Does Science Reveal Truth?

@metal-brain said
No, I know that string theory is not a theory according to that definition. I also know that the assertion that CO2 causing the greenhouse effect is not a theory according to the definition of a scientific theory. It is an hypothesis.

I know this fact bothers the alarmist crowd but it is a fact. There is no evidence that CO2 causes GW. There are many other things that ...[text shortened]... be causing it including methane. Any assertion that CO2 is the culprit is a guess and nothing more.

Theories explain processes that are well-substantiated by data and experimentation. Thus, the greenhouse theory explains why Venus is hot while space is cold, and can provide accurate predictions of atmospheric temperature on distant planets. Biology, chemistry, physics, astronomy, geology etc. have contributed data to this theoretical framework, and as you know climate models involve many different inputs. Climate scientists obviously do not dispute natural variations in climate. It's literally how the theory was built. Within this framework, since the 1800's scientists established that atmospheric CO2 concentrations can contribute to the temperature. The greenhouse theory predicts that our atmosphere is currently responding to anthropogenic CO2. Increasing temperatures in the atmosphere, beyond what would naturally occur, is explained by increasing heat energy retention from the sun on planet earth due to anthropogenic CO2.

A hypothesis would be a suggested solution to a problem that you found in the existing theory. What you've stated is neither a hypothesis or a theory.

@wildgrass said
Theories explain processes that are well-substantiated by data and experimentation. Thus, the greenhouse theory explains why Venus is hot while space is cold, and can provide accurate predictions of atmospheric temperature on distant planets. Biology, chemistry, physics, astronomy, geology etc. have contributed data to this theoretical framework, and as you know climate mod ...[text shortened]... oblem that you found in the existing theory. What you've stated is neither a hypothesis or a theory.

"The greenhouse theory predicts that our atmosphere is currently responding to anthropogenic CO2"

Nope. There is no evidence of that.
Even if you could prove anthropogenic cause you do not know CO2 is causing it. It could be methane. You don't know and you cannot prove it. It is a guess and nothing more. You were duped into believing propaganda that is far from well-substantiated by data and experimentation.

You believe in a popular myth. There is no evidence CO2 causes warming in the atmosphere.

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/New-Insights-on-the-Physical-Nature-of-the-Atmospheric-Greenhouse-Effect-Deduced-from-an-Empirical-Planetary-Temperature-Model.pdf

@metal-brain said
"The greenhouse theory predicts that our atmosphere is currently responding to anthropogenic CO2"

Nope.

In what sense is it NOT true that "The greenhouse theory predicts that our atmosphere is currently responding to anthropogenic CO2" ?

1, The greenhouse theory is the theory that the greenhouse effect exists (and YOU yourself have already admitted the greenhouse effect exists and therefore greenhouse theory is true).

2, CO2 is proven to be one of the greenhouse gases and therefore one of those that cause the greenhouse effect (I have already shown you the evidence (proof) in my previous link).

3, Much of the extra CO2 currently going into the atmosphere is man made (do I really have to also show you evidence of that or are you going to stop being obtuse? ).

4, Therefore, form 1 and 2 and 3 above, "The greenhouse theory predicts that our atmosphere is currently responding to anthropogenic CO2" assertion should be correct.

Explain your 'logic' ...

@humy said
In what sense is it NOT true that "The greenhouse theory predicts that our atmosphere is currently responding to anthropogenic CO2" ?

1, The greenhouse theory is the theory that the greenhouse effect exists (and YOU yourself have already admitted the greenhouse effect exists and therefore greenhouse theory is true).

2, CO2 is proven to be one of the greenhouse gases and th ...[text shortened]... currently responding to anthropogenic CO2" assertion should be correct.

Explain your 'logic' ...

You believe in a popular myth. There is no evidence CO2 causes warming in the atmosphere.

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/New-Insights-on-the-Physical-Nature-of-the-Atmospheric-Greenhouse-Effect-Deduced-from-an-Empirical-Planetary-Temperature-Model.pdf

You didn't prove anything. You are merely repeating baseless assertions without evidence.

