Harrekin
Well-Known Member
ACC is NOT a scientific theory, as much as you'd like it to be.
US college professor demands imprisonment for climate-change deniers
- Thread starter squarepush3r
- Start date
- Status
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
It either is or it isn't, "as much" has no meaning in this context
Beefbisquit
Well-Known Member
Doer
Well-Known Member
Scientific theory has a real definition, not a common lingo reference.
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method, and repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation.
http://ncse.com/evolution/education/definitions-fact-theory-law-scientific-work
When that unassailable, by you in private, hypothesis set, withstands reasoned debate by ALL your peers. Then you have a Theory of Climate.
However, if you have to sue and scream to silence your critics, your hypothesis is crap
because you really don't have all the Facts.
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method, and repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation.
http://ncse.com/evolution/education/definitions-fact-theory-law-scientific-work
- October 17th, 2008
- Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.
- Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, the hypothesis is provisionally corroborated. If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis is proved false and must be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.
- Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.
- Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.
When that unassailable, by you in private, hypothesis set, withstands reasoned debate by ALL your peers. Then you have a Theory of Climate.
However, if you have to sue and scream to silence your critics, your hypothesis is crap
because you really don't have all the Facts.
Last edited:
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
a theory is a proposed solution to the questions raised by observations, and supported by experimentation or the evidence.
ACC is a CONCLUSION based on hypotheses, lacking any substantial experimental evidence and unsupported by the observations.
the "experts" at the IPCC have stravaged around from "almost all" to "most" to "maybe 50%" of the observed warming MAY be caused by human action, but their hypothesis cannot explain previous warming trends found in the observation data, nor can they explain the latest cooling trends, nor can they demonstrate convincing "anthopogenicness" for the previous warming trends previously observed, not even for the "Maybe 50%" of the 2 degrees F (thats 1 degree F for the mathematically disinclined) observed over the last 100 years.
they cant even conclusively demonstrate that the "warming" they observed was not an artifact of MORE DATA creating more noise.
the few long term temp records available, dating back centuries, are from nautical navigation observations, and those dont demonstrate any conclusive warming of the seas outside the margin of error for the old instruments used.
the conclusion is largely unsupported, the hysteria is absolutely bullshit.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
in that context "as much as you'd like it to be." should be read as "despite your personal desire to defend this unsupportable hasty conclusion."
it wasnt that difficult a phrase to parse.
Beefbisquit
Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
scientific theory - a theory that explains scientific observations; "scientific theories must be falsifiable"
ACC is a scientific theory based on verifiable evidence and observation
You've already demonstrated you don't understand or accept basic scientific principles, so what would make you think you would have a better understanding on science than professional scientists? Do you go to MLB games and insist on pitching?
It's conclusive enough for 100% of science academies and 97% of published climate scientists to accept
The debate only exists among the scientifically illiterate and the controversy you continuously attempt to portray is completely fabricated. There's not a credible scientist on Earth who denies ACC, the only things you have to offer, as have been shown, are biased researchers with financial conflicts of interest like the NIPCC and the Heartland Institute, we have thousands of published scientists, decades of research, and verifiable evidence
The conclusion is universally supported
Canna Sylvan
Well-Known Member
Paddy,
Wrong. ACC is a conclusion and therefore the next step is a proposal to suckers like yourself so government will tax us more. When those who want you to believe get their funding through taxes, that source tends to be biased.
Wrong. ACC is a conclusion and therefore the next step is a proposal to suckers like yourself so government will tax us more. When those who want you to believe get their funding through taxes, that source tends to be biased.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
ACC is a scientific theory, just like the theory of evolution, just like germ theory, game theory, cell theory, etc.
The taxes the government has proposed are tax credits to go green and transition to renewable energy sources. Can you identify even a single tax imposition of not going green? Jesus, these scientists must be rolling in wealth! Not like their energy corporation counterparts, who we all know are riding the poverty line...
Canna Sylvan
Well-Known Member
Beverage redemption companies, electronics recycling, and smog centers sure like the "theory" of ACC. Otherwise they'd go out of business.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
So that's a no, you can't identify even a single tax imposition of not going green
Doer
Well-Known Member
Oh no you don't, Philo. You have no idea.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
so despite the facts you insist on repeating the insupportable conclusion.
while it is true that "change" in the climate is recognized by every scientific academy, that recognized warming's "anthropogenicness" is the issue at hand.
there is no "consensus" that human action HAS caused any warming, merely the hypothesis that SOME of that warming MAY be due to human actions.
the much vaunted 2 degree increase in overall global temps is currently claimed to be "Maybe 50%" caused by human action, but this is an assertion NOT based in experimentation. this assertion is claimed because the grand scale of human actions could logically be assumed to have SOME eefect on the global climate, the argument remains, as always "HOW MUCH?"
you continue to overlook the simple fact that, even if we grant the assumption that "Maybe 50%" of the observed warming is caused by human industry, THE OTHER ~50% is natural.
between the milencovic cycles, regular variations in solar radiation, the long established 100% NON-ANTHROPOGENIC glacial cycle, warming on mars, and the untestable nature of the "Anthropogenic Climate Change" claims, your position is shaky at best.
thats why your defenses of this untestable conclusion based on hypothesis, with very little evidence and no experimentation is shrill, and emotional.
screaming, crying and claiming i dont accept scientific theories is just distraction from the weakness of your own position.
Doer
Well-Known Member
What@!!!! Ethanol subsidy is not from our tax? Restriction of light bulbs and toilet repurchase are not enforced by our taxes?
Carbon Credit is not carbon tax?
Wake up! I can't even get grocery bags in this state.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/key-elements/environment/what-is.cfm
Green Tax.
Direct taxes on emissions are economically efficient because they give polluters an incentive to reduce their pollution up to the point where further reduction would cost more than paying the tax, and to do so in the least costly way.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
taxes continue to rise, reducing the increases for some, based on acceptance of "voluntary" requirements is EXACTLY THE SAME as laying a higher tax on non-compliant companies, it just looks better to fools who see this distinction without difference as a good thing.
the application of a few tax cuts for those who comply with eco-loony demands in effect imposes a higher tax on those who decline the invitation to "Greenwash" their operations.
if there were say, a 20% tax increase for all businesses, but "Minority Owned" businesses got a 20% tax cut, the result is exactly the same as a 20% tax hike on "White Owned" businesses, but idiots would not see it for what it is and of course it wouldnt be racist.
the reverse application would of course totally be racist.
do try to be less facile.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
those words
they dont mean what you think they mean.
ACC is a "conclusion" but it is a political one, not scientific, why you insist on variously calling it a Theory a Conclusion and a Fact simply demonstrates that you dont have a grasp of the question, much less the answer.
"universally" is just wrong. if it was "universal" there would be no argument, and "Greenwashing" would be mandated by law.
i'm not sure if you even got the word "Supported" right, since your position remains murky.
normally "The" and "Is" are free, even in league play, but your claims are as tortured as any crafted by Clinton, so i wont even accept those words at face value.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Actually, that's exactly what the accepted scientific consensus says
There is no argument in science, only in politics, and you are putting all your eggs in the basket of the Heartland Institute
Science doesn't work based on assumptions, perhaps that's your problem
That's why 100% of national science academies and 97% of climate scientists accept ACC, huh?
Highlighting the fact you dismiss universally accepted scientific theories illustrates your incompetence when it comes to all things scientific. Admitting you don't accept these things says more about you than science
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
ACC is a scientific theory that reaches specific conclusions that are based on observations
Why is that so difficult for you to grasp?
LOL thanks for admitting it is universal, there is no argument among scientists, only pundits, politicians and pinheads
- Status