Trump orders EPA to delete all climate change information from its website
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 07:34:33 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Trump orders EPA to delete all climate change information from its website
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3
Author Topic: Trump orders EPA to delete all climate change information from its website  (Read 2008 times)
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,611


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: January 26, 2017, 07:37:30 PM »

Is Trump the only climate change denying head of state in the world?
Logged
Ljube
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,986
Political Matrix
E: 2.71, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: January 26, 2017, 07:37:56 PM »

Arch,

Quantum Theory
General Relativity
Theory of Thermodynamics
Theory of Gravity
Special Relativity
Plate Tectonics
Theory of Oxygen Combustion


have their narrow area of application.

These theories don't impact all aspects of human life. If any of them is proven wrong, or partially wrong, all they will cause is modification of a few designs and reprinting of books.

Climate change theory must be thoroughly vetted and proven by experiment using scientific method before we can accept it because it has far reaching impact on all aspects of human existence.


Do you see the difference?

Logged
Dr. Arch
Arch
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,452
Puerto Rico


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: January 26, 2017, 07:42:25 PM »
« Edited: January 26, 2017, 07:44:20 PM by Arch »

Arch,

Quantum Theory
General Relativity
Theory of Thermodynamics
Theory of Gravity
Special Relativity
Plate Tectonics
Theory of Oxygen Combustion


have their narrow area of application.

These theories don't impact all aspects of human life. If any of them is proven wrong, or partially wrong, all they will cause is modification of a few designs and reprinting of books.

Climate change theory must be thoroughly vetted and proven by experiment using scientific method before we can accept it because it has far reaching impact on all aspects of human existence.


Do you see the difference?



Ljube,

If it is a scientific theory, as you have pointed out with the working definition that you provided, it has already been thoroughly tested with a huge consensus (98%+) from the scientific community.

You are saying it was thoroughly tested and vetted and not tested at the same time by acknowledging it as a scientific theory.

The difference is that this one has been politicized and the others haven't. Don't you see that?
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,248


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: January 26, 2017, 07:44:49 PM »

Arch,

Quantum Theory
General Relativity
Theory of Thermodynamics
Theory of Gravity
Special Relativity
Plate Tectonics
Theory of Oxygen Combustion


have their narrow area of application.

These theories don't impact all aspects of human life.

What?! Yes they do!
Logged
Ljube
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,986
Political Matrix
E: 2.71, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: January 26, 2017, 07:47:24 PM »

Arch,

Quantum Theory
General Relativity
Theory of Thermodynamics
Theory of Gravity
Special Relativity
Plate Tectonics
Theory of Oxygen Combustion


have their narrow area of application.

These theories don't impact all aspects of human life. If any of them is proven wrong, or partially wrong, all they will cause is modification of a few designs and reprinting of books.

Climate change theory must be thoroughly vetted and proven by experiment using scientific method before we can accept it because it has far reaching impact on all aspects of human existence.


Do you see the difference?



Ljube,

If it is a scientific theory, as you have pointed out with the working definition that you provided, it has already been thoroughly tested with a huge consensus (98%+) from the scientific community.

You are saying it was thoroughly tested and vetted and not tested at the same time by acknowledging it as a scientific theory.

The difference is that this one has been politicized and the others haven't. Don't you see that?


It has not been tested or vetted at all. There exists no experiment that can prove or disprove the Climate Change Theory. It has been accepted by the majority in the scientific community, but give that same majority eight years of Trump and the theory will be completely discredited and forgotten.
Logged
Devout Centrist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,099
United States


Political Matrix
E: -99.99, S: -99.99

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: January 26, 2017, 07:51:35 PM »

Arch,

Quantum Theory
General Relativity
Theory of Thermodynamics
Theory of Gravity
Special Relativity
Plate Tectonics
Theory of Oxygen Combustion


have their narrow area of application.

These theories don't impact all aspects of human life. If any of them is proven wrong, or partially wrong, all they will cause is modification of a few designs and reprinting of books.

Climate change theory must be thoroughly vetted and proven by experiment using scientific method before we can accept it because it has far reaching impact on all aspects of human existence.


Do you see the difference?


"Fire doesn't impact humans"

F**k off.
Logged
Dr. Arch
Arch
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,452
Puerto Rico


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: January 26, 2017, 07:52:26 PM »

Arch,

Quantum Theory
General Relativity
Theory of Thermodynamics
Theory of Gravity
Special Relativity
Plate Tectonics
Theory of Oxygen Combustion


have their narrow area of application.

