Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Have the climate change promoters ever used the actual scientific method?

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?


TOPICS: Science; Weather
KEYWORDS: answerisobviouslyno; climatechange; climatechangehoax; cop26; globalwarming; globalwarminghoax; greennewdeal; newbievanity; no; noobvanity; panicporn; theanswerisno; vanity
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-56 next last

1 posted on 07/16/2024 10:15:24 PM PDT by pigeoninthepark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: pigeoninthepark

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.


2 posted on 07/16/2024 10:25:19 PM PDT by monkeyshine (live and let live is dead)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pigeoninthepark

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 .


3 posted on 07/16/2024 10:27:12 PM PDT by Nateman (Democrats did not strive for fraud friendly voting merely to continue honest elections.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: monkeyshine

Precisely. It really isn’t very scientific, and can’t be, without experimentation.


4 posted on 07/16/2024 10:27:34 PM PDT by buwaya (Strategic imperatives )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: pigeoninthepark

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.


5 posted on 07/16/2024 10:28:17 PM PDT by FredSchwartz (What ever happened to common sense and simple logic?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pigeoninthepark
Step 5 says "Analyze Your Data" it doesn't say,
"fudge your data" or "cherry pick your data" or
just plain make stuff up (models) but that's
what's going on.
6 posted on 07/16/2024 10:29:41 PM PDT by StACase ("The Climate Crisis" is a text book example of "The Big Lie")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pigeoninthepark

Leave my CO2 alone! I like my soda with lots of CO2, more the merrier. /s


7 posted on 07/16/2024 10:31:08 PM PDT by Reno89519 (Trump / Vance 2024 - Make America Great Again)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pigeoninthepark

Never...
Facts & scientific analyses would screw up the whole essential propaganda campaign for the communists who, now, rule us...


8 posted on 07/16/2024 10:56:43 PM PDT by SuperLuminal ( Where is Samuel Adams when we so desperately need him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pigeoninthepark

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.


9 posted on 07/16/2024 11:04:41 PM PDT by metmom (He who testifies to these things says, “Surely I am coming soon.” Amen. Come, Lord Jesus…)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pigeoninthepark

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.


10 posted on 07/16/2024 11:06:15 PM PDT by webheart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nateman

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.


11 posted on 07/16/2024 11:06:26 PM PDT by metmom (He who testifies to these things says, “Surely I am coming soon.” Amen. Come, Lord Jesus…)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: metmom
1. More rain is not a problem.
2. Warmer weather is not a problem.
3. More arable land is not a problem.
4. Longer growing seasons is not a problem.
5. CO2 greening of the earth is not a problem.
6. There isn't any Climate Crisis.
12 posted on 07/16/2024 11:27:00 PM PDT by StACase ("The Climate Crisis" is a text book example of "The Big Lie")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: pigeoninthepark
1. Ask a Question What does it take to show a warming trend?

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?

13 posted on 07/16/2024 11:32:04 PM PDT by John Robinson (🍺)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pigeoninthepark
Amendment 28

     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.

14 posted on 07/16/2024 11:35:19 PM PDT by StACase ("The Climate Crisis" is a text book example of "The Big Lie")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: StACase

bttt


15 posted on 07/16/2024 11:38:37 PM PDT by timestax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: monkeyshine

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.”


16 posted on 07/16/2024 11:47:11 PM PDT by phil00071
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: pigeoninthepark

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.


17 posted on 07/16/2024 11:49:31 PM PDT by John Robinson (🍺)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John Robinson

** I mean climate research at all, not just the idea of warming (or cooling.)


18 posted on 07/16/2024 11:51:53 PM PDT by John Robinson (🍺)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: pigeoninthepark; monkeyshine; buwaya; webheart; John Robinson
Turn a blank sheet of paper sideways. On the left write “weather event” in small letters, draw a circle around the words, and then draw a small arrow pointing to the right side. On the far right, write the words "manmade climate change” in small letters, draw a circle around the words, and then draw a small arrow pointing to the circle.

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.

19 posted on 07/16/2024 11:52:17 PM PDT by Retain Mike ( Sat Cong)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pigeoninthepark

Of course not. This isn’t about science.


20 posted on 07/17/2024 12:29:07 AM PDT by ComputerGuy (Heavily-medicated for your protection)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-56 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson