just a meaningless junk as 'assault rifle', 'temperature trend', etc. No theory can exist based on a buzzword, since it creates a void argument. All theories, scientific ones or not, must pass the internal consistency check. All theories of science must pass the external consistency check. No theory of science may conflict with any other theory of science. One or both must be falsified.
Click to expand...

Jesus H Christ, has nobody ever told you about the Pacific Rim.

Natural Disasters Caused by Plate Tectonics

https://sciencing.com/natural-disasters-caused-plate-tectonics-5516200.html
 
Last edited:
Into the Night said:
Argument from randU fallacies. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. There are not enough thermometers. The emissivity of Earth is also unknown. There are not enough thermometers. No satellite has the capability to measure an absolute temperature.

Temperature can vary as much as 20 deg F per mile. Sorry dude, random numbers are not data.
Click to expand...

Seriously just fuck off, you're talking total bollox.
 
Into the Night Soil
200w.webp


There are not enough thermometers.
Click to expand...
 
Bigdog said:
Yes, so we do the best we can. Every temp measurement of an object has a margin of error.
Click to expand...

Nope. You are confusing tolerance with margin of error. They are two different things.

Tolerance is the error in the instrument itself, simply because no instrument is perfect.
Margin of error is a calculated value in statistical mathematics, using the variance (which must be declared and justified), and the number of data points selected from the unbiased raw data.

With the number of thermometers available, and if they were uniformly spaced and read at the same time (they aren't), the margin of error value is greater than the highest and lowest temperatures ever recorded on Earth. Mathematically, they are guessing. There is no 'estimate'. It is a blind fucking guess. Temperature has easily been observed to vary as much as 20 deg F per mile.

The data collected must be collected in such a manner to eliminate bias. You cannot cook data in statistical math. Time is significant. Storms move, etc. Thermometers must be read at the same time by the same authority. Location grouping is significant. Thermometers must be uniformly spaced. Currently, they are concentrated where there are roads and in cities. After all, they must be serviced. This concentration of thermometers in several areas is a significant biasing factor, however. It must be eliminated.

Every statistical summary must report two values: the average and the margin of error. These are both calculated values. One without the other is a completely meaningless summary. it is considered a math error.
 
Last edited:
gfm7175 said:
Funny. Any part of my "full of shit" response that you wish to discuss and correct me on?
Click to expand...

I don't think he wants to discuss anything. He is immersed in his religion. He doesn't seem to have a counterargument. He will probably stick one or both of us on his ignore list soon. He seems to think they are effective somehow.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top