100% "warming" data last hundred years fabricated?

[RacerX.ksr]

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...sconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof

Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science.

Proofs have two features that do not exist in science: They are final, and they are binary. Once a theorem is proven, it will forever be true and there will be nothing in the future that will threaten its status as a proven theorem (unless a flaw is discovered in the proof). Apart from a discovery of an error, a proven theorem will forever and always be a proven theorem.

In contrast, all scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, and nothing is final. There is no such thing as final proven knowledge in science. The currently accepted theory of a phenomenon is simply the best explanation for it among all available alternatives. Its status as the accepted theory is contingent on what other theories are available and might suddenly change tomorrow if there appears a better theory or new evidence that might challenge the accepted theory. No knowledge or theory (which embodies scientific knowledge) is final. That, by the way, is why science is so much fun.

Further, proofs, like pregnancy, are binary; a mathematical proposition is either proven (in which case it becomes a theorem) or not (in which case it remains a conjecture until it is proven). There is nothing in between. A theorem cannot be kind of proven or almost proven. These are the same as unproven.

In contrast, there is no such binary evaluation of scientific theories. Scientific theories are neither absolutely false nor absolutely true. They are always somewhere in between. Some theories are better, more credible, and more accepted than others. There is always more, more credible, and better evidence for some theories than others. It is a matter of more or less, not either/or. For example, experimental evidence is better and more credible than correlational evidence, but even the former cannot prove a theory; it only provides very strong evidence for the theory and against its alternatives.

The knowledge that there is no such thing as a scientific proof should give you a very easy way to tell real scientists from hacks and wannabes. Real scientists never use the words “scientific proofs,” because they know no such thing exists. Anyone who uses the words “proof,” “prove” and “proven” in their discussion of science is not a real scientist.

The creationists and other critics of evolution are absolutely correct when they point out that evolution is “just a theory” and it is not “proven.” What they neglect to mention is that everything in science is just a theory and is never proven. Unlike the Prime Number Theorem, which will absolutely and forever be true, it is still possible, albeit very, very, very, very, very unlikely, that the theory of evolution by natural and sexual selection may one day turn out to be false. But then again, it is also possible, albeit very, very, very, very, very unlikely, that monkeys will fly out of my *** tomorrow. In my judgment, both events are about equally likely.

I know it's hard for you to understand, but I didn't say "a proof", I merely said proof. Semantics is a weak argument. If a scientific hypothesis has not been proven by experimentation, then it is useless. You can deflect all you want to, but there is no proof whatsoever that CO2 has caused any temperature rise.

What is the boiling point of water at sea level? Has it been proven?
What is the force of gravity on Earth? Has it been proven?
What is the heat effect of a 10ppm rise in CO2 level? Has it been proven?

 

[Supreme Lord Z]

Thanks for proving my point. Jesus and dinosaurs have nothing to do with my argument. Show me some proof of your man made global warming religion. You want others to accept the claims based on faith just like you have, rube. You are obviously incapable of understanding a simple concept such as cause and effect or knowing when someone has appealed to the lowest common denominator, since you are one of the lowest. Show me some proof, son.

Boy, talk about a tool... no wonder you struggle so much with this issue as you don't even fundamentally understand what science is.

 

[Supreme Lord Z]

I know it's hard for you to understand, but I didn't say "a proof", I merely said proof. Semantics is a weak argument. If a scientific hypothesis has not been proven by experimentation, then it is useless. You can deflect all you want to, but there is no proof whatsoever that CO2 has caused any temperature rise.

What is the boiling point of water at sea level? Has it been proven?
What is the force of gravity on Earth? Has it been proven?
What is the heat effect of a 10ppm rise in CO2 level? Has it been proven?

The amount of pure idiocy is this post is so insane that it is nearly Trumpian. If a scientific hypothesis has not been proven by experimentation, then it is useless? There is no proof whatsoever that CO2 has caused any temperature rise?

You are hysterical. Please inject something fatal into yourself or at least inflict a crippling injury of some sort unto yourself. Find some way to hinder yourself from participating further in any form of mass communication. You are a contagion. A viral form of stupid that must not be allowed to spread. Change your font color to all white at a minimum, please.

