Disprove Global Warming!!!
- Thread starter Inka4040
- Start date
- Status
Que
I wish I was a fish I wish.
Based upon these definitions below I don’t see how an opinion can possibly be compared to a scientific theory or even a hypothesis.
Q
Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.
Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to describe, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and universal, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.
Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.
In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.
Opinion: A belief not based on absolute certainty or positive knowledge but on what seems true, valid, or probable to one's own mind; judgment
Q
Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.
Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to describe, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and universal, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.
Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.
In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.
Opinion: A belief not based on absolute certainty or positive knowledge but on what seems true, valid, or probable to one's own mind; judgment
Last edited:
100% correct, Slappy. Water vapor, coupled with the sheer mass of major constituent gasses in our atmosphere, has the greatest influence on energy exchange.
By the way, it is a gas. Water in the gaseous phase. You can liquefy N2 and He2, but they exist in a gas phase.
I don't work in a lab anymore (couldn't do it again, either...too much has changed in 23 years!), but you don't need a scientific background to see that targeting CO2 is an absolute hoax. As well, many in the scientific community are now wondering if a slight changes in atmospheric CO2 levels are a result of changes in temperature, not the other way around, as many would have it.
As such, we are passing laws regarding this even without full knowledge of the true mechanism....and you will pay taxes on it. Think of it like inflation; when the government prints a trillion dollars of paper and injects this into the money supply (like happened earlier this year), every dollar you saved or have sunk into a car, house, fiduciary investment just became more progressively worthless. YOU paid for the bailouts, and are paying on the interest, and will continue to do so. Inflation is a "hidden tax", and most of us don't have the brains or werewithal to see that the government is the source of devalued currency. Not big business, not small business owners, not the military, not any religious leader, not availability of commodities....it's the government, whole and parcel. Same can be said of new carbon credit legislation; it's not an "official tax", it's a hidden tax like inflation, except that we are going to see the results pretty quickly. If you thought gasoline at $4/gallon was insufferable, just wait.
I like the way you worded this, H3D.
NA
Last edited:
Scientific data ISN'T irrelevant. Nothing is provable 100%- but the idea is to have the highest certainty possible. The more data you have the closer to certain you can be.
Good grief! Absolutely not. Anyone can refute a theory, law or otherwise with given proof. It's not a blind-belief system and everything needs evidence and proof. Science deals with testable ideas- the two are completely different.
Which is incorrect.
You mean you have evidence that human activity is the cause of "global warming"? I'd like to see it. I'd like to hear it. I'd like to see an atmospheric model that doesn't use trash science, hyperbole, and political gesturing. I'd like to see one that actually uses factual data and a concrete model (not the weak and stupid Al Gore model of using only energy considerations below the tropopause). I want that model to adquately test it and prove it.
Go ahead and bronze the soap box. According to the current trash science atmospheric model, your use of hydrocarbons to get the copper (and tin, and bits of phosphorous, manganese and aluminum for the good stuff) to obtain the bronze will raise the earth's temperature enough to cause us all some bit of alarm.
:hitting:
I'm not denying that human activity causes climate change, but the "global warming" bandwagon is some of the weakest and most pathetic mis-use of the scientific method that I've ever observed. If I'd submitted a scientific paper using its currently accepted data, modeling and conclusions under a different name...well, the laughing wouldn't stop. But, attach "Global Warming" to the header, and suddenly its trash science gains credibility. Amazing.
OF
I added one below...will you actually read it?
Because believe me...there is ample evidence to show the logical person that the attempt to label carbon, the basic building block of all life on earth, a pollutant...is about one thing: control of our lives. Transportation, energy, food...they'll control it all. It is modern fascism in the truest definition of the word.
Your cows fart too much - TAX
Your car uses too much fuel - TAX
You left your lights on too long - TAX
You left footprints in Yellowstone Park - TAX
You have a fireplace in your home? You pig! - DOUBLE TAX!!
The climate of our planet has never, ever been static, and it is controlled by the sun. People with a true innate sense for the natural world, who are not being paid by some government...are mystified by those that do not, very simply, look at the sun and say, "Oh yeah...the sun...shoulda thought of that." It is all very, very ridiculous.
