It's more entertaining when he doesn't know that he's the one not on the same page as everyone else.
I got to where I couldn't stand the unwarranted attacks and sidesteps myself. Calling me names when he didn't understand my points got very irritating.
It's more entertaining when he doesn't know that he's the one not on the same page as everyone else.
The next time you actually say something specifically will be the first. Yours is a constant stream of implications. If your point was that science could be wrong well then BRAVO. We could after all learn that we're inside the Matrix tomorrow at which point the science would be extremely wrong. We could discover a long hidden molecule that does everything that CO2 seems to do and at that point the science would be wrong. Etc etc etc etc.
I noticed that while you were pointing out that consensus could be wrong, you sure as didn't post any articles or blogs about how often consensus is right.
Which do you think happens more often? A case like your bacteria/ulcers situation, or a case like the hundreds of thousands of other theories in science that aren't disproven?
Repeating that I did not understand the point over and over again is not going to make it true.
I get that you wanted to belabor a point from only the angle that you choose but you did in the midst of your waffling from position to position to their refutations say:
a) that you thought the presidents claims about Florida were innacurate
b) that you felt that the AGCC and AL DERP GORE were poor ambassadors and that lay people such as yourself cannot trust was a serious issue.
If you did indeed make those assertions then how is bringing up the insurance industry as an alternate source that is a major industry with obvious 'conservative' inclinations claiming the exact same thing not germane?
I can get why you don't want to consider it and I know that I am belaboring a point but if you want to force the issue with a serious dissembler thats what you have to do.
You just dismiss it out of hand.
That still isn't a scientific method.
Facts make statistics. Statistics don't make facts.
Now, if you were being realistic, you would have said we could experience an existential threat between now and 2100 that would make all this global climate science moot.
Asteroid strike.
Super volcano eruption.
Alien invasion.
I think you get the picture.
Yeah the correlative analysis of BEST cannot be considered factual but modeling using solubility charts and combustion in the troposphere: thats the scientific method.
I thought the goal to support one's theory in science was to do everything possible to disprove it. Once you couldn't find anything to disprove it, the theory has merit.
Why doesn't the AGW community practice such an approach?
Remind me again about how you understand science?
DERP!!
The scientific method is a way to ask and answer scientific questions by making observations and doing experiments.
The steps of the scientific method are to:
Ask a Question
Do Background Research
Construct a Hypothesis
Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
Communicate Your Results
It is important for your experiment to be a fair test. A "fair test" occurs when you change only one factor (variable) and keep all other conditions the same.
Combustion of the troposphere is still pretty damn good.
Peanut gallery comments again. Have anything intelligent to say?
It would be impossible in the current state of the earth. Do you know how the magnetic field, and other variables were that long ago? What other chemistry might have been at play?
I was only making a case that such a thing might have been possible. I never said it did. For you to outright dismiss such a thing is not scientific at all. I will agree it's highly improbable.
Last...
You restated what I said wrong also. I never said troposphere, and I was going for slower molecular changes that most don't think of as combustion.
Please... keep the facts strait.
See Manny. There you have it: the scientific method at work.
Maybe my dissertation will be on paleoatmospheric combustion evidence.
First, I would need to read the research on magnetic field history.
I can see you being the type who if you lived back then, also laughed at the idea it would be possible to go faster than the speed of sound.
WC, remember that one time you said you were testing me?
Don't be as short sighted as you always are. I said "and other variables" as well.
My point is that the chemistry does allow for it under some conditions. The question would be if those conditions could have been met.
Again, highly improbable. I simply cannot believe that you have no acceptance of unlikely events being able to happen.
No, care to link?
Hes right; I get those 't's mixed up. DERP!
derp!!!
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)