 

[RacerX.ksr]

All you have to do is cite the evidence. Calling me names doesn't prove your point. Playing games with semantics doesn't either. Why don't you go find the Wiki page that explains the exact relationship between man made CO2 and atmospheric temperature rise. You should be able to find a graph that's shows X amount of temp increase for every X amount of CO2 increase. Isn't that what settled science does?

 

[Supreme Lord Z]

I have literally explained this dozens of times and I will do so again as it actually should be simple enough for a chimp like yourself to comprehend.

1) Greenhouse gases reflect heat back towards earth that would otherwise escape into space.
2) CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
3) In the last century CO2 content in the atmosphere has increased from 300ppm to over 400ppm when in the previous 800 thousand years it was never above 300ppm:

At a sub-moron level... even that low... it should be plainly obvious that you cannot dramatically increase the levels of a greenhouse gas in the atmosphere and NOT expect that to impact temperature. Would you build a glass house over your garden and expect the temperature to stay the same?

No, this glass doesn't hurt anything. You can't change what God created. Glass is just heated sand. It can't possibly warm things up!

In order to not believe in anthropogenic global warming you have to believe that greenhouse gases do not exist and therefore dramatically increasing the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere can't possibly have a warming effect on the planet. It is that simple.

 

[CrittendenWildcat]

FIGJAM

I don't doubt anthropogenic climate change. What I doubt is the extrapolation of the effects into predictions of global catastrophe, which leads to excessive and arbitrary government regulation, which affects industry negatively, which affects the lives of people working in that industry negatively, which affects the families of people working in that industry negatively. All based on predictions, projections and extrapolations that change one variable and assume all other conditions remain the same. So we hang weights on fossil fuels and subsidize green energy without a comprehensive assessment of whether the environmental impact is "real" enough to outweigh the economic impact.

 

[Bill Derington]

Learn to open my eyes? Ok, snowflake, I will reject the entire scientific field over your "common sense" thinking. Thank God you were here to enlighten me. I mean, millions of hours of research, 10's of 1000's of scientists, an entire field of settled science, but whew! there you are to save me.

Our argument here is the entire work of the scientific community vs your "nuh uh." Pretty sure someone in this argument is being willfully ignorant.

First of all, you have absolutely ZERO idea as to what you're accepting as fact. You're combining 2 entirely different things, or I should say being told 2 different things.

Greenhouse gases causing warming is absolutely true, and is settled science, it is easily proven. However saying that Earth is currently experiencing manmade climate change, and that it's settled science is absolutely false. Don't believe me, go read IPCC's 2015 report, talk about professional fence riding. The change in Co2 is minimal in relation to the rest of the atmosphere, .0003 to .0004.

Absolutely nothing has changed to warrant blaming man for climate change. Nothing

 

[AustinTXCat]

These threads are such fun.

 

[Bill Cosby]

Given Z's reliance on skewed polling data to go all in on a Clinton victory, you'd think he'd take a step back and question what he's spoon fed by his globalist overlords. I've never seen someone so confident, but so wrong. One of the more embarrassing things I've seen on this site. Really takes a stupid person to just believe what they're spoon fed without ever stopping to think for himself.

But he wouldn't be Z if he didn't have his head so far up his *** that he thinks the world has warmed to a constant 98.6 degrees.

So carry on, Z. Your gal Clinton didn't win, so your dream one world government that protects humanity from itself is dead for now.

 

[WildcatFan1982]

These threads are such fun.

One of these days Cats Illustrated will win the Nobel Prize for finally solving this mess.

 

[WettCat]

Interesting article on 20 years of climate science browbeating and intimidation.

Even if some of the roughly $2.5 billion in taxpayer dollars currently spent on climate research across 13 different federal agencies now shifts to scientists less invested in the calamitous narrative, Lindzen believes groupthink has so corrupted the field that funding should be sharply curtailed rather than redirected.

“They should probably cut the funding by 80 to 90 percent until the field cleans up,” he said. “Climate science has been set back two generations, and they have destroyed its intellectual foundations.”

