Originally posted by agrysonSo let me see if I have this straight. What you're saying, is that AGW is only a theory? 😉
Merrriam webster lists hypothesis as a synonym for theory, look it up. That's just wrong. Having done courses in philosphy of science, and being a scientist myself, there is a very important difference between the two. Also, there is a crossover between theory and fact.
Hypothesis: Gives an explanation of the facts.
Theory: Gives an explanation of the f ...[text shortened]... an a law, we don't do it because there's an uncertainty as to the theories validity.
Har!
Yes, I know a theory is an hypothesis that has stood up to testing.
Originally posted by MerkWell, yes, except your use of the word "only" suggests you have a skewed interpretation of the term. would you consider the fact that gravity is only a theory as something that weakens its reality? or aerodynamics, thermodynamics etc.?
So let me see if I have this straight. What you're saying, is that AGW is only a theory? 😉
Har!
Yes, I know a theory is an hypothesis that has stood up to testing.
Originally posted by winslowyeah maybe but thats part of nature if its even true, all the trees and stuff take care of that, but we overflowed the trees workload so it doesnt matter how much they produce, we screwed up the balance, even if you beleive that its a cycle(which al gores scary charts have pretty much proven it couldn't be)then you must admit there are medigating factors, like how about the billions of billions of tons more we pollute into the atmosphere, evn if you think its a cycle, were screwing the cycle up!
1/3 of the flora and fauna indiginate to the norther region has dethawed emitting 10x more greenhouse gasses than humans. That was on ABC News. Global warming started from the beginning of the last ice age. Get over it. It's nature. Mankind survived the last one. We have a billion times the knowledge and technology since the last. Hopefully only the idiots will die this next one.
Originally posted by agrysonYou're not too bright are you? Just for you, here it is yet again:
Fine, then don't believe a word this Stephen Schneider says, looks like a case of pot and kettle if you ask me, considering how you lied about posting a peer reviewed paper.
http://www.int-res.com/articles/cr2003/23/c023p089.pdf
Originally posted by knightistwoqueensWho cares? Bring on global warming! The sooner the better! Then we can all get some sleep... that is until all the idiots worrying about it find some other hobgoblin to be frightened of. I'm doing my bit to speed the process up.
yeah maybe but thats part of nature if its even true, all the trees and stuff take care of that, but we overflowed the trees workload so it doesnt matter how much they produce, we screwed up the balance, even if you beleive that its a cycle(which al gores scary charts have pretty much proven it couldn't be)then you must admit there are medigating ...[text shortened]... more we pollute into the atmosphere, evn if you think its a cycle, were screwing the cycle up!
Originally posted by agrysonm-w.com IS merriam-webster ... i won't be falling at the same speed as an equally-massed lump of lead unless we're both falling in a vacuum ...
Merrriam webster lists hypothesis as a synonym for theory, look it up. That's just wrong. Having done courses in philosphy of science, and being a scientist myself, there is a very important difference between the two. Also, there is a crossover between theory and fact.
Hypothesis: Gives an explanation of the facts.
Theory: Gives an explanation of the f ...[text shortened]... an a law, we don't do it because there's an uncertainty as to the theories validity.
so you're certain AGW is not a "fact" ... lots of people on this site seem not so certain ...
Originally posted by zeeblebot"Merrriam webster lists hypothesis as a synonym for theory, look it up. That's just wrong."
m-w.com IS merriam-webster ... i won't be falling at the same speed as an equally-massed lump of lead unless we're both falling in a vacuum ...
so you're certain AGW is not a "fact" ... lots of people on this site seem not so certain ...
They were my words, I was pointing out that when I went to your link, saw the definition and did some cross referencing I found inconsistencies compared to the OED.
Unless you're in a vacuum? Doesn't that place a lot of faith in the theory of aerodynamics? After all, that's "only" a theory.
What I'm certain of is that AGW is the only viable theory to explain what is happening now, in the way it's happening now. The facts are what it explains and what it predicts.
Originally posted by agryson"AGW is the only viable theory to explain what is happening now"?? Utter and complete crap.
"Merrriam webster lists hypothesis as a synonym for theory, look it up. That's just wrong."
They were my words, I was pointing out that when I went to your link, saw the definition and did some cross referencing I found inconsistencies compared to the OED.
[b]Unless you're in a vacuum? Doesn't that place a lot of faith in the theory of aerodynamics? Af ...[text shortened]... w, in the way it's happening now. The facts are what it explains and what it predicts.
AGW is one of two theories, but it lacks credibility and is certainly not viable. In any case, what makes you so certain today's climate is not simply the result of the natural and continuous cycle of things, as earth's climate has always been? Why must today's climate necessarily be a function of man's industrial activity and NOT the result of natural variability? Why has the perfectly reasonable explanation of natural variability, a concept that makes complete logical sense!, been totally rulled out in favour of an uncertain, incomplete and weak theory projecting a less likely scenario? AGW theory is riddled with uncertainty, assumptions and conjecture; it relies on computer models and poorly understood mechanisms; it requires intimidation and emotive hype in order to sell to the masses; it is skewed by politics and has the unpleasant stench of a fundamentalist religion and yet somehow it carries more weight than the far simpler and more likely scenario of age-old basic natural variability! How can that be?
I mean really, you guys need to swat up on Occam's Razor!
Originally posted by SpastiGovWhen will you move onto anger? You've been in the denial stage for quite a while.
