NC State Global Warming Professor accused of "recklessly falsified work"
- Thread starter gwb-trading
- Start date
Lots of facts are disputed, it means squat and doesn't make the disputing worthy or valid. The inability to scientifically disprove a scientific fact reinforces it.
I can see where you are confused. Let me assist.
For liberals, a "fact" does not mean the same thing it does to normal people. To them, a"fact" is something they prefer not to have to debate any longer. It is declared a "fact" and no further disccussion is permitted. Examples are manifold, eg "diversity makes us stronger."
What scientists 'thought they knew' doesn't sound anything much like scientific fact.
You know that how. Is it a fact?
I am a little confused as to what the "scientific fact" is here. The essence of the scientfic method is the ability to reproduce the event under dispute. We know the Law of Gravity is factual because we can drop an item and measure the rate of acceleration. We can duplicate that experiment endless times with the identical result.
With AGW, all I can discern is a "theory" or more likely, an "hypothesis." Scientists have proposed a link between man-made CO2 and climate change. Unfortunately, as pie observed, the complexity of the systems involved makes scientific proof difficult. Instead of reproducible experiments, we get models, but they are deeply flawed. Unbiased observers have to be concerned that the models have all vastly overpredicted the degree of warming. We are left to speculate if the scientists just do not understadn the processes involved sufficiently to model them accurately or if an agenda is at work. The hysterical tone of the debate and attempts to silence those who voice doubt suggest the latter.
With AGW, all I can discern is a "theory" or more likely, an "hypothesis." Scientists have proposed a link between man-made CO2 and climate change. Unfortunately, as pie observed, the complexity of the systems involved makes scientific proof difficult. Instead of reproducible experiments, we get models, but they are deeply flawed. Unbiased observers have to be concerned that the models have all vastly overpredicted the degree of warming. We are left to speculate if the scientists just do not understadn the processes involved sufficiently to model them accurately or if an agenda is at work. The hysterical tone of the debate and attempts to silence those who voice doubt suggest the latter.
I agree, yet at the time it was considered fact. It's the crux of my argument and healthy skepticism for anything that doesn't pass the smell test with me.
"The inability to scientifically disprove a scientific fact reinforces it. "
It sure seems to be a fact. The above examples certainly proves it to me.
The Scientific community does not know everything. And the scientific community is constantly finding out that what it thought it knew was wrong. Treating the latest and greatest theory as a fact until the next even better theory comes along. Is still and always will be to me just another theory, not a proven fact. The scientific community can refer to their theories as facts all they want.
One more time.....
Fact: Man has raised levels of CO2 by 40% mostly by burning fossil fuels
Fact: CO2 is a greenhouse gas (do you know what that is?) responsible for much if not most of earth's greenhouse effect.
Fact: Temps are rising........ with no other explanation.
Is the logic here really that hard to do? Can you put two and two together?
Agree with facts one and two, because they have been mostly proven. Fact three is correct that temperatures, on a chosen statistical period, are rising. The problems, as ever, with your assertion is still
1. Temperatures have been proven to rise over other periods throughout the small (hundreds of thousands of year) history selection in relative terms of the Earth's age.
2. You claim there is "no other explanation" when other explanations exist. It's just that you don't like them. Additionally, the other explanations that we simply cannot know (because we are still learning about the planet, ecosystem, etc) cannot be ruled out.
I know, you'll just call me names and shout again. But this is why people don't readily accept your "facts".