The field is cluttered with entrenched figures who must toe the established line, he said, pointing to a recent congressional report that found the Obama administration got a top Department of Energy scientist fired and generally intimidated the staff to conform with its politicized position on climate change.

“Remember this was a tiny field, a backwater, and then suddenly you increased the funding to billions and everyone got into it,” Lindzen said. “Even in 1990 no one at MIT called themselves a ‘climate scientist,’ and then all of a sudden everyone was. They only entered it because of the bucks; they realized it was a gravy train. You have to get it back to the people who only care about the science.”

http://www.realclearinvestigations....imate_scientists_coming_in_from_the_cold.html

 

[crazyqx83_rivals88013]

We don't reject it cause you believe in it. We know it's BS and the motivations for it and how the left has been wrongn so many times on this garbage topic.

I'm not left or right. I hate both equally.

But you "knowing" it's BS is one of the funniest ******* positions I could ever imagine. Lunatics.

 

[crazyqx83_rivals88013]

Look how stupid YOUR post is. Have your wife explain it to you. You accept "science" because there is a consensus? Even when it's not even a true consensus? That is dumb on so many levels. Are you talking about the science that says the Earth is the center of the universe? How about the science that says the Earth is flat?

Point me to ONE piece of science, actual proof, that CO2 causes the Earth to warm. You can't do it Eric because it doesn't exist.

CO2 doesn't cause temperatures to rise. It prevents heat (radiation) from being to escape. It's a really basic scientific concept and not surprisingly a denier like you doesn't even begin to comprehend it.

 

[RacerX.ksr]

CO2 doesn't cause temperatures to rise. It prevents heat (radiation) from being to escape. It's a really basic scientific concept and not surprisingly a denier like you doesn't even begin to comprehend it.

[laughing] Run along Skippy.

 

[UKJon_in_tn]

Dang Scientist, I knew it wasn't as hot this whole year as they were saying. I could have saved money on my cooling bills but I fell for the joke. Someone owes me money!

 

[YourPublicEnemy]

Lib logic

Isn't concerned with open borders or Muslim refugees

Thinks man-made climate change is a fast approaching Armageddon.

 

[RacerX.ksr]

I have literally explained this dozens of times and I will do so again as it actually should be simple enough for a chimp like yourself to comprehend.

1) Greenhouse gasses reflect heat back towards earth that would otherwise escape into space.
2) CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
3) In the last century CO2 content in the atmosphere has increased from 300ppm to over 400ppm when in the previous 800 thousand years it was never above 300ppm:

At a sub-moron level... even that low... it should be plainly obvious that you cannot dramatically increase the levels of a greenhouse gas in the atmosphere and NOT expect that to impact temperature. Would you build a glass house over your garden and expect the temperature to stay the same?

No, this glass doesn't hurt anything. You can't change what God created. Glass is just heated sand. It can't possibly warm things up!

In order to not believe in anthropogenic global warming you have to believe that greenhouse gasses do not exist and therefore dramatically increasing the level of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere can't possibly have a warming effect on the planet. It is that simple.

What you are doing is no different than someone using the Bible to prove to you that God exists. You guys always move the goal posts, you have to. You bought the gloom and doom story because you were told you were stupid if you didn't believe. Just like someone telling you that you would go to hell if you didn't believe. You ignore facts that should cause you to pause and take a closer look. Instead you say, just look around you, how could there not be a God?

I believe in climate change because that's what the climate does. I disagree with the assertion that man has a controllable effect on the climate. I disagree with the calamitous fortune telling speculation that will lead to undue hardship for so many who can't afford it.

 

[-LEK-]

Lib logic

Isn't concerned with open borders or Muslim refugees

Thinks man-made climate change is a fast approaching Armageddon.

That's what I'm talking about. Deferring. Bravo not addressing your wrong on the science, instead bring up Muslims. Snowflake.

 

[fatguy87]

You should be able to find a graph that's shows X amount of temp increase for every X amount of CO2 increase. Isn't that what settled science does?

Actually, Arrhenius formulated such a relationship over 100 years ago.