These theories don't impact all aspects of human life. If any of them is proven wrong, or partially wrong, all they will cause is modification of a few designs and reprinting of books.

Climate change theory must be thoroughly vetted and proven by experiment using scientific method before we can accept it because it has far reaching impact on all aspects of human existence.


Do you see the difference?



Ljube,

If it is a scientific theory, as you have pointed out with the working definition that you provided, it has already been thoroughly tested with a huge consensus (98%+) from the scientific community.

You are saying it was thoroughly tested and vetted and not tested at the same time by acknowledging it as a scientific theory.

The difference is that this one has been politicized and the others haven't. Don't you see that?


It has not been tested or vetted at all. There exists no experiment that can prove or disprove the Climate Change Theory. It has been accepted by the majority in the scientific community, but give that same majority eight years of Trump and the theory will be completely discredited and forgotten.


Yes, there are more than enough experiments. Are you saying that Climate Change was declared a theory without being testable? It wouldn't even get to be a hypothesis. Go back to the definitions you claim to accept and read them again, carefully.

If the theory COULD have been discredited, a scientist would have done it already. Trust me when I tell you that any scientist would love to do so because that would earn them a place in history alongside a Nobel or two. The same goes for any of the other theories listed above.
Logged
JerryArkansas
jerryarkansas
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,536
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: January 26, 2017, 07:55:15 PM »

Arch,

Quantum Theory
General Relativity
Theory of Thermodynamics
Theory of Gravity
Special Relativity
Plate Tectonics
Theory of Oxygen Combustion


have their narrow area of application.

These theories don't impact all aspects of human life. If any of them is proven wrong, or partially wrong, all they will cause is modification of a few designs and reprinting of books.

Climate change theory must be thoroughly vetted and proven by experiment using scientific method before we can accept it because it has far reaching impact on all aspects of human existence.


Do you see the difference?


Well since 4 of those things can easily kill almost any person on the earth, yeah to do impact almost all aspects of Human life.  Try different examples that don't destroy your argument before it even starts.

And as the others have said, it has been vetted and tested.  Only obtuse people like yourself want to throw out the consensus on it.
Logged
DemPGH
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,755
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: January 26, 2017, 07:57:11 PM »

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/01/trump-officials-suspend-plan-delete-epa-climate-web-page

IDK, we'll see. The EPA pages are still up.

The corporate appears to be blaming environmental regulations for moving jobs outside the USA, but reality would suggest that they would rather pay twenty dollars a day than twenty dollars an hour for labor.

the censoring of science, though, from any non-scientific perspective, be it religious or fossil fuel, is particularly egregious.
Logged
Ljube
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,986
Political Matrix
E: 2.71, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: January 26, 2017, 08:02:26 PM »

Arch,

Quantum Theory
General Relativity
Theory of Thermodynamics
Theory of Gravity
Special Relativity
Plate Tectonics
Theory of Oxygen Combustion


have their narrow area of application.

These theories don't impact all aspects of human life. If any of them is proven wrong, or partially wrong, all they will cause is modification of a few designs and reprinting of books.

Climate change theory must be thoroughly vetted and proven by experiment using scientific method before we can accept it because it has far reaching impact on all aspects of human existence.


Do you see the difference?



Ljube,

If it is a scientific theory, as you have pointed out with the working definition that you provided, it has already been thoroughly tested with a huge consensus (98%+) from the scientific community.

You are saying it was thoroughly tested and vetted and not tested at the same time by acknowledging it as a scientific theory.

The difference is that this one has been politicized and the others haven't. Don't you see that?


It has not been tested or vetted at all. There exists no experiment that can prove or disprove the Climate Change Theory. It has been accepted by the majority in the scientific community, but give that same majority eight years of Trump and the theory will be completely discredited and forgotten.


Yes, there are more than enough experiments. Are you saying that Climate Change was declared a theory without being testable? It wouldn't even get to be a hypothesis. Go back to the definitions you claim to accept and read them again, carefully.

If the theory COULD have been discredited, a scientist would have done it already. Trust me when I tell you that any scientist would love to do so because that would earn them a place in history alongside a Nobel or two. The same goes for any of the other theories listed above.


Yes. It was declared a theory without being testable. It is not unique. There are other such theories. Dark matter and dark energy to name a few.

