Nature accomplished what Science couldn't accomplish

I have been alive long enough to have witnessed flooding, drought, heat waves severe cold, tornados . hurricanes dust devils tsunamis,and high school teachers warning of the coming ice age. You aren't going to fool me into relinquishing more control to the government!

 

We have read where you made this BS claim over and over for nearly everyone. I am beginning to doubt whether you understand science. Science is a broad subject. There is pure science or theoretical science and applied science. Comparatively speaking, theoretical science is a relatively narrow field. Applied science is used in every day life. Nearly everything we do, involves applied science to one degree or another. Saying someone does not understand science is absurd because our world is made up of applied science. Just because someone does not talk about science in whatever gobbleygook language you are trying to push does not mean they do not understand science.

It appears that you are trying to call AGW, theoretical science. It is a long way from theoretical science. Theoretical science is exact. You can calculate the ballistic path of an object in a pure vacuum and uniform gravity as far as as you want to calculate it, and it will still be accurate. However, you will never find that pure vacuum and uniform gravity. It does not exist.

Similarly, AGW cannot be called pure science because the conditions are are not totally known. If they were, they could predict that the world temperatures for however long they want to predict them and they would be exactly correct to how many decimal places you want to use.

In short, AGW is applied science with many unknowns and all the short comings.

 

It's called "evolution", which is something that never happens in Australia. Where is it written that the Earth must have a constant climate for eternity?

 

Because it never flooded in Texas or Missouri before.

 

I grew up in Missouri. I remember a few times when the Missouri got out of its banks, made it so farmers could not get into their fields and got into a few thousand homes, but it never really flooded. Just a lot of muddy water as far as he eye could see.

 

There are a growing line of events happening all around the globe. You need to become better informed.

 

There always have been a growing list of events happening around the world. I worked in a weather center and we got a summary of hundreds of such events on a daily basis.

But the point is, why would he pick this particular one as an example. It was not even a strong storm. As tropical disturbances go, it was a rather weak one which just happened to stall out because of the geography which has been there for thousands of years.

 

Whenever we want to make a point, we cite examples we're familiar with, or were near or recent. We all do.

 

But his one has absolutely nothing to do with AGW. It was a run of the mill storm which stalled out in a populated area.

 

Fine, ignore it then. But there are many other examples illustrating the climatological changes taking place around us. The current number of tropical storms forming in the Atlantic is another. Regardless of the examples you encounter, the evidence is building rapidly that Global Warming is a serious & significant threat to every form of life on this planet, & we caused it.

 

I have a problem with "& we caused it" and the unspoken part that we are smart enough and have the capability to do anything about it.

Too many lies and deceptions trying to sell the idea to make me take it seriously. This OP is one example.

But I will ask you the same question I have asked about everyone else. Why do you believe in AGW?

1) Because you understand the science well enough that you believe the equations are absolutely correct?

2) Because you believe that 97% of scientists believe it is true?

3) Or because of politics?

 

"Cute"? It's hilarious! I laugh every single time I read it.

But it also contains my point. Errors in practical applications of Science do not undermine the science. And, of course, all science is tentative. As recently as 1999, over 300 years after the most important book in the history of science (Newton's Principia) was first published, we were still finding errors. But... so what? We sent men to the moon based on it just the same.

Epistemology is irrelevant in a discussion about epistemololy?

Wow!

Forget about denying AGW... you deny all

The right was more than welcome... even urged to participate. They refused. So we got what we got. Whining about it now is not going to get any of the houses out from the bottom of the river.

Lucky you. Hundreds in Bahamas this year and Puerto Rico last year would have wished that the right had not adopted, not just science denialism, but science obstructionism, as their demagoguery gimmick. Who knows where and how many next year.

 

so your god is punishing us for not being faithful. I still don't believe in your religion.

your god is kind of stupid I've lived in Texas 436 years just about every year I've lived here we have seen floods. It doesn't have anything to do with your god it has to do with runoff.

Your god visiting his wrath upon us is not going to convince us. We just simply don't believe in your cockamamie religion.

 

Only those who don't understand science.

Completely irrelevant in this discussion.

As for the rest, don't sweat it. As I said, 20 years trying to explain science to those who selectively deny the validity of science for purely political reasons is enough.

At one point we were fearful that the right would take over the conversation and the planet would pay the consequences. But look at the younger (and wiser) generation. They know more than their elders on the right. There is no stopping them now. Any right-winger who wants to jump in the wagon is welcome to. But they will have to do it using their own two feet. No more help. The train has left the station. If they want to help, they are more than welcome to come over. If they don't they are not needed anymore, as they once were.

 

Not at all. You are trying to treat AGM like pure science. It is applied science with many unknowns.