 

[RacerX.ksr]

You say it's dumb, yet refute non of it. You're a snowflake. You think your opinion is greater than science. You think because you have an opinion, it's special. That's snowflake participation trophy thinking.

It's okay, the argument is the entire scientific body vs your "nu uh." One person is right, another is just a special snowflake.

I don't have to refute that consensus has nothing to do with science. It is not necessary and does nothing to prove or disprove a scientific finding or belief.

You are also extremely wrong when you blindly parrot the phrase "entire scientific body". Do I need to refute that too?

 

[Supreme Lord Z]

I believe in climate change because that's what the climate does. I disagree with the assertion that man has a controllable effect on the climate. I disagree with the calamitous fortune telling speculation that will lead to undue hardship for so many who can't afford it.

Do you believe in the greenhouse effect?

Do you believe CO2 is a greenhouse gas?

Assuming you are not completely senile and answered "yes" to both of the above, then from just a common sense standpoint how is it possible to increase a known greenhouse gas in the razor thin atmosphere by 33% and not expect that to impact climate?

Explain the mechanisms you believe make such an increase insignificant enough to change the climate when historically as far back as we can measure temperature has closely tracked atmospheric CO2 concentrations:

 

[-LEK-]

I don't have to refute that consensus has nothing to do with science. It is not necessary and does nothing to prove or disprove a scientific finding or belief.

You are also extremely wrong when you blindly parrot the phrase "entire scientific body". Do I need to refute that too?

Well, in the civilized educated world, when we disagree, someone cites counter evidence to refute the argument. You can't. Your refute is "nu uh, yur dumb." It's not even an argument, it's a monkey holding a banana vs a tank running over its head, and claiming the monkey won. Because you are uneducated, you are easily manipulated and fall victim to snowflake thinking. Because you think you are special, your opinion is somehow equal to the entire weight of science. It isn't.

 

[RacerX.ksr]

Do you believe in the greenhouse effect?

Do you believe CO2 is a greenhouse gas?

Assuming you are not completely senile and answered "yes" to both of the above, then from just a common sense standpoint how is it possible to increase a known greenhouse gas in the razor thin atmosphere by 33% and not expect that to impact climate?

Common sense? You ignore the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and then try to talk the increase. The impact is whatever would occur from raising the concentration from 3 parts per 10,000 to 4 parts per 10,000. I'm saying, not very much. You would too if you knew what you were talking about.

You always say "razor thin" when talking about our atmosphere. Compared to what? Not compared to a razor in which case the atmosphere would be insanely thick. The thickness of the atmosphere has nothing to with the effect of CO2. The concentration of CO2 relative the other constituent gasses is what matters and CO2 is referred to as a trace gas for a reason.

I would like to see you argue with Dr. Judith Curry. I guess you think that she's a dumbass dinosaur rider as well.

 

[RacerX.ksr]

Well, in the civilized educated world, when we disagree, someone cites counter evidence to refute the argument. You can't. Your refute is "nu uh, yur dumb." It's not even an argument, it's a monkey holding a banana vs a tank running over its head, and claiming the monkey won. Because you are uneducated, you are easily manipulated and fall victim to snowflake thinking. Because you think you are special, your opinion is somehow equal to the entire weight of science. It isn't.

Read the article that Wettcat cited above. You won't learn anything, but at least you'll be better read on the subject. I wish you were more interesting. Where is Mime is Money? He's much better at this than you are.

 

[jtrue28]

I guess it's somewhat coincidental that only "scientists" live in the arctic. Makes it easy to push their agenda.

And by looking at the orange graph above, it's very clear what is going on. Cyclical. Look what happens when it tops out....:scream:

 

[allabouttheUK]

Government weather manipulation passed off as "global warming", and the sheep fall in line. Guess they will be all for population control when they are told that it's necessary to save the planet and the human race.

 

[pikespeak1]

This may be the best explanation yet as to how the whole global warming "consensus" might just be intentional bulls--t. Complete fraud.

http://realclimatescience.com/2016/12/100-of-us-warming-is-due-to-noaa-data-tampering/

Please, any true believers out there who can explain this away, I'm open minded.

