LetsAllMakeBelieve said:
A few points id like to make after reading this thread
1) PS360's argument was poorly backed up
2) sqrl's argument is arrogant and backed up through heavilly biased sources
3) neither side made a convincing argument
4) people have taken sqrl's side purely due to there anti-GW views, noone seems to have questioned the accuracy of his posts.
5) PS360 lost it after it became clear he was being insulted.
6) PS360 made several poor comments.
7) GW may not be fact yet, but the evidence on wikipedia and many news sites suggest its all but fact.
8) IMO sqrl needs to stop pretending to be Stephen Hawking's right hand man
9) IMO PS360 needs to do more research to back up his view
10) i know await my own falming and request for concrete evidence, which alas i cannot give, however if u read this entire post, u will note i say that i source several sites and say it is not fact, but the main theory at the moment.
11) Please Read my points before responding. |
You're making a bad assumption that what is presented on wikipedia and many news sites are facts; and they're not just as 'biased' as the sources Sqrl used. The only clear fact in the entire global warming debate is that it is not a scientific debate, it is a political debate.
To go back to an earlier post of mine:
Carl Sagan
The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark 1. Whenever possible there must be independent confirmation of the “facts” 2. Encourage substantive debate on the “evidence” by knowledgable proponents of all points of view. 3. Arguments from authority carry little weight as “authorities” have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better way to say it is that there are no authorities; at most; there are “experts”. 4. Spin a variety of hypotheses. If there’s something to be explained, think of all the different ways in which it could be explained. Then think of tests by which you might systematically disprove each. The ones that survive are the ones to do in depth study on. 5.Do not become attached to any hypothesis just because it’s yours. Find reasons for rejecting all, including your own, hypothesis. 6. Quantify. If whatever you are explaining has a measure, quantify it so that measurement is more possible. Vague hypothesis, or those difficult to quantify will be the most difficult to prove or disprove. Ie: There is a Sasquatch. 7. If there is a chain argument, then each and every link must work, including the premise. 8. Use Occam’s Razor; which is to choose the hypothesis that explains the data in the simplest terms. 9. Ask: is the Hypothesis testable and falsifiable. Hypothesis that are not testable are not worth much. Could you duplicate accurately, at least theoretically, the hypothesis? |
Every last rule put forward by Carl Sagan has been broken by supporters of the Global Warming hypothesis:
1+2) Anyone who questions the 'facts' or debates the null-hypothesis instantly has their motivations brought into question, any funding they have received is put under a microscope, and people try to discredit them automatically; the opposite is not true, and few people ever get the same level of problems by supporting the 'facts' or the hypothesis. As a result of this you're discouraging independent confirmation of the facts or any substantive debate.
3) Believe it or not, Wikipedia, news outlets and the "consensus" are all authorities and they have no place in a scientific debate. The science should be able to stand up on its own without these distractions.
4) How often do you hear debates on whether the high levels of sunspot activity (which have a close correlation to world temperatures) may have a greater influence than carbon dioxide outside of web forums? The backers of the Global Warming hypothesis have worked very hard to silence any alternative hypothesis.
5) Most people I have ever seen who question the global warming hypothesis accept that it may be an explanation but don't believe it is currently supported by the science, or that it is the leading option. Few people who support the global warming hypothesis will accept the possibility of any other hypothesis.
6) The hypothesis "The Earth's average temperature will rise 1 degree over the next century" is quantified, "Global Warming is happening" is not ... it is nearly impossible to prove or disprove "Global Warming" because an increase of 0.0001 degrees over the next century would count as "Global Warming" but would certainly not be worth the hype
7) First we must demonstrate that man made CO2 is the main factor of Global Warming, then you must demonstrate that Global Warming is actually a negative thing before you can claim that the science is settled.
8) Being that the sun accounts for the vast (VAST) majority of the climate, wouldn't it be a simpler explanation that the sun was the major factor in Climate Change?
9) How can you test the Climate Change hypothesis? All computer models do is they assume the hypothesis and then calculate how much of an impact it had; we need a way to test it otherwise it is junk science.
