@Ponderable saidMaybe you missed this earlier.
So you seem to assert that there is no human -induced gloabl warming. You could suggest an experiment or a nice falsifiable hypothesis that explains the observations better.
How old do you think the earth is? A minuscule snapshot would be a fraction of a single percent, human recorded history is how old? Do you think you have enough data for determining if what is going on is part of a normal process in time or a grand disruption due to cow farts and human activity?
@Rajk999
What you want to say is "I don't believe your conclusions" so you are required to provide your own.
State your criteria of what you would accept as "proof". Philosophically, science never "prooves" anything, it sets up hyopthese and falsiefies them, and some haven't been falsified yet.
So I give you an alterabte theory on garvity: In each atom, there lves a small entity, which seeks out the company of others ths objects move into the directions of heavy objects.
Falsify that.
@KellyJay saidI did get this and asked and failed to find the answer how long is the observatio time you want?
Maybe you missed this earlier.
How old do you think the earth is? A minuscule snapshot would be a fraction of a single percent, human recorded history is how old? Do you think you have enough data for determining if what is going on is part of a normal process in time or a grand disruption due to cow farts and human activity?
1 edit
@Ponderable saidIt needs to be substantive, not a blip of time. You are looking at tree rings, and so far that is all I recall you saying is giving us our readings and applying that to PLANETARY temperatures, you are willing to look at a tree right now and allow governments to tax and regulate everyone on their findings. Even if that were an accurate representation of time, compared to the age of the earth how old are our trees compared to the planet? Monitoring the level of something we know goes up and down due to seasons by nature, you don't know anything about the natural cycles the planet goes through with a very small set of data. When we do compare what "TREES" tell us compared to the whole, you haven't even determined what normal is let alone an abnormality in temperature fluctuations.
I did get this and asked and failed to find the answer how long is the observatio time you want?
So falsification of your data-collecting methods is questionable, your conclusions on the data you claim you have, I also question, and when I look at why anyone would promote this, the power and money are self-evident, thus fear-mongering is a tool of choice, and you are okay with that.
@KellyJay saidSo What is substantive?
It needs to be substantive, not a blip of time. You are looking at tree rings, and
Please give a concrete answer I asked about two pages back.
2 edits
@Ponderable saidSubstantive would be something large enough to plot to get a close representation of what we are studying. If we have only the length of time of a tree's life we have missed out on billions of years of information required to understand normative processes of thematic fluctuation, if there were billions of years. It would be no different than saying a week's amount of data could give you an understanding of centuries of activities. You have nothing firm for collecting data, or even the data you have collected is not enough to get a clear understanding of the whole.
So What is substantive?
Please give a concrete answer I asked about two pages back.
@KellyJay saidSo if the life of a tree is not sufficient the dicussion is closed anyway: No news in our lifetime?
Substantive would be something large enough to plot to get a close representation of what we are studying. If we have only the length of time of a tree's life we have missed out on billions of years of information required to understand normative processes of thematic fluctuation, if there were billions of years. It would be no different than saying a week's amount of data ...[text shortened]... g data, or even the data you have collected is not enough to get a clear understanding of the whole.
@Ponderable saidWhat exactly are you going to base such an important point on, if there is insufficient evidence, or possibly inaccurate evidence as to it being true you want to take it on blind faith?
So if the life of a tree is not sufficient the dicussion is closed anyway: No news in our lifetime?
@Ponderable saidActually you are not saying it correctly.
@Rajk999
What you want to say is "I don't believe your conclusions" so you are required to provide your own.
State your criteria of what you would accept as "proof". Philosophically, science never "prooves" anything, it sets up hyopthese and falsiefies them, and some haven't been falsified yet.
So I give you an alterabte theory on garvity: In each atom, there lves a ...[text shortened]... ks out the company of others ths objects move into the directions of heavy objects.
Falsify that.
I do not believe in your conclusions because you have been proven wrong time and time again. Let me use the JWs .. they have repeatedly made claims about the return of Christ and they were proven wrong simply by their predictions failing to materialize. Likewise, climate scientists have repeatedly made claims that xyz will happen in 20 yrs if abc does not happen. They are never right. What is worse is that there are people among the ranks of these scientists who make even more ridiculous claims eg that animal farming is destroying the planet, and people need to stop eating meat.
Its a matter of credibility. Climate scientists have none and nothing needs to be proven.
2 edits
@Ponderable saidHow much time do you feel is sufficient for understanding a global event when you think the whole period of time is billions of years?
So if the life of a tree is not sufficient the dicussion is closed anyway: No news in our lifetime?
I have to plot out success and failures for manufacturing processes and keep weekly, quarterly, and yearly charts to monitor productivity performance. I have tracked thermal rise performance when a part is inactive but on, and when we give it a variety of tasks in specific orders to study performance under working conditions.
You really don’t know what is going on without a baseline.
@KellyJay
What baseline are you talking about for Earth? Average world temperature?
I had to do studies of that kind of thermal performance myself, having worked on number of cleanroom technologies, thermal performance of different kinds of machine and it wasn't very hard at all to establish a temperature baseline.
Actual temperatures from 10 degrees kelvin to 1300 degrees C, I did studies on ALL of that range.
@sonhouse saidYou knew what you were looking at from point A to B concerning the start of your tests to its end, you knew what was applied or withheld when during your tests. Not knowing any of that you think having a little knowledge of a few data points of temperatures that you would be able to grasp a baseline for something that you claim is billions of years old.
@KellyJay
What baseline are you talking about for Earth? Average world temperature?
I had to do studies of that kind of thermal performance myself, having worked on number of cleanroom technologies, thermal performance of different kinds of machine and it wasn't very hard at all to establish a temperature baseline.
Actual temperatures from 10 degrees kelvin to 1300 degrees C, I did studies on ALL of that range.
@KellyJay
Just dripping with negativity.
Don't know what your real agenda is if you say the universe can be very old or not so old, it seems you always leave open your possibility of a real 6000 year old Earth. Isn't that your bottom line?
@sonhouse saidThat your fall back when you know I'm right? I don't push a 6K universe you bring that up not me, I have admitted I don't know and cannot prove any age of the universe old or young, you on the other had must defend the dates you promote as what you think you know to be true, and all of the events that supposedly happened in that time period. I don't care how old you think the universe is, pick any age you want, with each time period that presents problems for you it doesn't matter how hold, so it isn't age, it is timing that matters with respect to those things that we do and can look at what is going on concerning processes.
@KellyJay
Just dripping with negativity.
Don't know what your real agenda is if you say the universe can be very old or not so old, it seems you always leave open your possibility of a real 6000 year old Earth. Isn't that your bottom line?
@KellyJay
But you unerringly leave open the possibility of a young Earth in your secret hope that will turn out to be true which is going to be impossible, just looking at the bent rock formations where they are visible doing 180 degree bends if that happened ANYTIME within the last few thousand years would have created such high level earthquakes as to make most life on Earth go extinct in a few years.
But you still allow at least the POSSIBILITY we are all wrong.