Even the Pope sides with Futurecurrents

here is the troll lie as predicted...

GW has been validated by science and massively endorsed by the scientific community

1. there is no peer reviewed science that validates the speculation that man made co2 is causing warming.

2. As to the massive endorsement... lets count scientists... you have not produced one scientist who has stated that man made co2 causes warming... yet...

31,487 American scientists have signed this petition,
including 9,029 with PhDs

http://www.petitionproject.org/

Teller_Card_100dpi.jpg
 
stu said:
No piezoe, Einstein's work was not entirely theoretical.
From the outset Einstein's special relativity (1905) enabled existing problems to be resolved in classical physics. Maxwell equations (1861) electric and magnetic fields, was straight away transformed by Special Relativity. Lorentz transformation (1887) turned into practical Lorentz symmetry by Special Relativity, and so indeed became understood as a fundamental law of nature. Special Relativity straight off opened up Quantum electrodynamics and provided the means for some practical experimentation.

I take your point about the process which made Einstein's work valid. It needed to be undertaken within the scientific community rather than in the political or media domains. Which makes the point! AGW has been validated by science and massively endorsed by the scientific community. In that regard there is no split at all.
Furthermore, there's nothing theoretical about CO2, or that it warms atmosphere. Yet those basic facts have their detractors for all sorts of reasons, just as Einstein's science did.

The political and media stages are the only home for those who refuse that science, as the scientific stage is not the place for anti-AGW nonsense anymore than it is or was for Einstein Relativity deniers.
More...

Maxwell's equations did not need relativity nor quantum mechanics to be accepted, they only required the acceptance of the wave model for light. (Maxwell's equations are unchanged by either relativity or quantum mechanics.) Einstein's ideas gradually took hold in the physics community after 1905, but there were still detractors. It wasn't until the famous 1919 experiments carried out by others that his ideas became widely accepted as correct. That is because the 1919 results were consistent with Einsteins predictions. The 1919 experiments were the beginning of his fame. Without the experimental results proving the predictive usefulness of his theory he would have remained in the position of Higgs before confirmation of the Higgs Boson. In scientific speak, it was in 1919 that Einstein's relativity hypothesis became a scientific theory, and it was in 2012 That Higgs hypothesis became a theory..

But, from my point of view, all of this is an unimportant side issue that has nothing to do with the validity or non-validity of the AGW hypothesis. I have made the point many times that scientific questions can not be decided by opinion polls. Frankly it would not matter, as far as the validity of the AGW hypothesis goes, if 100 % of all scientists in the world were firmly convinced that Man's emission of CO2 was causing a dangerous increase in the mean temperature of the Earth. That would only matter in the sociopolitical sense. And of course, in that sense, there could be real consequences. But as long as there is a single observation that is inconsistent with the AGW hypothesis and that can't be explained in a way consistent with the hypothesis, then the hypothesis is not scientifically sound. This is the dilemma faced by the promoters of AGW. (And "promoters' is the perfect word here.)

Obviously, the AGW hypothesis can not be proven correct by simply observing that the mean temperature of the Earth, overall, is rising, assuming it is. This is something I think you will immediately grasp, but there are others here who have a great deal of trouble understanding that the observation of rising temperature does not prove the hypothesis to be correct. It merely fails to disprove it.
 
Obviously, the AGW hypothesis can not be proven correct by simply observing that the mean temperature of the Earth, overall, is rising, assuming it is. This is something I think you will immediately grasp, but there are others here who have a great deal of trouble understanding that the observation of rising temperature does not prove the hypothesis to be correct. It merely fails to disprove it.


Why are stratospheric temps going down?
 
futurecurrents said:
Obviously, the AGW hypothesis can not be proven correct by simply observing that the mean temperature of the Earth, overall, is rising, assuming it is. This is something I think you will immediately grasp, but there are others here who have a great deal of trouble understanding that the observation of rising temperature does not prove the hypothesis to be correct. It merely fails to disprove it.


Why are stratospheric temps going down?
More...
They aren't. The Huntsville data shows the stratosphere temperature constant within normal variation since roughly 1995.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top