And come to think of it, asking for actual evidence to disprove man-made global warming when global temps have been stable for seven years is kinda disingenuous...don't you think? Oh...my bad. I forgot that global warming can mean temps can go either direction now...isn't that why they call it "climate change" these days???
There are three times as many scientists (real, acredited ones this time...not politicians) trying right now to put the brakes on this movement as there were on the IPCC's report, and that number grows every day. Here's a report on one from NASA.
http://www.ewire.com/display.cfm/Wire_ID/3967
Because believe me...there is ample evidence to show the logical person that the attempt to label carbon, the basic building block of all life on earth, a pollutant...is about one thing: control of our lives. Transportation, energy, food...they'll control it all. It is modern fascism in the truest definition of the word.
Your cows fart too much - TAX
Your car uses too much fuel - TAX
You left your lights on too long - TAX
You left footprints in Yellowstone Park - TAX
You have a fireplace in your home? You pig! - DOUBLE TAX!!
The climate of our planet has never, ever been static, and it is controlled by the sun. People with a true innate sense for the natural world, who are not being paid by some government...are mystified by those that do not, very simply, look at the sun and say, "Oh yeah...the sun...shoulda thought of that." It is all very, very ridiculous.
And come to think of it, asking for actual evidence to disprove man-made global warming when global temps have been stable for seven years is kinda disingenuous...don't you think? Oh...my bad. I forgot that global warming can mean temps can go either direction now...isn't that why they call it "climate change" these days???
There are three times as many scientists (real, acredited ones this time...not politicians) trying right now to put the brakes on this movement as there were on the IPCC's report, and that number grows every day. Here's a report on one from NASA.
http://www.ewire.com/display.cfm/Wire_ID/3967
You mean, that big burnin' ball o' fusion 1 a.u. away from this planet has something to do with it? No, say it isn't so!
It's all about control and wresting your money away from you. Our gubmint has to do it in the name of "global warming", because if they actually did their jobs and legally called it what it is...multi-tiered, activity based taxation driven by narrowly focused interest groups (lobbyists)...the people would fight back. This way, they can sneak it past us. Okay, they can sneak it past most of us.
This "carbon legislation" will be the biggest tax increase ever in the history of the world. Oh, can't offend the people who are writing it..."Technically, it's not really a tax...do you see the word 'tax' in the title of this bill? It's just a bill that, once enacted into law, will triple your electrical utility rates, rapidly elevate the price of motor fuels, and thus raise the price of most commodities in the United States. Please don't call it a tax...just call it 'cap and trade', please."
OF
To think that the whole global warming issue is due to some government conspiracy wanting to control the basic necessities of our daily lives is downright absurd.
I read the article, but I see little evidence to disprove the theory (or whatever the hell you want to call it because apparently the syntax makes such a big difference when looking at the issue). All I see is that people are taking a step back and trying not to get too far into the ordeal without the necessary evidence.
My main concern is that with all the controversy over climate change, the real issue will be lost. Humans are changing the planet. Maybe not to the extent that would be deemed "natural" but the Earth is a closed system. All that CO2 is not just going to disappear on its own.
I read the article, but I see little evidence to disprove the theory (or whatever the hell you want to call it because apparently the syntax makes such a big difference when looking at the issue). All I see is that people are taking a step back and trying not to get too far into the ordeal without the necessary evidence.
I agree, hence why there is this discussion. There is no consensus...fact. Does that automatically debunk the entire idea of man-made/affected climate change? NO.
Again, I agree. Rather than being blind-sighted about the issue, we need to due more testing. That is what science is all about isn't it?
True, to think that humans are somehow above the geological systems on our planet is arrogant, but I would like to counter...is it not ignorant to think that pumping millions of tons of chemicals into the atmosphere will not result in some sort of consequences?
My main concern is that with all the controversy over climate change, the real issue will be lost. Humans are changing the planet. Maybe not to the extent that would be deemed "natural" but the Earth is a closed system. All that CO2 is not just going to disappear on its own.
- Status
