CRU investigation was bound to be a white wash.
-
If they had decided there was scientific misconduct and an intent to mislead then the ramifications would have been to spectacular for the system to support. It would have made itself look utterly foolish. Anyway, Joness recent comments in an interview with the Mail where he describes the recent warming period as indifferent to the preceding three is an outright statement that AGW is not detectable in the temperature record. Ergo, AGW is still an unproved theory.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
Sadly, even if they could all agree and come up with some tangible proof that humans are responsible and can do anything about it, it may be too late. Like all arrogant shits they ended up shooting themselves in the foot with all of their deceits and obfuscation. If the IPCC had any sense at all they'd fire everyone and start from scratch to come to a conclusion that we can all share in. In any case, even if it is our fault what the hell do they think we can really do? I mean, honestly, if they'd sold it as "cut back, save money, save taxes" we'd all be on board and screaming for more. If it isn't anything to do with us then there's likely nothing much we can do anyway. Better we concentrate on keeping the population in check. Maybe even establish a moon/mars colony... :-)
me, me, me "The dinosaurs became extinct because they didn't have a space program. And if we become extinct because we don't have a space program, it'll serve us right!" Larry Niven
-
If they had decided there was scientific misconduct and an intent to mislead then the ramifications would have been to spectacular for the system to support. It would have made itself look utterly foolish. Anyway, Joness recent comments in an interview with the Mail where he describes the recent warming period as indifferent to the preceding three is an outright statement that AGW is not detectable in the temperature record. Ergo, AGW is still an unproved theory.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
Ergo, AGW is still an unproved theory.
Show me a proven scientific theory. If you think you can, you don't understand science.
-
fat_boy wrote:
Ergo, AGW is still an unproved theory.
Show me a proven scientific theory. If you think you can, you don't understand science.
William Winner wrote:
Show me a proven scientific theory.
Your question is so banal it barely merits a response. I dont even know why you asked it, unless you like debating like 10 year olds. But, since you ask for the blatently obvious: Adaptation of species. A species of moth in the north of the UK turned brow because fo the industrialo revoloution. The trees on which it lived got darker from the soot. The lighter coloured moths got eaten because they were more visible, thus over time the species got darker. Ralativity. That was proved by clocks aboard satellites. Newtons theories. They have been proved endlessly. We even put men on the mon based on his work. ANd these are just the highlights.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
William Winner wrote:
Show me a proven scientific theory.
Your question is so banal it barely merits a response. I dont even know why you asked it, unless you like debating like 10 year olds. But, since you ask for the blatently obvious: Adaptation of species. A species of moth in the north of the UK turned brow because fo the industrialo revoloution. The trees on which it lived got darker from the soot. The lighter coloured moths got eaten because they were more visible, thus over time the species got darker. Ralativity. That was proved by clocks aboard satellites. Newtons theories. They have been proved endlessly. We even put men on the mon based on his work. ANd these are just the highlights.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
Uhm I think he forgot the joke icon, I found it!
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity RAH
-
William Winner wrote:
Show me a proven scientific theory.
Your question is so banal it barely merits a response. I dont even know why you asked it, unless you like debating like 10 year olds. But, since you ask for the blatently obvious: Adaptation of species. A species of moth in the north of the UK turned brow because fo the industrialo revoloution. The trees on which it lived got darker from the soot. The lighter coloured moths got eaten because they were more visible, thus over time the species got darker. Ralativity. That was proved by clocks aboard satellites. Newtons theories. They have been proved endlessly. We even put men on the mon based on his work. ANd these are just the highlights.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
The point is that formally a scientific hypothesis or theory is never "proven" in the way a mathematical theory is proven so the word is usually inappropriate for a scientific discussion - it serves to remind us that alternative explanations for observed phenomenon always exist. Theories are not proven. Laws are not proven theories. Etc.[^] This is not the first time this has been explained to you.
- F
-
The point is that formally a scientific hypothesis or theory is never "proven" in the way a mathematical theory is proven so the word is usually inappropriate for a scientific discussion - it serves to remind us that alternative explanations for observed phenomenon always exist. Theories are not proven. Laws are not proven theories. Etc.[^] This is not the first time this has been explained to you.
- F
-
Oh really? I just gave some good examples of just how a theory is proved. And by the way, you mentioned laws, not me.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
Not really, We can confirm they seem to match the invisible rules that govern such things, however we cannot actually prove that they do. We have proof they appear to be true, but there's no mathematical proof that details the inner workings of the universe to prove it's completely true. And adaptation seems to be true, but the mechanisms in how it works, why it works, and the difference between adaptation and extinction are argued constantly. "Stuff changes" isn't much of a theory.
-
William Winner wrote:
Show me a proven scientific theory.
Your question is so banal it barely merits a response. I dont even know why you asked it, unless you like debating like 10 year olds. But, since you ask for the blatently obvious: Adaptation of species. A species of moth in the north of the UK turned brow because fo the industrialo revoloution. The trees on which it lived got darker from the soot. The lighter coloured moths got eaten because they were more visible, thus over time the species got darker. Ralativity. That was proved by clocks aboard satellites. Newtons theories. They have been proved endlessly. We even put men on the mon based on his work. ANd these are just the highlights.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
Fisticuffs is exactly correct. My point is that science can never "prove" anything. Science can only be used to disprove. And just to show you an example, Newton's laws do not hold true in quantum mechanics. From Wikipedia: "These three laws hold to a good approximation for macroscopic objects under everyday conditions. However, Newton's laws (combined with universal gravitation and classical electrodynamics) are inappropriate for use in certain circumstances, most notably at very small scales, very high speeds (in special relativity, the Lorentz factor must be included in the expression for momentum along with rest mass and velocity) or very strong gravitational fields." In order to prove a scientific theory, you must prove it for all instances and at all times. As far as the Theory of relativity, it began with the assumption that light maintains a constant velocity. Can we prove in all instances that that is true...say for instance within a black hole? Because if we can't, then it breaks down. And when we "test" a theory, we're not actually trying to prove it, but trying to show that we can't disprove it. That may seem like semantics to you, but I assure you it is not. Ptolemy said, "Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it. Testability is falsifiability; but there are degrees of testability: some theories are more testable, more exposed to refutation, than others; they take, as it were, greater risks." Another example for you (also from Wikipedia): "Newton's description of gravity is sufficiently accurate for many practical purposes and is therefore widely used...The predicted angular deflection of light rays by gravity that is calculated by using Newton's Theory is only one-half of the deflection that is actually observed by astronomers. Calculations using General Relativity are in much closer agreement with the astronomical observations." Wow, that wording really says, "see, this is proven!" And the last one, adaptation of species. You gave one example that that occurs...and there are many more. But there are also many examples where species don't adapt for one reason or another. The scientific method is not capable of "proving" a theory. "Once predictions are made, they can be tested by experiments. If test results contradict predictions, then the hypotheses are called into question and explanations may be sought. Sometimes experiments are conducted incorrectly and are at fault. If the result
-
If they had decided there was scientific misconduct and an intent to mislead then the ramifications would have been to spectacular for the system to support. It would have made itself look utterly foolish. Anyway, Joness recent comments in an interview with the Mail where he describes the recent warming period as indifferent to the preceding three is an outright statement that AGW is not detectable in the temperature record. Ergo, AGW is still an unproved theory.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
waffle waffle waffle evolution is unproved. totally, at least as much as AGW. I wonder how much I'd get shouted down for pointing that out ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
waffle waffle waffle evolution is unproved. totally, at least as much as AGW. I wonder how much I'd get shouted down for pointing that out ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.