Quote:
Originally Posted by kennyc
Well, if you wanna pick navel fluff, you are right, but the point is the same you have to come up with an experiment that disproves the hypothesis (which having been proven IS the theory)....and it repeatable, replicable, etc. per the terms of the scientific method.
What I find quite amazing in these sorts of discussions is that often those opposing the current scientific theory quite often don't even understand the Scientific Method and how these theories come about, nor the processes that the science establishment go through to verify and validate each and every paper that is published.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by kennyc
I'm not insisting on anything Ralph other than if you want to argue science then you must follow the scientific method. The scientists that have published the research in peer-reviewed journals all agree that global warming is real and being caused by humans. Unless you can scientifically disprove it, the theory stands.
|
I follow Karl Popper's method of falsification. Take all the know facts (not just pick and choose the ones you like) and create a theory that covers all the facts. Then try to find a new fact that disproves the theory. If you can, then you make a new theory covering all the old facts and the new ones as well. Repeat
ad infinitum. You'll never know the "truth" but you limit the locus that contains it.
Global Warming theories pick and choose what facts they want, leaving out lots of other facts because they don't fit the "theory". Then they claim to "prove" Global warming with the remaining facts and ignore any facts that disagree with their theory. If I may quote....
Quote:
Originally Posted by kennyc
The minor issues you bring up have all been taken into account. They are anomalies that have little to do with what we are seeing with the current climate issues.
|
They have
not been taken in account, they have been ignored because they don't "fit" the theory. I refuse to let them be "swept under the rug". Any theory of climate change must explain older climate changes, so they can be properly discounted to eliminate existing variables. Only then can you speculate on the causality of new variables.
What I get is the following.
Humans add CO2 to atmosphere.
CO2 causes greenhouse effect.
Temperature went up.
Case closed. Kill civilization to stop CO2 being generated.
(No explanation of the Ice Ages and wild long-term temperature swings. No explanation of the Medieval warm-up. No explanation of The Little Ice Age. No explanation of core sample CO2 lags to temperature changes. No explanation.... Nothing beyond being able to handle a simple Aristotelian syllogism...)