I couldn't even get "greenhouse theory" on wikipedia. I don't even know if it is a proper term and the specifics of the theory. If it says the greenhouse effect is caused by water vapor I agree with it. I did run across this link though.

https://principia-scientific.org/r-i-p-greenhouse-gas-theory-1980-2018/

https://principia-scientific.org/physicist-richard-feynman-discredits-greenhouse-gas-theory/

@metal-brain said
There is no evidence CO2 causes warming in the atmosphere.

I just showed you the proof of CO2 causes atm warming.
Here is is yet again;
http://www.pas.va/content/dam/accademia/pdf/acta22/acta22-ramanathan.pdf
and here is some more;
https://skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm
"...Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming
...
The graph shows different wavelengths of energy, measured at the Earth’s surface. Among the spikes you can see energy being radiated back to Earth by ozone (O3), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N20). But the spike for CO2 on the left dwarfs all the other greenhouse gases, and tells us something very important: most of the energy being trapped in the atmosphere corresponds exactly to the wavelength of energy captured by CO2.
..."
https://skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm
"...
An enhanced greenhouse effect from CO2 has been confirmed by multiple lines of empirical evidence.
...
The Empirical Evidence

Scientists have measured the influence of CO2 on both incoming solar energy and outgoing long-wave radiation. Less longwave radiation is escaping to space at the specific wavelengths of greenhouse gases. Increased longwave radiation is measured at the surface of the Earth at the same wavelengths.

These data provide empirical evidence for the predicted effect of CO2.
..."
https://www.climatechangenews.com/2015/03/02/scientists-confirm-critical-link-between-co2-emissions-and-warming/
"...High-precision field instruments in the US have provided the first real-time “action shots” of the increasing impact of CO2
...
Their measurements, taken over a period of 11 years in Alaska and Oklahoma, confirm predictions made more than 100 years ago, and repeatedly examined: there is a greenhouse effect, and the greenhouse gas that most helps the world warm is carbon dioxide.
...
" etc etc.

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/New-Insights-on-the-Physical-Nature-of-the-Atmospheric-Greenhouse-Effect-Deduced-from-an-Empirical-Planetary-Temperature-Model.pdf

What about it?
EVERYTHING in that link is consistent with the science and none of it implies CO2 is NOT a greenhouse gas.
Perhaps you just randomly show a link hoping I won't check it and notice it doesn't confirm your claims?

I couldn't even get "greenhouse theory" on wikipedia.

That's because "greenhouse theory" is not a term most scientists use but which laypeople use and often by moron laypeople like yourself to try and moronically dismiss the greenhouse effect as "just a theory" as if that means there is no good evidence for it.
Let me help you with that: Here is a wiki link for that;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Greenhouse_Conspiracy
"...a coalition of interests has promoted the greenhouse theory: ..."
Of course, that doesn't mean one, like myself, cannot use the layperson term "greenhouse theory" to mean merely the (proven) theory that the greenhouse effect exists as opposed to to just dismissively make out its "just a theory".

Of course, just like in any profession, you get some that go against the basic principle of their profession and science is no exception.
You can find a million nutty pseudoscientific websites out there that say the greenhouse effect doesn't happen.
But for every one of those pseudoscientific websites, you can find a scientific one with REAL empirical evidence that contradicts its claims.
I have already shown you several of these REAL scientific websites so nothing more for me to do here to respond to your usual pseudoscientific websites.

@humy said
I just showed you the proof of CO2 causes atm warming.
Here is is yet again;
http://www.pas.va/content/dam/accademia/pdf/acta22/acta22-ramanathan.pdf
and here is some more;
https://skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm
"...Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming
...
The graph shows different wavelengths of energy, measured at the ...[text shortened]... tific websites so nothing more for me to do here to respond to your usual pseudoscientific websites.

You believe in a popular myth. There is no evidence CO2 causes warming in the atmosphere. See the article about Feynman. Are you saying Feynman didn't know what he was talking about? Get real!

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/New-Insights-on-the-Physical-Nature-of-the-Atmospheric-Greenhouse-Effect-Deduced-from-an-Empirical-Planetary-Temperature-Model.pdf

You didn't prove anything. You are merely repeating baseless assertions without evidence.

https://principia-scientific.org/physicist-richard-feynman-discredits-greenhouse-gas-theory/

@metal-brain said
There is no evidence CO2 causes warming in the atmosphere.

