Berkeley Earth Study Group..Global Warming

Discussion in 'Free Speech Alley' started by HalloweenRun, Oct 23, 2011.

Page 4 of 12
  1. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    That is NOT how science works. Your ignorance is not my problem.
     
    red55, Oct 24, 2011
    #31
  2. martin

    martin Banned Forever

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    19,026
    Likes Received:
    934
    of course it is. it isnt possible to prove the earth isnt warming because of something other than humans. again, it is literally impossible. even the scientists do not claim they can "prove" it.

    the only way to prove we are causing warming would be to have another earth, identical, without us. without that, we can only really theorize about what we are doing. it simply isnt possible to disagree with anything i have just said.

    you might argue that scientists are "really confident", but not that they have proven anything.
     
    martin, Oct 25, 2011
    #32
  3. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    This is nonsense. Make your case scientifically and be prepared to lose it.

    More nonsense. Show me in any scientific text where it says this. Good luck with that.

    Here is an explanation of the scientific method as if explained to a child. It is less than 13 pages. Note the comment.

    Controls are rarely necessary in observational studies, when you’re studying naturally-occurring variation. They are also not always needed in experimental studies, but if you are subjecting living organisms to extreme conditions of any kind, you should always include a control group that is not exposed to these conditions.

    The fact that not all experiments need controls is illustrated by the following example. If you want to find out if the earthworm density is the same under pine trees as deciduous trees, you can simply measure the density in the two soils and compare them. There is no need to have a separate control treatment in which earthworms aren’t under either pine trees or deciduous trees. ​


    Your ego is large as is your naiveté, but your utter foolishness is immense.

    I argue that science has proven practically everything.
     
    red55, Oct 25, 2011
    #33
  4. martin

    martin Banned Forever

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    19,026
    Likes Received:
    934
    god what a stupid post that was. read your example again and think hard.
     
    martin, Oct 25, 2011
    #34
  5. shane0911

    shane0911 Helping lost idiots find their village

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    Messages:
    37,754
    Likes Received:
    23,932

    Earthworms? Did I read that correctly?:huh:
     
    shane0911, Oct 25, 2011
    #35
  6. martin

    martin Banned Forever

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    19,026
    Likes Received:
    934
    controls are not necessary when you are comparing one earthworm (or anything)to another. thats making my point! we are not comparing earth to another earth minus the influence of humans. we could compare earth to other p[lanets, but they are way too different. and they are heating and cooling wildly, just like we are anyways.

    if you go to a therapist, and over time you feel better, it is hard to know whether you just came out of your depression for whatever reason, or if the therapist helped. because you do not have another version of yourself to test against. and your brain is incredibly complex. and this is the way the earth is. incredibly complicated, with feedback and millions of factors, many of which we have a very poor understanding of.

    but the arrogance of the liberal! they chastise me for me claims about complexity.

    climate scientists should spend more time with neuroscientists and economists, people who understand what a complex system means and how you cant just make assumptions and use your clumsy measurements to make adjustments. the pretense that we have something like global climate pattens figured out is to be hones, totally ****ing absurd.
     
    martin, Oct 25, 2011
    #36
  7. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    Pathetic, non-scientific response. Do you understand what unnecessary means? I challenge you once again -- show me in any science textbook where controls are an absolute requirement to prove a thing.

    Just because you don't understand a thing doesn't mean that others cannot. There is nothing about complex systems that make them impossible to figure out. Nothing.

    Then make a case and back it up with some evidence instead of waving your arms and crying "no fair!".

    You . . . can't . . . do it.
     
    red55, Oct 25, 2011
    #37
  8. martin

    martin Banned Forever

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    19,026
    Likes Received:
    934
    not to prove just a thing vs another thing. to prove a particular factor is causing something.

    i have a list of books you need to read. start with a book called "chaos" by james gleick. also a book called "everything is obvious..once you know the answer" by duncan watts. these books will help you understand the nature of complex and somewhat unpredicatble non-linear systems. yes, i have read them both.
     
    martin, Oct 25, 2011
    #38
  9. shane0911

    shane0911 Helping lost idiots find their village

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    Messages:
    37,754
    Likes Received:
    23,932

    Are they longer than 13 pages? :yelwink2:
     
    shane0911, Oct 25, 2011
    #39
  10. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    Still wrong. Still declining to support yourself with evidence or corroboration of any kind.

    I have a list of books for you to read, but they are far longer than 13 pages.

    Look Junior, I am familiar with chaos theory. Try to understand that it is helping us to understand complex systems even better. Science is evolving, not devolving. Knowledge is increasing, not floundering. Science is not dismayed and helpless in the face of chaotic, complex systems.
     
    red55, Oct 25, 2011
    #40
Page 4 of 12

Share This Page