Nothing has happened to make them wiser. They have been bombarded with AGM. You hear something often enough and some people start believing it. This OP is the worse example. This storm had nothing to do with AGM. It was a weak storm which happened to stall out in a bad location, a highly populated area for reasons which have been there for thousands of years.. And you are trying to palm it off as proof and even made the statement that we should not consider all such storms as proof. A purely dishonest comment.

 

Should have been more clear. That man was a genius and funny to boot.

Your usage was cute but irrelevant because it addressed a subject we aren’t discussing.

Have I ever complained about errors in science? No. Have I said errors undermine science? No. Knowingly using erroneous information is what I have a problem with.

Well yes. Nobody even knows what Epistemololy is.

No problem, just couldn’t resist. Seriously, if your experience in epistemology is relevant my experience with the sciences is as well. But you knew that, you just can’t admit it so deflect with nonsense.

Umm yeh. Wow!

Yeh, there’s another baseless allegation from a guy who thinks producing papers is part of the scientific method and doesn’t know the difference between a scientific fact or a theory.

Those rivers have seen more water numerous times before any fossil fuels were used. I’m thankful we are confident we aren’t slipping into a cooling period soon. I would not want to live with that. And you are the only one whining. You say it’s time to stop arguing and do something. Well, stop arguing and do something. Oh, that’s right, you don’t have the ability to do anything. I’m thankful that I do have the ability to better the environment and provide sustenance for our growing population. I’ll make the most of it.

Sorry, I don’t deal in emotions. That’s your department. Don’t try to pull the argument these storms are new over on me.

Can you explain why you say we have great plans to combat AGW but Greta says they don’t exist? You think I’m in the way. She doesn’t think there’s anything to be in the way of. Seems odd.

 

Definitely not pure science. Air to Ground Missiles are more technology than anything else.

Oh... you mean AGW. Yeah.... younger generations have most definitely been bombarded with AGW. Considering that most have not seen a single year in their life that was not among the 10 hottest in recorded history.

I don't know what pure science has to do with any of this, but it's clear your post is pure nonsense.

 

Yeah.

Climate change is real cuz we got flooded.

Sounds like a good argument.

 

My mistake. Too much time around the Air Force and the aerospace industry and acronyms. I generally try to avoid using them for this very reason. AGMs was among my first work after leaving the Air Force. They sometimes roll of the tongue too easily.

You are treating AGW like it is pure science rather than applied science and because you believe it is pure science, you believe it cannot be wrong. I sincerely hope you realize that it is applied science and not pure science.

 

We're all gonna die in Y2K anyway.

 

Yes. Something about some "diet" or something.

Who doesn't? Fortunately the Scientific Method accounts for that. At least up to the publication part. No misprint errors go unchecked.

I don't recall ever debating epistemology with anybody who doesn't know what epistemology is. Are you saying this is my first time?

We're not debating about your experience. We're debating epistemology. I hope you realize that.

Oh God. It's true! You actually have never heard of epistemology.

Sorry... can't do this anymore.

Easy. Greta doesn't know about them. Point her to the IPCC page and Paris Accord Agreement I showed you before and she will know better..

Better yet... don't. Greta will learn on her own before she graduates from High School. I can't think of anything worse than being educated in science by somebody who doesn't know what epistemology is.

 

Nope. Always been about knowingly using bad information to sell people something. I used misinformation in the dietary realm as an easy to understand example. I understand pattern recognition must be nearly impossible for people who operate from the position of confirmation bias, but I thought I’d give it a shot.

If everyone is honest maybe. Eventually truth usually comes out but it can sometimes take decades.

Well, I was joking with you about the fact you can’t spell the word correctly. Happens to us all. Now I’m thinking you need brush up on your reading comprehension as well as your epistemololy. I’m sorry, I just can’t help myself.

Nope. You tried to use your experience in epistemololy (ok, ok. I’ll quit. When you figure it out). I showed you that if your experience in the sciences counts mine does, too. I could care less about epistemololy (dang, spellcheck has learned a new word, I didn’t have to override it that time).

Epistemology, sure. We’ve discussed it before on this forum.

If you are going to use experience in epistemololy (it’s showing both and letting me choose now) to buttress your argument and then misuse terms like theory and scientific fact you had better quit. I’m surprised you lasted this long.

So they taught her all the complex science but none of the practical easy solutions? Sure, who wouldn’t buy that explanation.

Well, you aren’t teaching epistemololy anymore you’ve said, so maybe there is hope for her.

 

I would say for me, #1 & #2, but NOT #3.

 

Then you must agree with all the assumptions made in order to formulate the equations.

 

The science is and was paid for by politics of some kind, most of it is from the liberal side. All you have to do is look into it and where the money comes from. The governments money is even "stolen" from the citizens....taxes.