Global Warming: The BIGGEST LIE Exposed

AGW is a theory not an hypothesis.

Source
AGWfulfills all these definitions.

 

Parts of AGW are theory like the Greenhouse effect but much of AGW is based on computer models that have so far been wrong.

 

So, we can agree that there is NO definitive evidence of proof. What is your hypothesis to seek the evidence that supports that theory? I ask you this because the Hypothesis currently being used by the religion as proof is proclaimed to be great evidence seems devoid to show evidence of the actual observations...

Oh and forgetting the sarcasm, of course it meets all those definitions any theory does. BUT the religion does not.

 

Mmm... The problem with deterring AGW as a theory is that proof does NOT have to be provided. There really is no point debating such an issue as just by admitting this fact the AGW crowd show there is NO proof so burden of proof is non-existent and those that believe the theory as fact simply have faith it is. The Models hypothesis what will happen in the future so if they are correct or not it is neither evidence the theory is wrong or right. At the end of the day, these people have faith in a theory because some scientist created it... Fact is YOU can create a theory E.G.

I theorise that the AGW crowd will in the future proclaim an event in the future (let us say... a flood event) supports the theory of AGW because it will break a record of (let us say... rainfall). AND that they will come on this forum indicating it is PROOF of the THEORY of AGW... Proof that this WILL happen, is that it has happened on TWO occasions before. .

Hypothesis, sit and wait, watching the forum for such a post.

IS IT MY THEORY TRUE??? NO, it is just a theory of a prediction. The evidence is TRUE but does NOTHING of providing any burden of proof. Will it happen, Dam right it will because this is the level of understanding of this crowd...

Are you getting the picture??? Mannie just told you that Burden of proof does not need to be provided because it is simply a THEORY. So any argument that this theory is proven is simply faith in a theory and NOTHING more. The fact is while this remains a theory ANYBODY who proclaims ANYTHING as proof are simply fabricating these points to indicate their faith is correct.

SO when somebody states “burden of proof” they are simply lying…

 

Your "source" doesn't refer to AGW, but in desperation, you erroneously claim it applies.

The AGW 'theory' remains an hypothesis:

http://www.freecriticalthinking.org/climate-change/123-anthropogenic-global-warming-theory

Global warming theory lacks a falsifiable hypothesis and climate policy lacks Conditions of Success

http://ktwop.wordpress.com/2013/06/...d-climate-policy-lacks-conditions-of-success/

 

Incorrect! Most of AGW is derived from basic physics. You can ignore all the simulations and models that make predictions and basic physics (conservation of energy, Stefan–Boltzmann law, Beer's Law, Planck's Law, radiative transfer equations and more) would confirm that the energy of the earth is increasing.

 

The science establishment justifies its existence with the big idea that it offers answers and ultimately solutions. But privately, every scientist knows that what science really does is discover the profundity of our ignorance. The growing sphere of scientific knowledge is not Pope’s night-dispelling light, but a campfire glow in the gloom of vast mystery. Touting discoveries helps secure finding and gain tenure, put perhaps the time has come to retire discovery as the ultimate measure of scientific progress. Let us measure progress not by what is discovered, but rather by the growing list of mysteries that remind us of how little we really know. ~ Paul Saffo – The illusion of scientific progress

 

There never will be "definitive evidence of proof." because theories do not require "proof" to be accepted.

The purpose of a hypothesis is not " to seek the evidence that supports that theory". The purpose of a hypothesis is to explain a phenomena.

The purpose of a hypothesis is not " used by the religion as proof". The purpose of a hypothesis is to explain a phenomena.

Serious question: Have you ever taken and passed a basic science class?

 

Of course they require proof to become fact, which CAGW is not.

 

No they do not - ask some of the other denialists on here who try to use the term "scientific proof" to try and win the occasional point

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...sconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof

Oh! and BTW you seem to have missed Mannie's post about the physical science underpinning global warming - it is quite robust you know

 

The science underpinning CAGW is not robust and there is not much agreement on that. The science underpinning some of the underlying science is quite good but does not take into account the wicked system that Climate is which, BTW, has now been proven to exclude other factors that are currently a "mystery" to the CAGWers, though they claim to know it is hiding somewhere, again without any proof but just conjecture.

 

Correct, proof does not exist in science.

Phenomena is the plural of phenomenon.

See my last reply.

Would you care to respond to post, #230 or is it too accurate for you?

 

And this has what to do with my post?
Sure. Instead of touting the medical knowledge we've gained with science (about AIDS, cancer as 2 examples) let's measure our progress by what we don't know about AIDS or cancer. I'm sure those mysteries will benefit a lot of sick people!

 

The physics is robust - and the only mystery here is why denialists will not accept the elephant standing in the room - even when it is standing on their toes!!

 

It is so robust that the models based on it have been wrong. You still don't understand that much is still unknown but instead rely on a politically devised organization and a cartoonists web site to tell you what the science is.

 

educate your self here is a little entertaining video >>>MOD EDIT: INSULT<<<

[video=youtube;nq4Bc2WCsdE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpag e&v=nq4Bc2WCsdE[/video]

 

Just because you keep claiming the models are wrong - does not make it so



- - - Updated - - -

And the rebuttal to science is&#8230;&#8230;..

A cartoon on you tube!!

Gotta love it!

 

Just because you post a graph from your favorite cartoonist does not make what you say so either.

After expecting an increase of 0.2oC per decade in the early decades of the 21st century from the AR4 statements, the rate of warming over the past 15 years is only ~0.05C.

 

Sure we can play the grammar/spelling game!
To show you're not just throwing (*)(*)(*)(*) against the wall, why don't you explain, in your own words, why there should be a hot spot. I'll warn you, the author (I wonder why he didn't identify himself) got it wrong.

And a theory needs to be falsifiable; not a hypothesis.

 

Exactly what I stated... Not sure Why you would say the same thing back to me and pretend I said different.

True,

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hypothesis
However, it assumes that the theory is correct doesn’t it???

However, if the explination of the phenomena MUST meet the actual results.
As state the hypothesis used by the religion to explain this “phenomena” Does not seem to meet the actual observations.
Here is a point, Religion that GOD exists is simply a theory as there is no empirical evidence that he does. MANY around the world have FAITH that he does BUT nobody can provide any evidence that he does. They hypothesis his existence through miracle healings, myths and legends as these phenomena’s can only be explained by such a deity. Is there any similarity between what you are saying and what religion is saying???

Yes, and so far everything you have said on this point demonstrates that YOUR faith in AGW is simply that. YOUR supporters run around proclaiming that this has provided “burden of PROOF” when this THEORY is remains unproven without collaborating evidence. THE entire evidence is based entirely on the premise that ASSUMES the theory is correct. So far everybody has created a hypothesis and tested such WITHOUT success, YET many proclaim the theory is right because… well must be faith.

 

CAGW will never become a fact; theories do not become facts.

Source

 

Of course, because once they are proven, they are no longer theories.

 

So, in other words

Mod Edit ~ Focus on the topic. Don't make it personal.

 

Oops jump the gun

 

CAGW is a very frail hypothesis.