Amadd wrote on Oct 24^th, 2008 at 6:16pm:

Amadd wrote on Oct 24^th, 2008 at 7:33pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 24^th, 2008 at 7:12pm:

Well, why doesn't somebody test them already?

No can do, that's why.

Blaming humans for a posssible change in the climate is the latest attempt to force a hairshirt onto people.

It's a monumental guilt trip by fiat from the Central Committee. Al Gore is embraced by half the right-on crowd not because they undertsand a word he says but as a way of sticking it to Bush. The guy is a mutt (Gore).

Here's the bottom line: if there is a change in climate, that can be measured.
Why it is changing cannot be measured. It can be only be speculated on. If a hypothesis is formed as to the cause, that has to be tested by experiment (not computer manuipulation of meeasurement data).
This experimental phase of the scientific method is missing and will remain missing forever.


As far as theories are concerened, though, we have data, appaarently, to show that the climate varied wildly long before humans appeared.  The good professsor's letteer to the Oz point this out in a far-too-snappy manner for some.

Well, why doesn't somebody test them already?

They are soren.

Here's the bottom line: if there is a change in climate, that can be measured.

Yes it has been measured.

Why it is changing cannot be measured.

Duh.

It occurs to me Soren, that you don't even know what theories you are decrying as untestable. YOu are arguing from ignorance. Your argument is nothing more than "I have no idea what the theories actually are, let alone how they test them, therefor they are not testable.

Quote:


muso, fair enough in strict legal terms, but I'm talking about a motivation or a reason, and not a method.

If you haven't realised yet that you won't get an honest answer out of Grendel, then you eventually will.

There's no honest debating here...just the upholding of  ignorance. It's essentially tits on a bull.

freediver wrote on Oct 24^th, 2008 at 9:27pm:


Just because I am not right-on should not mean to you that I am ignorant.

There is no possibility of testing climate change theories because we do not have a supply of climates, like we have of lab mice.
And perhaps no longer needless to say, we have no way of deploying controls in any climate experiments,  shouldd we be able to devise an experiment with the only one climate we have.
So there is no replicability, and there are no controls - crucial element in any scientific experiment. In this light, what does it matter what theories are shouting loudest if they cannot meet the two basic requirements of scientific testing?
Do you know of any climate eexperiments that have controls andd can be replicated. Those onees i am interetsted in. the rest are not worth taling about because that's all they are good for - talk.

I don't mind a bit of doomsday harangue and millennial brimstone and hairshirt  but don't make it out that it is actually scientifically settled and beyond questioning and doubt because  then it all sounds a bit Soviet or muslim to me (to remain contemporary).

Just because I am not right-on should not mean to you that I am ignorant.

What does that mean? I think you have no idea what theories AGW is based on. It is only your ignorance of the theories that allows you to make these claims.

There is no possibility of testing climate change theories because we do not have a supply of climates, like we have of lab mice.

Crap. Do you need a supply of planets to test the theory of gravity, or to test the claim that the earth revolves around the sun? What separates a good scientist from an idiot is being able to design a simple experiment to test a theory.

Soren wrote on Oct 25^th, 2008 at 10:43pm:


Forget about weather forecasting. We're not trying to predict what the temperature wind speed and precipitation will be in Wagga Wagga on the 23rd January 2023. All we're interested in is the atmospheric CO2 concentration, the ocean water bicarbonate and some fairly basic parameters. These things are all very deterministic.

We can understand enough to know that we're in trouble. To understand that requires a very basic knowledge.

In the 70's it was not the general consensus that there would be global cooling. You have been misled, and I can provide details if you like.

You mentioned understanding psychology. Cognitive Psychology is actually quite an exact science, but let's not go into that.

As an analogy, weather prediction is like a psychologist predicting exactly what your frame of mind will be tomorrow morning at 10:30, including exactly what you'll be thinking.

Climate prediction is like if you consumed an entire bottle of Laphroaig (might as well make your hypothetical drink a good one, although I don't partake myself) and predicting if two hours later you can still sing the Major General's song from the Pirates of Penzance word and tone perfect.