I just showed you the evidence (proof, in fact), including data charts, and did so many times before.
Are you such a MORON that you think nobody here would notice? Or just forget about that?

See the article about Feynman.

I already have. He is a nut that asserts without evidence and he is not a climate scientist. What about it?

Are you saying Feynman didn't know what he was talking about?

I wasn't saying that but I say it now because its the truth; Feynman was a nut that, at least when it came to climate, like you didn't know what he was talking about.

Like I said in my last post you didn't bother to read;
"Of course, just like in any profession, you get some that go against the basic principle of their profession and science is no exception.
You can find a million nutty pseudoscientific websites out there that say the greenhouse effect doesn't happen.
But for every one of those pseudoscientific websites, you can find a scientific one with REAL empirical evidence that contradicts its claims.
I have already shown you several of these REAL scientific websites so nothing more for me to do here to respond to your usual pseudoscientific websites.
"

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/New-Insights-on-the-Physical-Nature-of-the-Atmospheric-Greenhouse-Effect-Deduced-from-an-Empirical-Planetary-Temperature-Model.pdf

I already read that and responded with;
"What about it?
EVERYTHING in that link is consistent with the science and none of it implies CO2 is NOT a greenhouse gas.
Perhaps you just randomly show a link hoping I won't check it and notice it doesn't confirm your claims?
..."

Why else would you endlessly keep moronically showing weblinks irrelevant to your claims?

@humy said
I just showed you the evidence (proof, in fact), including data charts, and did so many times before.
Are you such a MORON that you think nobody here would notice? Or just forget about that?

See the article about Feynman.

I already have. He is a nut that asserts without evidence and he is not a climate scientist. What about it?
[quote] Are you saying Feynma ...[text shortened]...
..."

Why else would you endlessly keep moronically showing weblinks irrelevant to your claims?

"See the article about Feynman.

I already have. He is a nut that asserts without evidence and he is not a climate scientist. What about it?"

So now you are calling Feynman (one of the most respected men in physics) a nut? You really don't respect science do you?

@metal-brain said

So now you are calling Feynman (one of the most respected men in physics) a nut?

What has him being "respected" got to do with it?
What makes a claim a valid scientific one is not how "respected" the person is who says it. And "respected" By who and for what? Certainly his stupid climate claim would not be respected by most climate scientists, that's for sure.

You really don't respect science do you?

I always respect science and one way I show this by dismissing all stupid unscientific baseless claims regardless of which nut, like him, makes them. For the same reason I also dismiss the claims from flatearthers that the Earth is flat even those (very few I assume) that just happen to come from scientists. You would be more consistent if you didn't and thus claim the Earth must be therefore flat. If a "respected" scientist said the Earth is flat, would you also believe the Earth must 'therefore' be flat?
You on the other hand clearly show NO respect of science by dismissing and/or ignoring any evidence that contradicts your moronic unscientific beliefs and claims. you have done that on numerous occasions and with many subjects including climate and physics and against many respected scientists here so you are just being a total hypocrite saying it is wrong for me to dismiss a claim just because it comes from, according to you, a "respected" scientist.

@humy said
What has him being "respected" got to do with it?
What makes a claim a valid scientific one is not how "respected" the person is who says it. And "respected" By who and for what? Certainly his stupid climate claim would not be respected by most climate scientists, that's for sure.

You really don't respect science do you?

I always respect science and one way ...[text shortened]... ong for me to dismiss a claim just because it comes from, according to you, a "respected" scientist.

So Feynman is a nut and a consensus that does not exist is your argument of last resort once again.

Predictably, you have failed to prove your assertion again. Now you will repeat your assertion and provide no evidence at all. That is the MO of duped alarmists. Fail to prove and repeat false assertions. Then repeat again with an ad hominem attack. Then another false claim of consensus..... and repeat.

@Metal-Brain
So CENTURIES of work is all false. Got it. Let's see. CO2 actually COOLS the atmosphere. Got it.

@sonhouse said
@Metal-Brain
So CENTURIES of work is all false. Got it. Let's see. CO2 actually COOLS the atmosphere. Got it.

Your failure to prove anything is noted.

@metal-brain said
Your failure to prove anything is noted.