"AGW is the only viable theory to explain what is happening now"?? Utter and complete crap.
AGW is one of two theories, but it lacks credibility and is certainly not viable. In any case, what makes you so certain today's climate is not simply the result of the natural and continuous cycle of things, as earth's climate has always been? Why must today's c ...[text shortened]... ariability! How can that be?
I mean really, you guys need to swat up on Occam's Razor!
Originally posted by SpastiGovHere are the facts:
"AGW is the only viable theory to explain what is happening now"?? Utter and complete crap.
AGW is one of two theories, but it lacks credibility and is certainly not viable. In any case, what makes you so certain today's climate is not simply the result of the natural and continuous cycle of things, as earth's climate has always been? Why must today's c ...[text shortened]... ariability! How can that be?
I mean really, you guys need to swat up on Occam's Razor!
-Man has released huge amounts of CO2 in the past two centuries.
-CO2 is KNOWN (fact) to trap heat.
-So is CH4, another chemical we release large amounts of.
-In the past two centuries we suddenly see a warming begin to occur again, but with no apparent natural cause.
(and all of that is without computer models)
Occams razor would lead to the simplest solution, which is "man is the primary cause of warming today", not "I don't know what caused the others, or what's causing this one, but we're 100% safe to assume that despite the differences, this is the exact same thing as before" (needless to say, that's self comforting denial if ever I heard it).
Unless another cause can be shown to have an effect greater than man, that's how the land lies.
The system now has an added complication, us, and unless that complication can be demonstrated to be of less influence than some other cause, the AGW theory remains the only viable, credible model, because the other theory, not being able to point at the primary cause of today is neither credible or viable.
-Todays climate does not necessarily have to be the function of mans industrial activity, but all the evidence says that it is, there's a difference, one is a disprovable theory (yet to be disproven), the other is covering your ears and going la la la.
-Yes, AGW theory makes assumptions, but less assumptions than any competing theory.
-Yes conjecture is involved, but less than any other theory, which can't even find the current cause.
-Yes it's a political issue as well as a scientific one, which is why we must depend on objective data rather than subjective opinion pieces (nudge nudge wink wink).
-It relies on evidence rather than a fairy tale story book, so I don't know where you're getting the religious connotations unless it's your own blind faith that it's wrong despite all evidence in support of it.
-Natural variability has and does occur, but there's no evidence to say that it is doing so now, compared to AGW, which has.
1 edit
Originally posted by agrysonHere are the facts:
Here are the facts:
-Man has released huge amounts of CO2 in the past two centuries.
-CO2 is KNOWN (fact) to trap heat.
-So is CH4, another chemical we release large amounts of.
-In the past two centuries we suddenly see a warming begin to occur again, but with no apparent natural cause.
(and all of that is without computer models)
Occams r there's no evidence to say that it is doing so now, compared to AGW, which has.
-"Man has released huge amounts of CO2 in the past two centuries". So what? Big deal.
-"CO2 is KNOWN (fact) to trap heat". Yes but to what extent?
-"So is CH4, another chemical we release large amounts of". Ditto. So what?
-"In the past two centuries we suddenly see a warming begin to occur again, but with no apparent natural cause". Well maybe you've never noticed the big bright shiny ball in the sky. It's called the Sun. It gives the earth its warmth you twerp. How's that for a natural cause?
Occams razor would lead to the simplest solution, which is "The Sun".
The system has a minor complication, us, but that can be demonstrated to be of less influence than natural forces like the Sun. Thus the AGW theory is untenable and natural variability remains the only viable, credible cause of earth's climate, because the other theory is neither credible nor viable.
-Todays climate is not the function of man's industrial activity and so far all evidence that says that it is is circumstantial, specious and of little merit. One is a provable theory (and has been already), the other is the work of gullible twerps who always think the sky is falling and live in some la la land.
-AGW theory makes way too assumptions, while natural variability (of the Sun, cosmic rays etc.) needs none since that has been the driving force behind earth's climate for millennia.
-Conjecture is required for AGW, while it is obvious that the sun drives earth's climate and always has done.
-AGW is a political issue that masquerades as science, which is why we must dismiss it as nonsense and pseudoscience.
-AGW relies on emotive hogwash masquerading as evidence rather than actual science and can be likened to a fairy story, so I don't know where halfwits like agryson and other loonies of his ilk get the religious motivation from, unless it's their own blind faith in Al Gore and think it's wrong to think for themselves.
-Natural variability has always occurred, and there is a mountain of evidence to say that it is doing so now, as opposed to AGW theory which is based entirely upon assumption, conjecture and wooley-headed logic. Only a fool would think natural variability plays no part in earth's climate (ergo agryson is a fool because he thinks, and I quote, "there's no evidence to say that it is doing so now" ).
Originally posted by wittywonkaSounds like an admission of defeat. But then I did say earlier you've missed the boat on this one wonky so give it up. Not to worry though because there's always another hobgoblin waiting just around the corner to scare you. Your sky will always be falling wonky!
Nothing but a broken record here. Move along.
Originally posted by SpastiGovIt's an admission that you are too spitefully and intentionally ignorant to actually debate. You rant continuously and post other rants as your evidence. Nothing but a broken record.
Sounds like an admission of defeat. But then I did say earlier you've missed the boat on this one wonky so give it up. Not to worry though because there's always another hobgoblin waiting just around the corner to scare you. Your sky will always be falling wonky!