Posted on 07/16/2024 10:15:24 PM PDT by pigeoninthepark
So I was thinking recently about how the man-made climate change promoters discuss the topic like a proven fact on the scientific level. I then remembered what the scientific method involves:
1. Ask a Question 2. Do Background Research 3. Construct a Hypothesis 4. Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment 5. Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion 6. Communicate Your Results
Notice step 4: "Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment"
Has this ever been done? Every time I see this topic pushed around as fact, I never ever hear about tests on any scale being done to back up their argument. Obviously we cannot make a perfect replica of the earth on any scale, but I have never even heard of one test done in a lab, or some greenhouse experiment using plants, lights and carbon, or even some computer simulation. Maybe I am wrong and there have been tests done, but if so then why have I never heard of these?
It can’t be done. There is only one earth. There is no control earth to test it with. They cannot account for or control the many variables. They cannot go backwards or forwards in time.
In a way the experiment has been done. In commercial Greenhouses there are devices which generate CO2. It helps the plants grow faster. In fact because of the man made release of CO2 the World has actually become greener .
Precisely. It really isn’t very scientific, and can’t be, without experimentation.
They always say the temperature is going up (or down in the 70’s). Here’s a simple question: Ask them what the temperature should be. They don’t have a number.
Leave my CO2 alone! I like my soda with lots of CO2, more the merrier. /s
Never...
Facts & scientific analyses would screw up the whole essential propaganda campaign for the communists who, now, rule us...
No, because it can’t be done. There is no way to account for all the variables and no lab to set up and repeat any experiments in.
They use computer models as their experiments. Nobody understands what they program in or what variables or values they plug in because it’s so complicated, and being unable to dispute the results they accept them. The computer models or simulations serve as the step 4.
Warmer = longer growing season, lower home heating costs, and likely less snow to shovel, depending on where you are.
I keep trying to find a downside.
2. Do Background Research ***cherry picking***
3. Construct a Hypothesis Some BS about cow farts, etc.
4. Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment Push a fake study to some low-tier rags, gauge response.
5. Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion ***cherry picking intensifies***
6. Communicate Your Results Hello WaPo/NYT/ABC/CBS/NPR/UN
Right?
Section 1
Congress shall make no law to regulate,
tax, sequester or license atmospheric
carbon dioxide.
The right of the people to freely emit
carbon dioxide into the atmosphere from
any source, from any place at any time
in any amount shall not be interfered with.
Section 2
All activity commercial or private within
the United States and all territory subject
to the jurisdiction thereof for the purposes
of altering climate is prohibited.
The Congress and the several States shall
have concurrent power to enforce this article
by appropriate legislation.
bttt
I’ve done computer modeling to make forecasts and to analyze trend data. It’s like watching sausages being made. Very few people understand what computer models are, how they are constructed, and how they are used to make “predictions.”
In all seriousness, it’s an incredibly frustrating subject to research because of baked-in political agendas and, most critically, scientific self-censorship. Going against the “scientific” narrative is catastrophic for your reputation, research, and career. This has always been a problem, fwiw. But there are some mavericks out there, I just don’t remember how to find them at the moment, ‘lest I link. Prevailing alternative theories generally seem to revolve around various long cycles, and of course our hot little star up there in the blue (solar winds.) Speaking of solar winds, which are a key element to cloud formation, one curious matter is that science doesn’t quite understand cloud effect and climate. You’d think we might want to tackle that before we pronounce the cows must go.
** I mean climate research at all, not just the idea of warming (or cooling.)
Is there not a large blank space in the middle? Do you ever see a story which fills in this area? Do you ever read a story that uses words like sun and ocean? Their models are no more than mathematical political rhetoric belong within the right-hand circle.
I will submit there is no evidence of man-made global warming because no adherent to the popular mythology will acknowledge the existence of the sun and oceans. All I have ever seen are comments on weather events or physical phenomenon involving temperature followed by an assertion global warming is the cause. In the hard sciences of Math and Physics, the earth’s climate is known as an open system, meaning all influencers are probabilistic and not deterministic. Any assertions must be less than certain, but we are always treated to infallibility statements like those for the boiling point of water. Such reasoning requires a complete disconnect between events and conclusions, and is no more rigorous than Middle Age alchemy.
I have yet to find any article which attempts to measure the influence of the sun and ocean and then ascribe an increment to human activity. It was only since the late 70’s that it was possible to attempt to confirm changes in the sun’s radiance independent of earth. Without a rigorous solution involving those two enormous engines, models created provide outcomes no more elegant than what is left behind when a brand new puppy is turned loose in a house decorated with white carpets and white furniture.
Even before that time any true scientist would have said data collected could not be analyzed, because people had known for centuries the sun was a variable star and it was not possible to separate influences for any mathematical computations. Now that it is possible to separate the influence of the sun but not the oceans, the analysis of such a complicated interaction is still highly problematic. Therefore, political rhetoric must be substituted for application of the scientific method.
Of course not. This isn’t about science.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.