That's why I call it just a theory, a thought experiment and not a scientific theory, for it has no basis in reality, it is not intuitive and it cannot be tested or proven or disproven by experiment. We could also call it a hypothesis. But there are other hypotheses about the same topic. None of them has ever been proven.


It cannot be discredited because it has no shape. There are no firm laws. It consists of only broad statements. Nothing is exact about that theory/hypothesis. It resembles a religion with unquestionable truths and dogma.

We cannot base policy on something like that. Fanciful ideas and doomsday cries.
Logged
Ljube
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,986
Political Matrix
E: 2.71, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: January 26, 2017, 08:07:02 PM »

Arch,

Quantum Theory
General Relativity
Theory of Thermodynamics
Theory of Gravity
Special Relativity
Plate Tectonics
Theory of Oxygen Combustion


have their narrow area of application.

These theories don't impact all aspects of human life. If any of them is proven wrong, or partially wrong, all they will cause is modification of a few designs and reprinting of books.

Climate change theory must be thoroughly vetted and proven by experiment using scientific method before we can accept it because it has far reaching impact on all aspects of human existence.


Do you see the difference?


Well since 4 of those things can easily kill almost any person on the earth, yeah to do impact almost all aspects of Human life.  Try different examples that don't destroy your argument before it even starts.

And as the others have said, it has been vetted and tested.  Only obtuse people like yourself want to throw out the consensus on it.


Which four? What are you talking about?

Climate Change Theory has not been tested and certainly not vetted. First of all, it has no laws which could actually be tested or vetted. Read my reply to Arch.
Logged
JerryArkansas
jerryarkansas
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,536
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: January 26, 2017, 08:54:55 PM »

Arch,

Quantum Theory
General Relativity
Theory of Thermodynamics
Theory of Gravity
Special Relativity
Plate Tectonics
Theory of Oxygen Combustion


have their narrow area of application.

These theories don't impact all aspects of human life. If any of them is proven wrong, or partially wrong, all they will cause is modification of a few designs and reprinting of books.

Climate change theory must be thoroughly vetted and proven by experiment using scientific method before we can accept it because it has far reaching impact on all aspects of human existence.


Do you see the difference?


Well since 4 of those things can easily kill almost any person on the earth, yeah to do impact almost all aspects of Human life.  Try different examples that don't destroy your argument before it even starts.

And as the others have said, it has been vetted and tested.  Only obtuse people like yourself want to throw out the consensus on it.


Which four? What are you talking about?

Climate Change Theory has not been tested and certainly not vetted. First of all, it has no laws which could actually be tested or vetted. Read my reply to Arch.

You said all of those things don't impact all aspects of human life.  Living in an earthquake zone(plate tectonics), in any place that is flammable(oxygen combustion), or any place that is not rooted on the ground(gravity) your going to be affected every day by the above theories.  However if somehow one doesn't fall into the above situations, then yeah your right, none of what you gave will affect how someone will live their life. 
Like I said, get better examples when trying to push your anti-science nonsense.
Logged
Ljube
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,986
Political Matrix
E: 2.71, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: January 26, 2017, 09:05:10 PM »
« Edited: January 26, 2017, 09:07:18 PM by Ljube »

You said all of those things don't impact all aspects of human life.  Living in an earthquake zone(plate tectonics), in any place that is flammable(oxygen combustion), or any place that is not rooted on the ground(gravity) your going to be affected every day by the above theories.  However if somehow one doesn't fall into the above situations, then yeah your right, none of what you gave will affect how someone will live their life.  
Like I said, get better examples when trying to push your anti-science nonsense.


Those are examples given by Arch, not me.

Oxygen combustion is proven and there is no dispute about it.

Gravity is a fact. Try ignoring it at your own peril. Though the law may not be settled, effects of gravity are with us throughout our lives.

Earthquakes only affect some regions and a limited number of people. It really doesn't matter if the theory on how earthquakes happen changes, because the only impact is in construction and it does not depend on the theoretical basis, but on practical experience.

If any of those theories changed, human experience about the practical effects of those theories would not change and the impact on human life would be minimal or none. Not so with the so called Climate Change Theory.

Logged
Dr. Arch
Arch
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,452
Puerto Rico


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: January 26, 2017, 09:06:02 PM »

Arch,

Quantum Theory
General Relativity
Theory of Thermodynamics
Theory of Gravity
Special Relativity
Plate Tectonics
Theory of Oxygen Combustion


have their narrow area of application.

