Posted on 06/12/2021 3:38:02 AM PDT by Kaslin
“Trust science, not the scientists.” That is the essence of science. That should be widely shared. Unfortunately, climate change advocates have completed the twisting of science (although this was well under way). Science was created to eliminate opinions and the role of prestigious experts.
We are watching the rapid collapse of COVID-19 experts, like a house on a Malibu cliff after a heavy rain. Will the unsustainable hoax of climate change be far behind? The establishment system exalts experts if they advance statist goals. But the public rejects royalty.
First, science has decayed into “Imagineering.” Thought experiments are not science. (Imagining things can lead to proposed hypotheses. But a hypothesis must still be tested by hard-core experimentation.) Many argue desperately for speculation as being science, when science was designed to avoid speculation.
What matters most is what we do not know. The surprise factor between what we expected and what actually happens in real-world experiments is where discovery lives. We don’t know what influences are happening that we did not know about. That is why Imagineering is not science.
Second, so we have to run actual empirical experiments. To determine whether carbon dioxide (CO2) causes the Earth to be warmer would require experiments “with all other things being equal.”
To qualify as science, we would need to contrast Earth A with no human industrial activity against Earth B with human industrial activity. All other things would have to remain the same, identically. Then we would have to repeat that experiment. So we would need Earth C, D, E, F, G, etc.
This cannot be done. The correct response is for grown-ups to say “We don’t know.” But there is too much to gain in publicity and fame. So we corrupt science to reach conclusions that cannot be scientifically confirmed.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
“Science is belief in the ignorance of experts.” - Richard Feynman
Science does not require experiments. There are observational sciences like astronomy. Tycho made observations, Kepler and Newton analyzed them, and made useful and validated predictions.
Are Algore ,Greta Thunberg ,John Kerry and Bill Nye Scientists ?
Glo-Bull Warming has saved us from THE COMING ICE AGE!
From POPULAR SCIENCE, Feb 1980..
PS/What’s News ....
page 73
Changing the weather intentionally or otherwise weather modification..(Earth cooling vs Greenhouse effect)
“Do you suppose we can learn enough, soon enough, to pull off a balancing act with the CO2 blanket saving us from another ice age?”
Consider that CO2 is only a TRACE gas in our atmosphere at only about 615 PARTS PER MILLION in air. That part per million changes in a single trace gas drives the entire planets climate is preposterous if not absurd. The prime driver of our planet’s climate is the sun. Changes in solar output, the wobble of the earth’s axis that changes the inclination of the earth to the sun, deep ocean currents and other factors certainly influence climate, but are beyond our control. Earth’s climate has been measurably changed by single volcanic eruptions…Krakatoa in the early 19th century dropped global temperatures for at least a year. The Pinatubo volcano in 1980 also measurably reduced global temperatures. Note there was no tipping point triggering an ice age and earth’s temperatures returned to normal. The CO2 global warming theory does not explain the Ice Ages where much of the northern hemisphere was covered in glaciers or the subsequent warming that melted those glaciers. The CO2 global warming theory also does not explain the so called little ice age in the 15th century. Global temperatures have shown a decline in the last two decades contrary to the prophets of doom.
There is ample scientific evidence to debunk theCO2 global warming theory, but it has now achieved a cult status where the proponents claim the science is settled as an immutable dogma. Sadly the media and politicians have embraced this false science and will create untold human misery by pursuing various schemes to mitigate a non existent problem.
No. It’s a conspiracy theory.
Observational science is not science.
There are 8 steps to the Scientific Method, since bastardized and watered down and sometimes presented in fewer steps.
STEP #1 is “observe a phenomenon” or collect data.
“Observational science” is STEP #1 (only).
The vast amount of hard work in science is performed by the data gatherers, often the anonymous people grueling out in the real world, unrecognized most of the time.
But however critical their work is, it is only STEP #1.
There is no science without experiments.
That is part of the decay and degeneration of “science” into pseudoscience.
If you can’t do a hardcore empirical experiment, it ain’t science.
I meant “out in the field.”
Those gathering the data probably do 99% of the hard work of science.
But observation by itself does not qualify as science without going through the experiment steps
In the sense that it’s history, yes. In the sense that we have knowledge sufficient to make it a normative discipline, not only no but hell no.
Science? Pffftttt! It’s devolved to “Because I said so!” Argument over.
Exactly right alloysteel. The thing also to point out is that per your diagram, “climate does change”. The question is how much is influenced by humans and how much is natural change.
