Get the vision care news and information you need in the AARP Eye Center.

Reply
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
242
Views

Re: Why Climatology is Junk Science

242 Views
Message 61 of 82

@aruzinsky wrote:Wrong again, there is plenty of proof that you continue to try to ignore with your junk science.  Since there is proof the climate is changing at an incredibly fast rate, by your own claims, wouldn't the next experiment to run be for man to stop polluting and see what effect that has?

Such an "incredibly fast rate" that it isn't credible.  How many shoes do you own?


There are a variety of ways of describing the rate at which the climate is changing. I prefer the fact that the last time the climate changed this quickly was after the "dinosaur killer" meteor hit in the ocean off the Yucatan  peninsula. 

 

I think correlating the impact of mankind's introduction of greenhouse gasses into the environment with an extinction level event is pretty telling of how serious this is. 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
242
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
239
Views

Re: Why Climatology is Junk Science

239 Views
Message 62 of 82

@aruzinsky wrote:






Such an "incredibly fast rate" that it isn't credible.  How many shoes do you own?


Boy how can anybody argue with such a scientifically based argument?  Maybe by asking how much medication you are on since you have actually kept copies of your posts to somehow try to prove something.

 

The speed of change is on a human scale, not a geological one.  I have asked you about it before and you have yet to be able to explain it.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
239
Views
Trusted Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
225
Views

Re: Why Climatology is Junk Science

225 Views
Message 63 of 82

@sp362 wrote:

@aruzinsky wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@jimc91 wrote:

@aruzinsky wrote:

Climatology is junk science because climatologists rarely use the scientific method.  See

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

 

"It involves formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations; experimental and measurement-based testing of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings. "

 

Notice that experiments are a necessary part of the scientific method. An experiment is an empirical confirmation of hypothesis, i.e., a reality check. The few experiments that climatologists perform are usually computer simulations for which it take decades to evaluate the results.

 

Usually, publication processes in climatology are represented by the following steps:

 

1. Form a hypothesis
2.Make observations
3.Analyze and interpret data
4.Draw conclusions
5.Publish results
Scientists , send in the paper for peer review,  and then those peers determine whether the information is correct and valuable enough to be published in an academic journal.

 

Since the above process does not include experimentation, the process is entirely governed by peer politics rather than empirical confirmation.

 

Furthermore, the only employment opportunities for climatologists are in academia and government. Corporations do not hire climatologists.  Thus, climatology is heavily governed by government politics.

 


@aruzinsky , I pointed this very fact several years ago on this board.  

 

What you posted is exactly accurate, as I discovered in my study at that time.  

 

Climate change has become a religion practiced by the left that seems only interested in redistributing the wealth of the westernized countries.  Look at the environment in the US today and outside of some very unique areas we have clean air and water.  I quit wasting my time with the folks that refuse to actually look at the techniques the "Paid for" so called scientist base their reporting on.

 

 

 


You do realize that all you and aruzinsky have done is use actual junk science to try to back up your claims?  To prove me wrong, why don't you post a link to an actual scientific study that says climate change is not happening and we can discuss it.  Let me guess, "you are not going to do any research for me". In other words, you have nothing to back up your position.

By the way, who is paying for your position and does that sound something like the old tobacco doctors?


The null hypothesis is that there is not enough man made climate change to be a problem.  Since it costs me no money or effort to believe in the null hypothesis, you will have to disprove the null hypothesis before I take action.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis

 

It is not incumbent upon me to disprove anything to do nothing. 

 


Wrong again, there is plenty of proof that you continue to try to ignore with your junk science.  Since there is proof the climate is changing at an incredibly fast rate, by your own claims, wouldn't the next experiment to run be for man to stop polluting and see what effect that has?


Such an "incredibly fast rate" that it isn't credible.  How many shoes do you own?

Old Witch
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
225
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
224
Views

Re: Why Climatology is Junk Science

224 Views
Message 64 of 82

@aruzinsky wrote:

@Richva wrote:

@aruzinsky wrote:

The null hypothesis is that there is not enough man made climate change to be a problem.  Since it costs me no money or effort to believe in the null hypothesis, you will have to disprove the null hypothesis before I take action.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis

 

It is not incumbent upon me to disprove anything to do nothing. 

 


Exactly right.  The scientific method requires that one propose a hypothesis and then collect facts to see if they support or disprove the hypothesis. Since we only have one earth and one climate, we can't very well experiment but we CAN predict the impact of man's introduction of massive amounts of greenhouse gasses into the environment. So far, the models have been very close to the actual impact. 

 

Deniers need do nothing as inaction is a form of acceptance for the hypothesis. A more proactive approach would be to collect observations and facts which do not support the hypothesis. So far, there have been none. 


"Models" is plural and therein lies the lack of "proof."  Proof requires one model.  Opinion polls of climatologists isn't proof of anything.  Nobody takes opinion polls of electrical engineers because they produce tangible results.