These theories don't impact all aspects of human life. If any of them is proven wrong, or partially wrong, all they will cause is modification of a few designs and reprinting of books.

Climate change theory must be thoroughly vetted and proven by experiment using scientific method before we can accept it because it has far reaching impact on all aspects of human existence.


Do you see the difference?



Ljube,

If it is a scientific theory, as you have pointed out with the working definition that you provided, it has already been thoroughly tested with a huge consensus (98%+) from the scientific community.

You are saying it was thoroughly tested and vetted and not tested at the same time by acknowledging it as a scientific theory.

The difference is that this one has been politicized and the others haven't. Don't you see that?


It has not been tested or vetted at all. There exists no experiment that can prove or disprove the Climate Change Theory. It has been accepted by the majority in the scientific community, but give that same majority eight years of Trump and the theory will be completely discredited and forgotten.


Yes, there are more than enough experiments. Are you saying that Climate Change was declared a theory without being testable? It wouldn't even get to be a hypothesis. Go back to the definitions you claim to accept and read them again, carefully.

If the theory COULD have been discredited, a scientist would have done it already. Trust me when I tell you that any scientist would love to do so because that would earn them a place in history alongside a Nobel or two. The same goes for any of the other theories listed above.


Yes. It was declared a theory without being testable. It is not unique. There are other such theories. Dark matter and dark energy to name a few.

That's why I call it just a theory, a thought experiment and not a scientific theory, for it has no basis in reality, it is not intuitive and it cannot be tested or proven or disproven by experiment. We could also call it a hypothesis. But there are other hypotheses about the same topic. None of them has ever been proven.


It cannot be discredited because it has no shape. There are no firm laws. It consists of only broad statements. Nothing is exact about that theory/hypothesis. It resembles a religion with unquestionable truths and dogma.

We cannot base policy on something like that. Fanciful ideas and doomsday cries.


It would take too much time for me to explain exactly how a theory (and this theory) is tested, and how theories go beyond "thought experiments" because they are not what you think they are.

There is a plethora of literature out there that you can read about the subject if you truly wish to question it. Nothing in science is unquestionable, but you clearly don't understand the concepts behind the definitions you claim to accept.

You see Climate Change as something that's divorced from "real science" because it has been politicized by a political wing with which you agree. The one who's desperately clinging to dogma is you, and you are free to do so. However, you don't get to simultaneously keep any sort of credibility when you do such thing.
Logged
Ljube
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,986
Political Matrix
E: 2.71, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: January 26, 2017, 09:13:18 PM »

It would take too much time for me to explain exactly how a theory (and this theory) is tested, and how theories go beyond "thought experiments" because they are not what you think they are.

There is a plethora of literature out there that you can read about the subject if you truly wish to question it. Nothing in science is unquestionable, but you clearly don't understand the concepts behind the definitions you claim to accept.

You see Climate Change as something that's divorced from "real science" because it has been politicized by a political wing with which you agree. The one who's desperately clinging to dogma is you, and you are free to do so. However, you don't get to simultaneously keep any sort of credibility when you do such thing.


No, Arch, you are politicizing it.

I spent many months studying the Climate Change Theory in 2008. I have continued to read about it in the following years. So, unlike you, I know a bit about the subject.

Try to educate yourself before claiming that something is a tested scientific theory. Try reading about it first.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,611


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: January 26, 2017, 09:21:12 PM »

It would take too much time for me to explain exactly how a theory (and this theory) is tested, and how theories go beyond "thought experiments" because they are not what you think they are.

There is a plethora of literature out there that you can read about the subject if you truly wish to question it. Nothing in science is unquestionable, but you clearly don't understand the concepts behind the definitions you claim to accept.

You see Climate Change as something that's divorced from "real science" because it has been politicized by a political wing with which you agree. The one who's desperately clinging to dogma is you, and you are free to do so. However, you don't get to simultaneously keep any sort of credibility when you do such thing.


No, Arch, you are politicizing it.

I spent many months studying the Climate Change Theory in 2008. I have continued to read about it in the following years. So, unlike you, I know a bit about the subject.

Try to educate yourself before claiming that something is a tested scientific theory. Try reading about it first.


Richard Muller's research since then destroyed any remaining reasons to deny climate change.
Logged
Dr. Arch
Arch
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,452
Puerto Rico


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: January 26, 2017, 09:22:09 PM »
« Edited: January 26, 2017, 09:35:20 PM by Arch »

It would take too much time for me to explain exactly how a theory (and this theory) is tested, and how theories go beyond "thought experiments" because they are not what you think they are.

