Posted on 03/20/2021 4:27:16 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Karl Popper, one of the 20th century's most influential philosophers of science, argued against classical inductivist reasoning in science. He argued that a scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable -- similar to the statistician's practice of proving the null case rather than the hypotheses itself.
Questioning the claim of human-made climate change, I am often dismissed as a "denier" and asked why I don't accept that in this particular arena, "the science is settled."
But anthropogenic global warming (AGW) a.k.a. "climate change" isn't science at all by Popper's standards and is, in fact, a perfect example of that which Popper rejected: pseudoscience founded on an unproved assertion that CO2-drives global warming, conveniently lacking any means of falsification, which has led to the widespread erroneous belief that Earth is warming (only on the computer models), that CO2 is the driver of that warming (occasional correlation, definitely not cause), that computer models can substitute for actual temperature readings (making the data match the theory, i.e., Kierkegaard's "covetous eye on the outcome") and that we presently have a climate crisis to deal with.
To quote Voltaire: "If anyone can make you believe an absurdity, they can make you commit a tragedy." It is indeed tragic that public information, public education, public funds, and energy policy are all informed by an unscientific claim disguised in the garb of science that has -- to date -- been neither proved nor falsified. In truth, it isn't science but agenda-driven environmental zealotry, fostered by politicized junk science with an incredible history of failed predictions that should be setting off human BS detectors across the globe.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Been saying this for twenty years. Welcome to the party guy.
Every Freeper sour read Karl Popper.
This should be easy to confirm or refute. What percentage of our atmosphere is comprised of CO2 and how much higher is it compared to centuries past?
RE: how much higher is it compared to centuries past?
How accurately have scientists in the past measured and kept CO2 data levels?
Excellent question. If they’re going to blame it on CO2 levels, they must have some idea.
But...what about Mr. Popper’s penguins?
CO2 based global warming is BS. Its the physical chemistry stupid!
Ice cores record CO2 levels accurately. The records are there.
And, what are other CO2 sources besides merely mankind’s activity.
Earth Axis tilts slightly away from sun
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3877075/posts
Earth Enters Unknown as Magnetic North Pole Continues Push Toward Russia, Crosses Greenwich Meridian
Sputniknews.com ^ | 15:08 13.12.2019 (updated 15:42 13.12.2019) | Staff
posted in the Free Republic Aggregate conservative news site
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3800727/posts
South Pole Reports
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3936325/posts
Posted on 12/13/2019, 4:22:18 PM by Red Badger
Earlier this year, US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the British Geological Survey (BGS) were forced to update the World Magnetic Model a year ahead of schedule due to the speed with which the magnetic north pole is shifting out of the Canadian Arctic and toward Russia’s Siberia.
Deep solar minimum on the verge of an historic milestone
wattsupwiththat.com ^ | December 12, 2019 | by Paul Dorian
Posted on 12/13/2019, 3:17:04 PM by Red Badger Posted in the Free Republic aggregate news site http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3800719/posts
Solar minimum is a normal part of the 11-year sunspot cycle, but the last one and the current one have been far deeper than most. One of the consequences of a solar minimum is a reduction of solar storms and another is the intensification of cosmic rays. The just ended solar cycle 24 turned out to be one of the weakest in more than a century – continuing a weakening trend that began in the 1980’s – and, if the latest forecasts are correct, the next solar cycle will be the weakest in more than 200 years.
One of the natural impacts of decreasing solar activity is the weakening of the ambient solar wind and its magnetic field which, in turn, allows more and more cosmic rays to penetrate the solar system. Galactic cosmic rays are high-energy particles originating from outside the solar system that can impact the Earth’s atmosphere. Our first line of defense from cosmic rays comes from the sun as its magnetic field and the solar wind combine to create a ‘shield’ that fends off cosmic rays attempting to enter the solar system. The shielding action of the sun is strongest during solar maximum and weakest during solar minimum with the weakening magnetic field and solar wind. The intensity of cosmic rays varies globally by about 15% over a solar cycle because of changes in the strength of the solar wind, which carries a weak magnetic field into the heliosphere, partially shielding Earth from low-energy galactic charged particles.
NEWLY PUBLISHED SCIENTIFIC PAPER TEARS GLOBAL WARMING AND THE IPCC TO SHREDS
Electro verse.net ^ | Dec 11, 2019
Posted on 12/17/2019, 4:54:46 PM by 11th_VA
http://www.freerepublic/com/focus/f-news/3801618/posts
A scientific paper entitled “An Overview of Scientific Debate of Global Warming and Climate Change” has recently come out of the University of Karachi, Pakistan. The paper’s author, Prof. Shamshad Akhtar delves into earth’s natural temperature variations of the past 1000 years, and concludes that any modern warming trend has been hijacked by political & environmental agendas, and that the science (tackled below) has been long-ignored and at times deliberately manipulated.
... Pro human induced global warming scientists exaggerate the contribution of carbon dioxide as a major greenhouse gas in absorbing long wave earth’s radiation. The fact is water vapor is the single largest atmospheric greenhouse gas (2% by volume), Carbon dioxide is second (0.0385% by volume).
Water vapor contributes 95% to the greenhouse effect, all other greenhouse gases combined contribute only 5%. Furthermore, the man-made portion of carbon dioxide contributes only 0.117% to the greenhouse effect.
The IPCC does not consider water vapor a greenhouse gas in its reports.
In addition, water vapor absorbs in a much wider band of long wave radiation (4-8 micrometer and 12-70 micrometer bands), whereas Carbon dioxide absorbs in narrow bands (13-16 micrometer) and ozone absorbs in a much smaller narrow band (9-10 micrometer). Thus, water vapor absorbs in a much wider wave length band, it has the single largest greenhouse effect among all the greenhouse gas
“Any theory that explains everything, explains nothing.”
~ Karl Popper
I think all Climate Change science is racist, started by white men. I think Antifa is racist because of the white guys in it and so is BLM... also inspired by whites like Marx. Man, the whole left is racist because they ae all white... so are they going to burn down their homes? Is Biden going to burn down the White House?
So if somebody says you’re a white racist say “YEAH, so are YOU!” Better yet start the debate with the left line “You’re a white racist”. And they are too.
Erik the Red had a farm in Greenland long before industrialization....
STFU, dumbass.
AGW theory is being falsified right before our eyes.
The sources and production of CO2 are only part of the equation. What about the consumption of CO2? You and I and everyone on this thread know that CO2 is basically plant food. Are kids in government run schools being taught that? I highly doubt it.
.
CO2 exists in our atmosphere as a TRACE GAS...at about 615 parts per MILLION with the other atmospheric gases mainly nitrogen and oxygen. CO2 occures naturally and is essential for all green plants to live on this planet. Green plants use CO2 as their food though photosynthesis.
The human contribution to atmospheric CO2 is only in the tens of parts per million. The climate cultists would have us believe that the entire climate of the pla net hi he’s on literally molecular levels of a single trace gas and that the well known variations of solar output, the wobble of the earth’s axis changing seasonal variations in received solar radiations, deep ocean currents and even the effect of volcanic eruptions have little or no influence on climate. The very premise of this is absurd.
Whenever a theory appears to you as the only possible one, take this as a sign that you have neither understood the theory nor the problem which it was intended to solve.
— Karl Popper
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.