 

"So far, the models have been very close to the actual impact. "  What impact?  I am unaware of any impact and, I know, as fact, that the climate of where I live has been getting colder.

 


One of the issues the climate deniers have is one of scale.  They confuse weather with climate. The temperature of the earth has increased "only" 1.33 Degrees F. but it is a BIG planet and that is a LOT of energy. It changes local climate patterns, melts glaciers, raises sea levels, increases the strength of hurricanes and other weather phenomena.

 

If you are expecting the snow to melt faster on your roof because of climate change, you are going to be disappointed. If you are expecting the Navy to have to refurbish the Norfolk naval yards because of rising seas, that is your onion.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
224
Views
Trusted Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
223
Views

Re: Why Climatology is Junk Science

223 Views
Message 65 of 82

@Richva wrote:

@aruzinsky wrote:

The null hypothesis is that there is not enough man made climate change to be a problem.  Since it costs me no money or effort to believe in the null hypothesis, you will have to disprove the null hypothesis before I take action.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis

 

It is not incumbent upon me to disprove anything to do nothing. 

 


Exactly right.  The scientific method requires that one propose a hypothesis and then collect facts to see if they support or disprove the hypothesis. Since we only have one earth and one climate, we can't very well experiment but we CAN predict the impact of man's introduction of massive amounts of greenhouse gasses into the environment. So far, the models have been very close to the actual impact. 

 

Deniers need do nothing as inaction is a form of acceptance for the hypothesis. A more proactive approach would be to collect observations and facts which do not support the hypothesis. So far, there have been none. 


"Models" is plural and therein lies the lack of "proof."  Proof requires one model.  Opinion polls of climatologists isn't proof of anything.  Nobody takes opinion polls of electrical engineers because they produce tangible results.

 

"So far, the models have been very close to the actual impact. "  What impact?  I am unaware of any impact and, I know, as fact, that the climate of where I live has been getting colder.

 

Old Witch
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
223
Views
Trusted Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
231
Views

Re: Why Climatology is Junk Science

231 Views
Message 66 of 82

Olderscout:  Wonder if they hold the same view with astrophysics? Is the effect of time-space on the movement of planets a sham because we cannot devise an experiment that alters the movement of planets?

 

 

 

Too complicated. It would be easier to deny that gravity exists and and then step off a cliff to prove it.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
231
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
222
Views

Re: Why Climatology is Junk Science

222 Views
Message 67 of 82

@aruzinsky wrote:

The null hypothesis is that there is not enough man made climate change to be a problem.  Since it costs me no money or effort to believe in the null hypothesis, you will have to disprove the null hypothesis before I take action.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis

 

It is not incumbent upon me to disprove anything to do nothing. 

 


Exactly right.  The scientific method requires that one propose a hypothesis and then collect facts to see if they support or disprove the hypothesis. Since we only have one earth and one climate, we can't very well experiment but we CAN predict the impact of man's introduction of massive amounts of greenhouse gasses into the environment. So far, the models have been very close to the actual impact. 

 

Deniers need do nothing as inaction is a form of acceptance for the hypothesis. A more proactive approach would be to collect observations and facts which do not support the hypothesis. So far, there have been none. 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
222
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
231
Views

Re: Why Climatology is Junk Science

231 Views
Message 68 of 82

@aruzinsky wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@jimc91 wrote:

@aruzinsky wrote:

Climatology is junk science because climatologists rarely use the scientific method.  See

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

 

"It involves formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations; experimental and measurement-based testing of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings. "

 

Notice that experiments are a necessary part of the scientific method. An experiment is an empirical confirmation of hypothesis, i.e., a reality check. The few experiments that climatologists perform are usually computer simulations for which it take decades to evaluate the results.

 

Usually, publication processes in climatology are represented by the following steps:

 

1. Form a hypothesis
2.Make observations
3.Analyze and interpret data
4.Draw conclusions
5.Publish results
Scientists , send in the paper for peer review,  and then those peers determine whether the information is correct and valuable enough to be published in an academic journal.

 

Since the above process does not include experimentation, the process is entirely governed by peer politics rather than empirical confirmation.

 

Furthermore, the only employment opportunities for climatologists are in academia and government. Corporations do not hire climatologists.  Thus, climatology is heavily governed by government politics.

 


@aruzinsky , I pointed this very fact several years ago on this board.  

 

What you posted is exactly accurate, as I discovered in my study at that time.  

 

Climate change has become a religion practiced by the left that seems only interested in redistributing the wealth of the westernized countries.  Look at the environment in the US today and outside of some very unique areas we have clean air and water.  I quit wasting my time with the folks that refuse to actually look at the techniques the "Paid for" so called scientist base their reporting on.

 

 

 


You do realize that all you and aruzinsky have done is use actual junk science to try to back up your claims?  To prove me wrong, why don't you post a link to an actual scientific study that says climate change is not happening and we can discuss it.  Let me guess, "you are not going to do any research for me". In other words, you have nothing to back up your position.

