[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Warren Pease 

If Jesus will be here in a thousand years, will we be able to detect trace amounts of Jesus in ten years, indicating that trend? How can you tell we are not in the presence of Jesus right now?

I see signs all over that Jesus exists.

Of course, it could be circumstantial. Jesus might not really exist at all, the same as catastrophic man-made global warming.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I believe what he's saying is that there is no real scientific consensus now either.

Except there is.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Especially in regards to man-made catastrophic global warning. Not real scientists who don't depend on the facts being one way or another for funding.

You're correct, but only because on one said that global warming is purely man made. The natural cycles that govern our planets warming and cooling cycles are being adversely affected by man's actions. The planet does go through natural warming and cooling stages, but these stages are being thrown into more extremes.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I see signs all over that Jesus exists.

Jesus existed as a person.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Of course, it could be circumstantial. Jesus might not really exist at all, the same as catastrophic man-made global warming.

I think you're confusing Jesus' existence with the premise of him being the son of God. In either case, global warming can be tested and is falsifiable, God isn't.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

global warming ... is falsifiable.

Can you give an example?

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Can you give an example?

Falsifiable in terms of scientific theory means that if something is wrong, it can be shown why and/or how it is wrong. That is one of the most important factors with scientific theory. Regardless of the results, you learn something important. God, for example, can not be tested nor shown to be "wrong."

The evidence so far indicates that human activity is having a negative impact on our environment, mostly through carbon gasses.

Hypothetically speaking, one way this is falsifiable is a more abundant source of carbon gasses from something other than humans. One possibility is underwater volcanoes and ruptures. As certain tectonic plates pull apart from each other (and crash into each other at other parts), it is feasible that relatively large sections of the mantel are exposed. This is, however, very unlikely. You'd need the equivalent of several thousand years of regular volcanic activity over the period of just couple hundred years. Satellite data indicates that it is not underwater volcanoes or ruptures.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Yeah, but when I'm occasionally wrong it hits harder.

As long as you keep your humor about ya.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Falsifiable in terms of scientific theory means that if something is wrong, it can be shown why and/or how it is wrong. That is one of the most important factors with scientific theory. Regardless of the results, you learn something important. God, for example, can not be tested nor shown to be "wrong."

I don't know if I agree with this. If falsification were "one of the most important factors with scientific theory", it seems to me it would be represented more abundantly in the actual process of developing one. I'm familiar with the doctrinal importance of falsification, but in reality theory evolves.

The evidence so far indicates that human activity is having a negative impact on our environment, mostly through carbon gasses.

The point of contention is usually to what degree humans contribute. The burden of proof is often placed on those deemed "detractors" when in reality, most climate change data (in terms of sheer volume) supports natural variability.

Hypothetically speaking, one way this is falsifiable is a more abundant source of carbon gasses from something other than humans.

I don't think you can separate observational data from climate modeling as critical components of the theory. You guys bring up a good point though, how could one falsify climate modeling? In other words is there a specific event, combination of events, over a particular period of time that would "prove them wrong"?

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Warren Pease 

State your point then clearly so as to avoid any misinterpretation by Stupendousman or Uncle Skeleton.

My point is stated, and you are free to read it again.

I'd appreciate just a bit more respect, if you could. You might not like what I say, but your last response to my question was unbecoming. I'll summarize my questions/concerns for you if you can do that, otherwise its a waste of everyone's time.

EDIT:Typo

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

My point is stated, and you are free to read it again.

I'd appreciate just a bit more respect, if you could. You might not like what I say, but your last response to my question was unbecoming. I'll summarize my questions/concerns for you if you can do that, otherwise its a waste of everyone's time.

EDIT:Typo

Summarize your questions/concerns. Please.

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I don't know if I agree with this. If falsification were "one of the most important factors with scientific theory", it seems to me it would be represented more abundantly in the actual process of developing one. I'm familiar with the doctrinal importance of falsification, but in reality theory evolves.

Falsification is not a specific part of the scientific process. Though, reproducibility of an experiment is needed for a theory to be accepted by the scientific community.

Cold Fusion may not be an appropriate example, as I don't know much about the history/controversy, but simply publishing a paper showing specific results is not enough for it to be accepted. The fact that the results were not reproduceable essentially falsified their science/theory (or, at least, in the way it was performed by those scientists).

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The point of contention is usually to what degree humans contribute. The burden of proof is often placed on those deemed "detractors" when in reality, most climate change data (in terms of sheer volume) supports natural variability.

I wouldn't limit man's impact on the environment to 'carbon gasses.' There are many areas where humans are having an adverse impact on the environment that don't involve the burning of fossil fuels.

Saying something is due to 'natural variability' is akin to saying 'god did it'. It sounds right, but in the case of natural variability, scientists can name what the cycles are, provide evidence for them, and state their contribution to the overall mix of natural cycles. The effects that man has on the environment can be viewed in this framework of knowledge.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Warren Pease 

Falsification is not a specific part of the scientific process. Though, reproducibility of an experiment is needed for a theory to be accepted by the scientific community.

Testability and falsification are generally inseparable and in fact often interchangeable terms in the scientific community. In so far as "experiment" is implied.

Cold Fusion may not be an appropriate example, as I don't know much about the history/controversy, but simply publishing a paper showing specific results is not enough for it to be accepted. The fact that the results were not reproduceable essentially falsified their science/theory (or, at least, in the way it was performed by those scientists).

Sometimes you can test a thing and come to a more obscure conclusion. For example, you may find that by populating the formulas used for climate prediction with any combination of variables produces a hockey stick.

I wouldn't limit man's impact on the environment to 'carbon gasses.' There are many areas where humans are having an adverse impact on the environment that don't involve the burning of fossil fuels.

While the burning of fossil fuels is generally regarded as the largest factor of AGW, I certainly never implied that man's impact is limited to 'carbon gasses'.

Saying something is due to 'natural variability' is akin to saying 'god did it'.

On the contrary Warren, 'natural variability' is the bedrock of climate science.

It sounds right, but in the case of natural variability, scientists can name what the cycles are, provide evidence for them, and state their contribution to the overall mix of natural cycles. The effects that man has on the environment can be viewed in this framework of knowledge.

It sounds right because it is right. Yes, scientists can name what the cycles are just as they can identify new ones, more effectively measure old ones, and theorize the overall mix of natural and anthropogenic. They can do this while trying to simulate and measure the impact of the most fundamental of contributors like cloud cover. Models are reconciled not by how they agree, but how much they disagree.

The debate framed by alarmists (you're not implied here) is a very simple picture when in reality there are few things more complex than climate.

[hyteckit]

AP IMPACT: Statisticians reject global cooling - Yahoo! News


"The last 10 years are the warmest 10-year period of the modern record," said NOAA climate monitoring chief Deke Arndt. "Even if you analyze the trend during that 10 years, the trend is actually positive, which means warming."


There's definitely a warming trend.

[ebuddy]

meh