[johnforbes]

De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium was completed in 1530 but not published until Copernicus was on his deathbed.

Why?

Because the history of science is a series of instances of false certitude by the scientific establishment.

The history of math, evolving from Euclid to Lobachesvky and Riemann and so on, is much the same.

Nobody took the notion of subconscious motivation seriously until the works of Freud appeared in English in 1900.

Acquired characteristics were taken seriously until the work of Mendel showed up in English in the same year, 1900.

Does this mean anthropogenic global warming is an erroneous theory?

It means that nobody knows at this point, and that reasonable people should take it cum grano salis.

[BilboBagend]

Wow, what a pile of pure bullshit. It's beyond comment.

Objective observations, models, testing of models by comparison of model predictions to objective observations, statistical analysis of degree of errors and reliability of predictions.

Is modern climate science as reliable as Newtonian mechanics? Well no. Are the basic observations and predictions of anthropomorphic causality and general climate change a matter of any controversy? No. Are they unreliable? No. Are they extremely highly significantly reliable? Yes.

Do scientists describe their work in terms of "certainty"? No, that is bullshit rhetoric of the dishonest. Though, scientists will talk of the degree of certainty, which references the degree of statistical reliability. a mathematical term, not an absolutist term of certainty.

There is only the political bullshit of the dishonest denier who wishes to describe modern science in a false manner in order to make false conclusions.

Yes, you have your denier beliefs. They are clearly outside objective observation and model testing. Only pure delusional beliefs. You may have them. It's a free world. They are your delusions and they speak loudly for you and you lack of either rationality or honesty.

Go learn something about science. All you have is your effete false references to a history that never existed so you can drop names in total ignorance of any reality or meaning. Back to the "Famous Quotes" book for the little wannabe faux.

This is the only time you make me think that you just might be a lawyer, speaking out of your ass in total ignorance but with total certainty. The only criteria and only purpose, to win a case regardless of reality or truth. Hoping everyone who listens is more ignorant than yourself and unable to think rationally.

Science is about testing and refining against the standard of objective confirmable observations. Yes, when statements about science, such as you make, do not meet that standard they are not science. Thus, we have "denier science" making claims outside the standards of science to counter the real science.

Still, as it has been for over 2 decades, deniers have totally failed to prove anything wrong in the substance of modern climate science and it's basic conclusions. Just the denier's unsubstantiated accusations.

Read the science journals. That is where you will find the real controversies, errors, uncertainties, deviations, modifications of theory or models, statistics. Sadly for you, they will prove you wrong. The basics are substantively challenged by you "denier science". All you do is prove your ignorance and dishonesty.

I have in the past pointed you to all the sources you would need to understand what you challenge. The rest is your failure. Intentional, self imposed failure.

Not my problem. You could know what your talking about. You just don't want to know.

You don't like or accept science and prefer you delusions. Your choice. It's a free world.

[johnforbes]

No person who had really studied science would toss around the word "objective" so lightly.

Limitations are part and parcel of the history of math and science, from Godel's Incompleteness Theorem to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.

The term "denier" is what is dishonest.

It shows the person feels he has attained The Truth, and that skeptics are merely in denial of The Truth.

That is not merely vain.

It is also unscientific.

Will anthropogenic global warming eventually be proven to be correct? Nobody knows.

[BilboBagend]

What drivel.

"The Truth"???? What are you a fundamentalist snake oil preacher?

[johnforbes]

Yes, Bilbo, I put The Truth in caps because that is how you think.

You are so delusional that you actually feel you have attained The Truth.

That's why you -- and other liberals -- get so angry when others are skeptical.

No person who had really studied science would toss around the word "objective" so lightly.

Limitations are part and parcel of the history of math and science, from Godel's Incompleteness Theorem to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.

The term "denier" is what is dishonest.

It shows the person feels he has attained The Truth, and that skeptics are merely in denial of The Truth.

That is not merely vain.

It is also unscientific.

Will anthropogenic global warming eventually be proven to be correct? Nobody knows.

[BilboBagend]

LOL

Keep going.

[johnforbes]

Bilbo, you are not laughing.

Take a moment to Google Godel and Heisenberg. Learn something here.



Yes, Bilbo, I put The Truth in caps because that is how you think.

You are so delusional that you actually feel you have attained The Truth.

That's why you -- and other liberals -- get so angry when others are skeptical.

No person who had really studied science would toss around the word "objective" so lightly.

Limitations are part and parcel of the history of math and science, from Godel's Incompleteness Theorem to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.

The term "denier" is what is dishonest.

It shows the person feels he has attained The Truth, and that skeptics are merely in denial of The Truth.

That is not merely vain.

It is also unscientific.

Will anthropogenic global warming eventually be proven to be correct? Nobody knows.

[BilboBagend]

No, it won't be proven to be correct. Within the bounds of real science it has been proven to be correct. That is, extremely highly significantly consistent with the best models, predictions, and observations. There is no SCIENTIFIC controversy about the basic conclusions including the mostly anthropomorphic nature of the climate change.

Now, a apple will fall from a tree (on earth) and accelerate towards the earth at a rate of 32 ft per second per second.

