Those pushing the anthropomorphic climate change agenda never, AFAIK, ever admit that this view is ONLY consensus (based on data and models) but not independently verifiable via the Scientific Method, the gold standard for science. Warrant Canary creator On May 8, 2017 5:22 PM, "\0xDynamite" <dreamingforward@gmail.com> wrote:
except for very token gestures.
I don't think that the tens of billions of dollars that go to special interests including of course the 'scientific' mafia are a token gesture.
There's aren't "tens of billions" of dollars spent to prove global warming except to counter-act the deniers. \x
Those pushing the anthropomorphic climate change agenda never, AFAIK, ever admit that this view is ONLY consensus (based on data and models) but not independently verifiable via the Scientific Method, the gold standard for science.
You're talking in circles. What do you suppose the scientific method is, genius? \0x
The Scientific Method requires that experiments with controlled initial conditions be conducted. If a field of science is such , as in cosmology or climatology, that such experiments cannot be conducted then this is a "soft" science whose "truth" can never exceed opinion, which is politics. Warrant Canary creator On May 11, 2017 4:10 PM, "\0xDynamite" <dreamingforward@gmail.com> wrote:
Those pushing the anthropomorphic climate change agenda never, AFAIK, ever admit that this view is ONLY consensus (based on data and models) but not independently verifiable via the Scientific Method, the gold standard for science.
You're talking in circles. What do you suppose the scientific method is, genius?
\0x
On Thu, 11 May 2017 18:10:51 -0500 "\\0xDynamite" <dreamingforward@gmail.com> wrote:
Those pushing the anthropomorphic climate change agenda never, AFAIK, ever admit that this view is ONLY consensus (based on data and models) but not independently verifiable via the Scientific Method, the gold standard for science.
You're talking in circles. What do you suppose the scientific method is, genius?
Aw poor dynamite. As it happens, I, unlike you, know that the scientific method is based on experimentation and trial and error applied to SMALL CLOSED SYSTEMS in a REPEATABLE FASHION. Exactly what you CANNOT do with the atmosphere. But really, talking to a lawyer, theocrat, statist, quack doctor and now enviro, while the titanic is sinking is kinda...pointless.
\0x
Those pushing the anthropomorphic climate change agenda never, AFAIK, ever admit that this view is ONLY consensus (based on data and models) but not independently verifiable via the Scientific Method, the gold standard for science.
You're talking in circles. What do you suppose the scientific method is, genius?
As it happens, I, unlike you, know that the scientific method is based on experimentation and trial and error applied to SMALL CLOSED SYSTEMS in a REPEATABLE FASHION. Exactly what you CANNOT do with the atmosphere.
But really, talking to a lawyer, theocrat, statist, quack doctor and now enviro, while the titanic is sinking is kinda...pointless.
Especially when you're emotionally invested. Obviously you're emotional about it. So just deal with that, rather than pretend. But onto your point and logical claim. No, the scientific method is NOT about "small, closed systems" in a "repeatable fashion". REPEAT: NOT about that. So anything else you wish to surprise us with, poo-holer? \0x
On Thu, 11 May 2017 18:48:02 -0500 "\\0xDynamite" <dreamingforward@gmail.com> wrote:
Those pushing the anthropomorphic climate change agenda never, AFAIK, ever admit that this view is ONLY consensus (based on data and models) but not independently verifiable via the Scientific Method, the gold standard for science.
You're talking in circles. What do you suppose the scientific method is, genius?
As it happens, I, unlike you, know that the scientific method is based on experimentation and trial and error applied to SMALL CLOSED SYSTEMS in a REPEATABLE FASHION. Exactly what you CANNOT do with the atmosphere.
But really, talking to a lawyer, theocrat, statist, quack doctor and now enviro, while the titanic is sinking is kinda...pointless.
Especially when you're emotionally invested. Obviously you're emotional about it.
Emotional about what? You mean I don't want to be ruled by idiots (like you) - or by anybody actually? Yep, I am 'emotional' about that.
So just deal with that, rather than pretend.
Pretend what?
But onto your point and logical claim. No, the scientific method is NOT about "small, closed systems" in a "repeatable fashion". REPEAT: NOT about that.
Sure sure. I forgot you got your education from the Bible. Carry on.
So anything else you wish to surprise us with, poo-holer?
\0x
participants (3)
-
\0xDynamite -
juan -
Steven Schear