Anti Global Warming Scientist a fraud?

Discussion in 'World News / Current Events Forum' started by CPLZ, Feb 23, 2015.

  1. fishnfool

    fishnfool Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    4,472
    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Location:
    New Hampshire
    Look at it this way...

    I shoot a duck. I think it's an old hen mallard. You think it's an eclipse drake (i.e. hypotheses).

    I use horrible methods to try and figure it out....I ask my wife, I ask my neighbors' kids, and I consult a basic website with 2 pictures of a mallard. Based on that, I conclude it is an old hen mallard.

    You correctly call my methods bunk, but my methods have zero effect on your hypothesis. Rejecting my hypothesis based on my "evidence" does not lend any credence to yours. You're not any more or less correct than me without evidence of your own, so we're right back the beginning......with two untested hypotheses.


    Now 500 Fuge members take up the case. They all employ different means, and methods. 499 of the tests are ridiculous, incomplete, biased,tainted, etc.....but 1 person used DNA analysis. Does the 499 affect the 1 DNA test? Of course not.

    I suppose where I take pause is when someone can make the blanket statements that you make regarding ALL the research, methods and data out there regarding GW, and call into question EVERY conclusion on the topic. There's LOTS of truly good evidence and studies out there. People hold up the hockey stick graph, or the OP in this thread, and cry AHA! as if it's some smoking gun for the entire topic. It's just not, and I can only conclude that folks doing so are motivated by politics or attempts to confirm their preconceived views.

    Like I said, I'm not trying to change your mind on the topic, but I suppose I am trying to change your approach to it. Just remember, You saying "the science is incomplete, and we still don't know" is far difference than saying:

     
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2015
  2. Native NV Ducker

    Native NV Ducker Mod-Duck Hunters Forum, Classifieds, and 2 others Moderator Flyway Manager

    Messages:
    17,156
    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2003
    Location:
    Sula, MT
    You place a lot of faith in a 'hypothesis'.

    hy?poth?e?sis
    hīˈp?THəsəs/
    noun
    plural noun: hypotheses
    a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.

    Anyone can propose a hypothesis. That means nothing.

    The cause of global warming is the increased number of people on the planet, breathing oxygen, giving off carbon dioxide.

    My 'limited evidence' is that there are more people on the planet than at given times in the past.

    Oh, and I happen to work for a 'pro-choice' group.

    See how that works?

    The existence of a 'hypothesis' means nothing.
     
  3. fishnfool

    fishnfool Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    4,472
    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Location:
    New Hampshire
    And I don't mean this to be as disrespectful as it sounds, but your statement shows how little you understand the scientific process or the role of a hypothesis within it. The definition is correct, but it doesn't mean what you think it does.

    There should be ZERO faith in a hypothesis, and I personally put no faith in any scientific hypothesis, GW or otherwise. That's the whole point!

    "as a starting point for further investigation."

    The hypothesis is only the impetus to investigate......conclusions are made from those investigations (specifically to accept or reject X hypothesis).
     
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2015
  4. Ron Gilmore

    Ron Gilmore Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    13,115
    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Location:
    nd
    Actually fish, I do understand it very well, and your explanation works only as a means of claiming man made climate change! I stated clearly that we do not have enough science to make any determination. Be it natural or influenced by man.

    My thinking is not flawed in regards to people setting out and manipulating data to meet a theory or in many cases a goal.

    The nuts and bolts of the science of climate change should not be to prove that man is causing warming at an accelerated rate, but instead be to determine what the rise is. Natural, manmade or a combination of events. We have had that type of research, and for some reason it seldom gets published or peer reviews.

    Numerous papers on such studies have been presented and published but the so called elite refuse to publish or review the findings or if they have refuse to acknowledge such.

    I will challenge you to do some looking. A plane went down in Greenland during WWII the area it went down was known and in the past ten years that plane has been found and excavated from the ice and snow. See what that came of the data collected from that dig and see how the peer review community reacted to it.

    I am not using that as my only basis but it really underscores the point I am making! The data collected blew so many long held beliefs apart, and upset the proverbial apple cart of climate science especially for that region!!!

    Which begs what are they protecting?
     

Share This Page