How exactly do you propose to be credible with a critique of any aspect of science when you make mistakes on the simplest basics, like "proving a theory"? Doing corruption and conspiracy claims aint it.
This is nothing more than teleological thinking, and it's the rule rather than the exception. People start by assuming their conclusions. The next step is to construct or interpret or fabricate whatever it takes to support and thus ratify those conclusions. If scientific investigation best supports AGW (and by a wide empirical margin) and your foregone conclusion is that you don't want to believe that, clearly the PURPOSE of that part of the scientific establishment is to conspire to deceive, for self-serving reasons. Clearly climatologists can't be doing legitimate research, because they're getting the wrong results. So you have to ask yourself, why would they all be in cahoots to produce wrong results? And once you've asked the right question, the answer is easy - it's to steal taxpayer money to line their pockets. Obviously they can't be doing any real research, and why should they bother? They're all in on it.
Since you have such a gasping non-relevant response, I must conclude that my grasp is pretty tight about now. No I was not home schooled. How about you?
Science is far more than your explanation entails. That you might not understand this explains your further interpretation, as well as your position on climate sciences. The sciences do indeed examine and "Test" hypothesis and often find it flawed which leads to tweaking until or if hypothesis can be accepted theory. Theory is then evaluated and further examined, tweaked, added to, extrapolated upon, and improved continuously. The Climate Sciences encompass very large and complicated areas of study, and many,many theories have come to light that are currently being studied. Just because you do not understamd the science.....does not mean it is "No Science At All".
No I received an excellent public education at one of the better school systems in Massachusetts, which has the best school systems in the country, it's where tax supported education was invented. And anyone who believes that climate science is an industry that seeks results to gain further funding, has a pathetically poor concept of how science works. But that's what the right wing propaganda relies on, the basic ignorance of a large portion of the electorate that make them ideal targets.
A version of the thing I said about the international conspiracy of satanic scientists to suppress the fact that evolution is all wet.
There was mention of teleology a bit ago, which is a poor excuse for if / then logic but it can occasionally be right despite itself. Since you have such a gasping non-relevant response, I must conclude that my grasp is pretty tight"" has to be the worst if / then logic ever. What else could we conclude from that?
Since I have been debating this for over ten years I can say people fall into two categories. Those who do know the science but are so determined to ignore the findings that they have wrapped themselves in a giant conspiracy and those who have not bothered to learn even the fundamentals of the science. The first group are very small and comprise only one or two members on this board. The second group is by far the largest and the ignorance there is astounding
Hey, you said something difference, so what choice is there but to conclude its what you said? i mean, totally god? get with the program.
Plenty of scientists have questioned AGW, their scholarly skepticism is, however, largely ignored by the AGW supporters.
He said.... And anyone who believes that climate science is an industry that seeks results to gain further funding, has a pathetically poor concept of how science works. But that's what the right wing propaganda relies on, the basic ignorance of a large portion of the electorate that make them ideal targets. First of all, the point is that AGW is not science it is junk-science. In the second place, he DID call AGW skeptics ignorant claiming to somehow know that they are victims of some kind of stupid conspiracy.
Then put forth their arguments - but that does not happen Just as any inconvenient evidence, such as the changing IR signature of the Earth, is ignored by denialists http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming-intermediate.htm
Agreed, plenty have questioned AGW and even submitted works that science then evaluates for accuracy and peer review. Unfortunately most have failed the scrutiny of the community and are discarded in the data. This can be seen as "Ignoring" but is only ignored because it has no value in scientific circles. If by chance you are aware of something I am not in this regard...I would appreciate your input as to the papers or studies.
Accurate though, amazingly accurate. To be a AGW skeptic, you have to ignore 99% of the actual science, cling to a few cherry picked factoids, and ignore when all the factoids you used in the past get debunked. So, yeah, disagreement with AGW has a very high correlation with scientific ignorance....
'Anyone' includes people that can see AGW is nothing but a political scam to wrest more $$$$ from the American taxpayer. BTW did you notice I was referring to AGW and he changed the goalposts to 'climate science?'
The sc ientific evidence strongly supports AGW. Anyone who disagrees either doesn't KNOW the scientific evidence, or chooses not to believe it. Now, you can choose to believe whatever you wish. But disagreement with the facts is WILLFUL ignorance. Just saying.
This is simply a lie. Whether through deliberate mendacity or deliberate ignorance doesn't matter at this point. YOU ARE LYING. AGW relates to climate science as apples falling to the ground relates to gravity. It's not moving the goalposts, it's showing you what the science TELLS us. If you CHOOSE to remain ignorant, don't blame others.
Agreed. To quote Dawkins once again, "there is no sensible limit to what the human mind is capable of believing, against any amount of evidence to the contrary.