There is a plethora of literature out there that you can read about the subject if you truly wish to question it. Nothing in science is unquestionable, but you clearly don't understand the concepts behind the definitions you claim to accept.

You see Climate Change as something that's divorced from "real science" because it has been politicized by a political wing with which you agree. The one who's desperately clinging to dogma is you, and you are free to do so. However, you don't get to simultaneously keep any sort of credibility when you do such thing.


No, Arch, you are politicizing it.

I spent many months studying the Climate Change Theory in 2008. I have continued to read about it in the following years. So, unlike you, I know a bit about the subject.

Try to educate yourself before claiming that something is a tested scientific theory. Try reading about it first.


For someone who knows so much about it, you have not presented a single shred of evidence as to how it has not been tested. Point me towards a scientific article that you think is flawed, but claims that it exists regardless in its conclusion.

Show me something that puts you above 98% of the scientific community. Just calling it dogma means nothing because you supposedly "studied" it in 2008. SHOW US.

Also, what Jfern said above. ↑

Here's an OP-ed from Richard Muller: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html

You may also visit Berkeley Earth: http://berkeleyearth.org/

It contains articles, papers, videos, analysis, methodology, and raw data for the conclusion that:

1) Climate Change exists as a result of the green house effect
2) Human industrialization has effectively accelerated it beyond its natural progression cycle
3) Potential extinction events could take place earlier than expected if the exponential increase of the effects continue

You are welcome to debunk the data. Go ahead.
Logged
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,190
Kiribati


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: January 26, 2017, 09:36:56 PM »

Ljube, you do know not all science is done through in vivo experiments right? Your logic is seriously at "if evolution is true why has nobody seen a fish evolve into a monkey" tier.
Logged
Ljube
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,986
Political Matrix
E: 2.71, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: January 26, 2017, 09:48:31 PM »

Ljube, you do know not all science is done through in vivo experiments right? Your logic is seriously at "if evolution is true why has nobody seen a fish evolve into a monkey" tier.


That comparison is inappropriate.

Evolution is supported by a lot of empirical evidence and even experimental evidence (simpler organisms).

Again, Theory of Evolution, right or wrong, has very little practical influence on human life.
Why is it so difficult for you and the others to understand that simple fact and the stark difference between the Climate Change Theory and everything else?

Logged
Xing
xingkerui
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,303
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.52, S: -3.91

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: January 26, 2017, 09:49:56 PM »

FFS, this is not a game. If we don't address climate change seriously, MILLIONS of lives will be at stake from flooding, an increase in natural disasters, and droughts. When Bernie Sanders claimed that climate change is a moral issue, he was absolutely right. I'll say it: Ignoring climate change, or worse yet, trying to suppress information about it is morally unacceptable. Trump is endangering the entire planet, and for what? So that he can claim that he's "telling off" us lefties? Yeah, totally a good cause. I'm sure that the millions of people who either die or become refugees from global flooding will be very understanding, since pissing off liberals is totally worth f***ing over the planet. Conservatives, if there is one issue where I beg you to consider pushing back against Trump, it is climate change. This is much bigger than any of us, and denying reality for the sake of political expediency is wrong. You know that.


Nobody is trying to suppress information. Quite the opposite.

We are no longer going to allow domination of only one school of thought, suppressing the dissenting voices. There will no longer be an official truth. A dogma imposed on everybody at the pain of social exclusion.



Provable facts are not dogma. I can't claim that 2+2=5 is just as valid of a school of thought as 2+2=4, and accuse people of saying otherwise of dominating the narrative with dogma. Among those who have studied climate science, there is no debate. The debate is on how severe climate change will  be, which is partially contingent on the choices we make.

We can debate how to address climate change, which policies are the most effective, and how to prepare for the impact of it. What we should not be debating are scientific facts, which do not change based on how we feel or which political party believes them to be true. The reality of climate change is not contingent upon what Donald Trump claims about it.
Logged
Ljube
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,986
Political Matrix
E: 2.71, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: January 26, 2017, 09:58:46 PM »

FFS, this is not a game. If we don't address climate change seriously, MILLIONS of lives will be at stake from flooding, an increase in natural disasters, and droughts. When Bernie Sanders claimed that climate change is a moral issue, he was absolutely right. I'll say it: Ignoring climate change, or worse yet, trying to suppress information about it is morally unacceptable. Trump is endangering the entire planet, and for what? So that he can claim that he's "telling off" us lefties? Yeah, totally a good cause. I'm sure that the millions of people who either die or become refugees from global flooding will be very understanding, since pissing off liberals is totally worth f***ing over the planet. Conservatives, if there is one issue where I beg you to consider pushing back against Trump, it is climate change. This is much bigger than any of us, and denying reality for the sake of political expediency is wrong. You know that.