You shouldn't set proof as the standard since that standard cannot be achieved in science. It is true, however, that CO2 causes warming. We know the absorptive properties. You can do this experiment in your backyard. Or, if you want to see more precise data on the subject, check these 26 papers...

https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/09/25/papers-on-laboratory-measurements-of-co2-absorption-properties/

Stop using the argument that the climate warms naturally as if it disproves greenhouse theory. It is part of it. A rock can roll down a hill, but it will get there faster if you kick it.

@wildgrass said
You shouldn't set proof as the standard since that standard cannot be achieved in science. It is true, however, that CO2 causes warming. We know the absorptive properties. You can do this experiment in your backyard. Or, if you want to see more precise data on the subject, check these 26 papers...

https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/09/25/papers-on-laboratory-measurem ...[text shortened]... theory. It is part of it. A rock can roll down a hill, but it will get there faster if you kick it.

"It is true, however, that CO2 causes warming."

In a box, not the atmosphere. There is no evidence that CO2 causes warming in the atmosphere. Repeating a falsehood over and over again will not make it true.

"Stop using the argument that the climate warms naturally as if it disproves greenhouse theory."

Stop using the argument that a warming climate proves anthropogenic causes are the main cause of GW. You had every opportunity to show where sea level rise accelerated excessively due to CO2 increase and you declined. Why did you decline? It is because you cannot do it.

Stop excusing your failure as trivial or make your case using sea level data. Nothing about the data supports your position. That is why you want to digress into cherry picked heat island effect data. You would rather mislead than admit you are wrong.

Sea level rise results from warming. There is no better measure.

@metal-brain said
So Feynman is a nut and a consensus that does not exist is your argument of last resort once again.

Predictably, you have failed to prove your assertion again. Now you will repeat your assertion and provide no evidence at all. That is the MO of duped alarmists. Fail to prove and repeat false assertions. Then repeat again with an ad hominem attack. Then another false claim of consensus..... and repeat.

Regarding Feynman, an interesting fact is that he was a late talker, he did not start talking until he was three. I found this quote on his Wikipedia page:

I suspect that this [IQ] test [he scored 125 in] emphasized verbal, as opposed to mathematical, ability. Feynman received the highest score in the United States by a large margin on the notoriously difficult Putnam mathematics competition exam ... He also had the highest scores on record on the math/physics graduate admission exams at Princeton ... Feynman's cognitive abilities might have been a bit lopsided ... I recall looking at excerpts from a notebook Feynman kept while an undergraduate ... [it] contained a number of misspellings and grammatical errors. I doubt Feynman cared very much about such things.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman#Education
Italics are my emphasis.

Feynman had a habit of poking his nose into other fields, and there are dangers with that. The methods used in fundamental physics are no use in other fields. In elementary particle physics we have an extremely high standard of proof, which is simply impractical in other fields. Also, during his work on the weak force, he'd just accepted an old experimental result. That result depended on a couple of outlying data-points and was no good. After that he was extremely wary of accepting expert opinion, and climate scientists are experts. So I think that this is what is driving his criticisms of climate science as it stood in the 1980s. In the meantime the evidence is much clearer.

I disagree with humy's use of the term "nut", although the Army psychiatrists did refuse to draft him on psychiatric grounds. He was not universally popular, the following was sent to J. Edgar Hoover by a female close to him, although that it could have been his by then ex-wife Mary Lou indicates a certain amount of bias:

I do not know—but I believe that Richard Feynman is either a Communist or very strongly pro-Communist—and as such is a very definite security risk. This man is, in my opinion, an extremely complex and dangerous person, a very dangerous person to have in a position of public trust ... In matters of intrigue Richard Feynman is, I believe immensely clever—indeed a genius—and he is, I further believe, completely ruthless, unhampered by morals, ethics, or religion—and will stop at absolutely nothing to achieve his ends.

There was definitely a dark side to him, he exhibited high trait narcissism, he was highly promiscuous and would abuse women who refused to sleep with him, and as the Army psychiatrists noted, a funny stare. The "funny stare" is known as the sociopathic stare and, given that he was unconcerned by rules, got into fights in bars, developing alcohol abuse disorder (but managed to stop himself), it's entirely plausible he was a subclinical psychopath.