By the way, who is paying for your position and does that sound something like the old tobacco doctors?


The null hypothesis is that there is not enough man made climate change to be a problem.  Since it costs me no money or effort to believe in the null hypothesis, you will have to disprove the null hypothesis before I take action.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis

 

It is not incumbent upon me to disprove anything to do nothing. 

 


Wrong again, there is plenty of proof that you continue to try to ignore with your junk science.  Since there is proof the climate is changing at an incredibly fast rate, by your own claims, wouldn't the next experiment to run be for man to stop polluting and see what effect that has?

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
231
Views
Trusted Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
245
Views

Re: Why Climatology is Junk Science

245 Views
Message 69 of 82

@sp362 wrote:

@jimc91 wrote:

@aruzinsky wrote:

Climatology is junk science because climatologists rarely use the scientific method.  See

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

 

"It involves formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations; experimental and measurement-based testing of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings. "

 

Notice that experiments are a necessary part of the scientific method. An experiment is an empirical confirmation of hypothesis, i.e., a reality check. The few experiments that climatologists perform are usually computer simulations for which it take decades to evaluate the results.

 

Usually, publication processes in climatology are represented by the following steps:

 

1. Form a hypothesis
2.Make observations
3.Analyze and interpret data
4.Draw conclusions
5.Publish results
Scientists , send in the paper for peer review,  and then those peers determine whether the information is correct and valuable enough to be published in an academic journal.

 

Since the above process does not include experimentation, the process is entirely governed by peer politics rather than empirical confirmation.

 

Furthermore, the only employment opportunities for climatologists are in academia and government. Corporations do not hire climatologists.  Thus, climatology is heavily governed by government politics.

 


@aruzinsky , I pointed this very fact several years ago on this board.  

 

What you posted is exactly accurate, as I discovered in my study at that time.  

 

Climate change has become a religion practiced by the left that seems only interested in redistributing the wealth of the westernized countries.  Look at the environment in the US today and outside of some very unique areas we have clean air and water.  I quit wasting my time with the folks that refuse to actually look at the techniques the "Paid for" so called scientist base their reporting on.

 

 

 


You do realize that all you and aruzinsky have done is use actual junk science to try to back up your claims?  To prove me wrong, why don't you post a link to an actual scientific study that says climate change is not happening and we can discuss it.  Let me guess, "you are not going to do any research for me". In other words, you have nothing to back up your position.

By the way, who is paying for your position and does that sound something like the old tobacco doctors?


The null hypothesis is that there is not enough man made climate change to be a problem.  Since it costs me no money or effort to believe in the null hypothesis, you will have to disprove the null hypothesis before I take action.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis

 

It is not incumbent upon me to disprove anything to do nothing. 

 

Old Witch
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
245
Views
Trusted Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
243
Views

Re: Why Climatology is Junk Science

243 Views
Message 70 of 82

@jimc91 wrote:

@aruzinsky wrote:

Climatology is junk science because climatologists rarely use the scientific method.  See

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

 

"It involves formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations; experimental and measurement-based testing of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings. "

 

Notice that experiments are a necessary part of the scientific method. An experiment is an empirical confirmation of hypothesis, i.e., a reality check. The few experiments that climatologists perform are usually computer simulations for which it take decades to evaluate the results.

 

Usually, publication processes in climatology are represented by the following steps:

 

1. Form a hypothesis
2.Make observations
3.Analyze and interpret data
4.Draw conclusions
5.Publish results
Scientists , send in the paper for peer review,  and then those peers determine whether the information is correct and valuable enough to be published in an academic journal.

 

Since the above process does not include experimentation, the process is entirely governed by peer politics rather than empirical confirmation.

 

Furthermore, the only employment opportunities for climatologists are in academia and government. Corporations do not hire climatologists.  Thus, climatology is heavily governed by government politics.

 


@aruzinsky , I pointed this very fact several years ago on this board.  

 

What you posted is exactly accurate, as I discovered in my study at that time.  

 

Climate change has become a religion practiced by the left that seems only interested in redistributing the wealth of the westernized countries.  Look at the environment in the US today and outside of some very unique areas we have clean air and water.  I quit wasting my time with the folks that refuse to actually look at the techniques the "Paid for" so called scientist base their reporting on.


Can you supply a link?

 

I heard a different theory about why neoMarkists promote belief in climate change: they want to use climate change as an excuse for World government, which started with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).  This theory is also consistent with neoMarksists' disrespect of borders. World government = no borders

 

If I were Trump, I would stop all government funding of climatology.  Make some climatologists get jobs at McDonalds.

 

Old Witch
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
243
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Open Enrollment: Oct 15-Dec 7, 2019 Find resources to help you decide on the best healthcare insurance plans for you during Open Enrollment season

Top Authors