The whole climate change hysteria is a money making scam.

 

[pikespeak1]

Here's a list of 198 scientific organizations outside the United States that agree with NASA.


Put please, by all means continue to place your faith in random blogs with articles like "The Government Knew", "Climate Racketeering", and "Global Temperature Records Is A Smoking Gun of Collusion and Fraud."

Quick question, can you name a place where the climate has changed in the past one hundred years?

 

[-LEK-]

Read the article that Wettcat cited above. You won't learn anything, but at least you'll be better read on the subject. I wish you were more interesting. Where is Mime is Money? He's much better at this than you are.

One article snowflake? :joy::joy::joy:

Ok, we will mail you your participation trophy. Every post will just reiterate the argument here. An entire field of science vs. "Nu uh."

No matter what you say, all your arguments boil down to this.

Snowflake thinking is thinking that your opinion matters more or has more credence than fact because your special. So when you think your opinions trump facts, that makes you a snowflake, but what's even funnier, is when uneducated try and argue. I mean formally educated. That's one thing education teaches, one blog article doesn't debunk an entire field. But because you're not educated, you don't know that.

No matter how many times you don't refute, call me names, you will always be wrong, and your snowflake ego can't handle that. It's not even an argument, it's just laughing at a chimp in a cage.

 

[RacerX.ksr]

One article snowflake? :joy::joy::joy:

Ok, we will mail you your participation trophy. Every post will just reiterate the argument here. An entire field of science vs. "Nu uh."

No matter what you say, all your arguments boil down to this.

Snowflake thinking is thinking that your opinion matters more or has more credence than fact because your special. So when you think your opinions trump facts, that makes you a snowflake, but what's even funnier, is when uneducated try and argue. I mean formally educated. That's one thing education teaches, one blog article doesn't debunk an entire field. But because you're not educated, you don't know that.

No matter how many times you don't refute, call me names, you will always be wrong, and your snowflake ego can't handle that. It's not even an argument, it's just laughing at a chimp in a cage.

I don't believe I called you any names. If I did it would pale in the light of how many you've called me. Probably not your best angle of attack.

You said the "entire scientific community". That is just not true. Has nothing to do with me. The article mentions Dr. Curry. She was a climate scientist before the Dental Association of Zaire was ever studying ice core samples. Do you not accept that as refutation of your argument?

If it was settled science then there wouldn't be any disagreement.

 

[-LEK-]

I don't believe I called you any names. If I did it would pale in the light of how many you've called me. Probably not your best angle of attack.

You said the "entire scientific community". That is just not true. Has nothing to do with me. The article mentions Dr. Curry. She was a climate scientist before the Dental Association of Zaire was ever studying ice core samples. Do you not accept that as refutation of your argument?

If it was settled science then there wouldn't be any disagreement.

There isn't disagreement, there are only knuckleheads who think there is an argument.

Also, cherry picking anecdotal evidence from one of 10s of 1000s of scientists isn't refuting. It's not understanding logic, science, or basic human understanding. It's snowflake thinking.

Once again, your argument is nu uh.

 

[Bill Derington]

LEK, You keep stating it's settled science that man is causing climate change and that simply isn't true.
That's not my opinion, that's from the latest IPCC report. Read it.
They give themselves ample of wiggle room to be wrong without actually admitting being wrong.
Hell, look at the chart Z posted. He's claiming that it proves Co2 raises temp over the last 800000 years, only per the chart, it's not right now when Co2 is supposedly higher than ever.
The report also says there's an equal chance climate change would be helpful to man as hurtful.

 

[KyFaninNC]

CO2 doesn't cause temperatures to rise. It prevents heat (radiation) from being to escape. It's a really basic scientific concept and not surprisingly a denier like you doesn't even begin to comprehend it.

25 years ago, your ilk were telling us we were headed for another ice age because of co2, since that did not happen, they are trying to make us believe we will all burn up in a few years. I have yet to see one person deny that the climate is changing, most people with any common sense can accept that, what most of us do not buy, is that man is totally the blame.