Nobody is trying to suppress information. Quite the opposite.

We are no longer going to allow domination of only one school of thought, suppressing the dissenting voices. There will no longer be an official truth. A dogma imposed on everybody at the pain of social exclusion.



Provable facts are not dogma. I can't claim that 2+2=5 is just as valid of a school of thought as 2+2=4, and accuse people of saying otherwise of dominating the narrative with dogma. Among those who have studied climate science, there is no debate. The debate is on how severe climate change will  be, which is partially contingent on the choices we make.

We can debate how to address climate change, which policies are the most effective, and how to prepare for the impact of it. What we should not be debating are scientific facts, which do not change based on how we feel or which political party believes them to be true. The reality of climate change is not contingent upon what Donald Trump claims about it.


It is not provable. You are completely dogmatized.


Let me quote from one of the articles provided by Arch:


How definite is the attribution to humans? The carbon dioxide curve gives a better match than anything else we’ve tried. Its magnitude is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect — extra warming from trapped heat radiation. These facts don’t prove causality and they shouldn’t end skepticism, but they raise the bar: to be considered seriously, an alternative explanation must match the data at least as well as carbon dioxide does. Adding methane, a second greenhouse gas, to our analysis doesn’t change the results. Moreover, our analysis does not depend on large, complex global climate models, the huge computer programs that are notorious for their hidden assumptions and adjustable parameters. Our result is based simply on the close agreement between the shape of the observed temperature rise and the known greenhouse gas increase.



As you can see, even the scientist proposed by Arch cannot prove any of that. He has not been able to devise an experiment that would prove causation. The most he can claim is correlation and then challenge everybody else to come up with a better correlation.

I am sorry, but that's not science.
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,248


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: January 26, 2017, 09:59:59 PM »

There's no such thing as "proving" something in science. What you just quoted is how scientific articles are written when they've hit upon a strong, working theory.
Logged
Dr. Arch
Arch
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,452
Puerto Rico


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: January 26, 2017, 10:08:50 PM »

There's no such thing as "proving" something in science. What you just quoted is how scientific articles are written when they've hit upon a strong, working theory.

Exactly. If anything, Ljube just proved my point. The correlations strongly indicate that it is due to human activity since no other plausible variable factors change the outcome of the experiment, including the addition of methane effects.

The analysis that Ljube just quoted is based on the data, and it is extrapolated from multiple computer models as well as human calculations.
Logged
Ljube
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,986
Political Matrix
E: 2.71, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: January 26, 2017, 10:10:26 PM »

There's no such thing as "proving" something in science. What you just quoted is how scientific articles are written when they've hit upon a strong, working theory.


You are wrong. Of course things can be proved in science. In order for a working theory to be anything more than that, there have to be experiments that would try to disprove it, or show that it cannot be disproved.

By the way, the working theory only makes claims that there has been an increase in the temperature in recent years and that there is a strong correlation between the rise of temperature and the increase of CO2 content.

It does not say how much the temperature will rise if CO2 content further increases by a certain amount. If it could make such a claim, that could be a way to gather additional evidence about the theory. But it does not give us that opportunity.
Logged
Ljube
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,986
Political Matrix
E: 2.71, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: January 26, 2017, 10:17:53 PM »

There's no such thing as "proving" something in science. What you just quoted is how scientific articles are written when they've hit upon a strong, working theory.

Exactly. If anything, Ljube just proved my point. The correlations strongly indicate that it is due to human activity since no other plausible variable factors change the outcome of the experiment, including the addition of methane effects.

The analysis that Ljube just quoted is based on the data, and it is extrapolated from multiple computer models as well as human calculations.


Arch, no other plausible variable factors based on observations of that scientists, or currently known to the scientific community, or currently suspected to have influence.

It does not indicate that it is due to human activity. It is only strongly correlated with the historical data on CO2 content increase.

Extrapolation is not a valid scientific technique.


Arch, answer a question for me please. What is/are the postulate/s of the Climate Change Theory?
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.076 seconds with 12 queries.