More importantly is it worth the cost to try and alter something that is going to naturally change anyway (regardless of the miniscule millions of a percentage change in CO2)?
The modelling studies that have “”PROVEN”” that masks and lockdowns work and the run by the same idiots that use them to prove that CO2 production by humans is driving climate change.
I personally would rather we work to get rid of true toxins in the environment....real pollution like plastics in the water, run off of nutrients that create algal blumes, smoke, etc.
Yes ... and because science is never “settled”, climate change is constantly and perpetually subject to challenge.
You can make a verifiable prediction, I dunno, like say the occurrence of an eclipse, specifying the time and location, the duration, that sort of thing. That is not a controlled experiment, but it is validation and confirmation of your model. Like what Edddington did to verify general relativity.
Covid is a lot more science than global warming or climate change.
“No. It’s a conspiracy theory.”
No, a conspiracy.
One thing that irks me about that visualization and many others like it, is that there is a DRAMATIC color change effect (”wow, just look at that dark red!”) for what turns out to be a change of a few ppm if you look at the scale provided at the bottom.
That’s psychological manipulation of the ignorant masses, a.k.a. Propaganda.
“You can make a verifiable prediction, I dunno, like say the occurrence of an eclipse, specifying the time and location, the duration, that sort of thing. That is not a controlled experiment, “
That is a controlled experiment, if it is done properly.
Which is to say sloppy pseudo-science of today would justify being sloppy and NOT doing it properly.
And if it is done repeatedly.
For example if one has an equation or set of equations and anyone can use them to REPEATEDLY predict eclipse after eclipse, and it works over and over again, no matter who is using it,
that is a valid experiment.
Assuming of course that there is a properly formed hypothesis - which there won’t be under today’s sloppy pseudo-science.
If every single time your equations predict an eclipse, it happens bang on as predicted that would confirm that the equations and their underlying concepts are correct.
Is there a control group? Well not explicitly, but an eclipse is a strange thing, because either it happens or it doesn’t.
but it is validation and confirmation of your model. Like what Edddington did to verify general relativity.
When Eddington measured the deflection of starlight by the sun during the eclipse of 1919, the results were not clear cut, and the statistical methods that he applied to hypothesis testing were still in their infancy. Some have accused him of fudging results because he wanted to verify General Relativity, though modern analysis of his plates confirms both General Relativity and his analysis.
Global Warming Theory, a small result from climatology, a subset of atmospheric physics, like astronomy, is almost entirely an observational science. We do not deliberately manipulate the specimen, we observe it. (When Bill Gates and Harvard proposed a very modest experiment, public outcry shut them down.) The confounding factors are daunting. There is some honest work trying to determine the relative weight of natural variability and anthropogenic contributions. Sadly, the entire field has become so politicized that it is difficult for a non-specialist to make sense out of it.
Michael Mann especially has contributed to distrust of the entire field. Intellectual honesty is the first casualty of politics.
Another unfortunate result of the Puritanical warmists is the rejection of mitigation, or even considering whether or not some modest warming might even be a net plus. It appears that the medieval warm period was a time of increased prosperity.
That was not an experiment, because it was poorly designed to test a carefully crafted experiment.
If we are talking about the same incident, the test was for THREE (3) — ONLY 3 locations on Earth.
ONE could not be conducted due to clouds
ONE gave negative results (no deflection of starlight from the sun’s gravity)
ONE gave positive results (a star appeared to be in a shifted location right next to the sun).
1 out of 3 supported the hypothesis.
Put another way, 1 DISPROVED the hypothesis.
And the fact that it could not be repeated is a flaw.
However, in a sense, it was a comparison experiment.
The position of the star was measured
-— WITHOUT the sun being nearby
versus
-— WITH the sun being nearby.
So this was a comparison with a control (”group”).
But given the lack of accuracy of the measurements and the likelihood of other influences — like the atmosphere — it was a flawed design.
When the eclipse shadow passes over, it is going to radically cool the atmosphere compared to only seconds earlier. There is going to be a turbulence wave moving just behind the shadow as the shadow travels across the Earth.
So the experiment fails to rule out other influences likely to shift the position of the star in the measurements lacking in sufficient accuracy.
I don’t mean accuracy in the ability to take a reading.
I mean accuracy in terms of being immune to various other influences, wind, shaking of the ground, etc., turbulence in the air, etc.
The accuracy of the measurement IN CONTEXT was not equal to the task.
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.