1) gravity does exist and it is accepted a scientifically true despite the simple fact that no one knows anything about how it words. There are a few theories but no agreement. The model is very well develop-ed and well accepted. Much of what we do on earth is dependent upon the model be correct. Nuclear ballistic missiles are not targeted and controlled by this model, but by a much more complex model including heuristics and a virial equation of motion. Still, the simple and more complex models are accepted as "true" and useful. You, of course understand none of this, nor when what model is sufficient and useful nor when they are not. The simplistic model is still accepted as true and useful under the simplistic of uses. It is NOT invalidated
by greater detail and more complex models which contain the simplest model are their core.

2) It is true even though the acceleration is not exactly 32 ft per second per second.

3) It is true even though it varies with height of the apple above the surface as well and the density of the air, the humidity of the air and the specific longitude and latitude of the tree.

4) It is true even though it varies with the phase of the moon, or for that matter the specific position of every body in the universe.

5) additional observations do not change this "truth" nor are any future observations likely to change this truth within the confines of our understanding of an objective physical universe.

6) Arguments to the contrary are based in ignorance, pure fantasy or total dishonesty. In your case, wittle wannabe faux, most probably a strong mixture of the three.

7) You are objectively observable as just a wittle wannabe troll faux. Everyone can see that.

[elklindo69]

No microscope can see an electron in a molecule. But we know through a preponderance of the evidence that electrons exist.

With man made global warming, through a preponderance of the evidence, climate scientists have determined with a 95% certainty, humans are mostly responsible for global warming.

Yet Limbaugh recently claimed that ice caps are not melting, eventhough NASA has fucking satellite photographic proof of the contrary. Conservatives are either idiots, liars, or just ignorant...

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/20/scien ... d=all&_r=0

[RealJustme]

Yet Limbaugh recently claimed that ice caps are not melting, eventhough NASA has fucking satellite photographic proof of the contrary.

Try to keep up Elk, NASA now says ice caps are growing.

[johnforbes]

Elkin, I realize you never went to law school, but please stop using "preponderance" in the context of science.

It reveals your ignorance of both law and science.

[BilboBagend]

Arctic ice caps are growing, the reality.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/21/scien ... .html?_r=0

Wow, they have grown a little from the low. How, ummmm, expected, since it varies year to year. Wow, deniers stick to small variegation in the details and claim expected variations disprove the global reality, It doesn't.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/21/scien ... .html?_r=0

[BilboBagend]

“I’m not at all surprised there was a ... ent past.


A little story for the denier morons.

A person invests 100 dollars.

He suffers a 90% loss over 10 years. How much money does he have?

Then he has a surprise 1 year gain of 50%. How much money does he have?

How many gains of this size will it take to return to his original investment of $100.00? Answer 17.

[johnforbes]

But, of course, those here are not denying anything.

They are -- and I admit this is too subtle a distinction for a moron like Blabo, er Bilbo -- skeptical, as they should be, of yet another consensus opinion that this or that is indisputably true.

What remains beyond dispute is Bilbo's idiocy.

[elklindo69]

Yet Limbaugh recently claimed that ice caps are not melting, eventhough NASA has fucking satellite photographic proof of the contrary.

Try to keep up Elk, NASA now says ice caps are growing.

No they didn't

[elklindo69]

Elkin, I realize you never went to law school, but please stop using "preponderance" in the context of science.

It reveals your ignorance of both law and science.

If you had any clue about science then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

[johnforbes]

I'm not a scientist, and have said about a thousand times that I have zero credentials in climate science and have no idea whether the theory will be shown -- on a longitudinal basis -- to be correct.

What credentials do true believers such as Elkin and Bilbo have in climate science? None.

They are merely faithful believers -- as Eric Hoffer explained.

[elklindo69]

I'm not a scientist, and have said about a thousand times that I have zero credentials in climate science and have no idea whether the theory will be shown -- on a longitudinal basis -- to be correct.

What credentials do true believers such as Elkin and Bilbo have in climate science? None.

They are merely faithful believers -- as Eric Hoffer explained.

That's a very entertaining thought. Because its simpler to prove that humans are causing the earth to warm than to prove the theory of relativity. Yet conservatives don't question the theory of relativity with such vigor. Is there any instrument that can measure to what extent space and time are bent?

[johnforbes]

1919 eclipse proved it

[elklindo69]

Yet there is more empirical evidence to prove global warming is caused by humans.

Fossil fuel combustion, etc.

What's the proof to the contrary? We breathe more or there's less plant life or is it what the petro industry says because they stand to lose the most....

[RealJustme]

Yet there is more empirical evidence to prove global warming is caused by humans.

Really? Why is it being kept secret, please enlighten us with this secretive data.

[BilboBagend]

To think that humans have no negative escalating effects on our climate is pure idiocy.

[johnforbes]

I don't think anybody would argue human activity has zero negative effect.

When my great great grandfather was born in Ireland, there were about 1 billion people on the planet.

Today, it is 7 billion, so human effects are doubtless present.

The entire history of science -- and math as well -- is littered with examples of false certitude, so reasonable people are understandably slow to permit Al Gore (who dropped out of divinity school and then flunked out of law school) to lecture them on science.