Democrats understand science, Republicans defy it

anonymoose said:
If you stop there you are correct. A hypothesis becomes a theory only when the hypothesis can be predicted repeatedly by testing and other hypotheses ruled out by testing.
AGW is nothing more than a hypotheses. You will never, ever see the word "consensus" used in The Scientific Method.
Scientific illiterates actually believe "consensus" is a Physical Law. Too funny.
Click to expand...

Yeah. I couldn't remember that word consensus so I said " a bunch of people theorize (hypothesize) a thing" . To make laws and tax people with the impossible task of saving the planet is to enslave the people to a futile and insane existence of fail and must be a scheme hatched in hell. The people perpetrating this global hoax are all highly educated, so I must deduce by the scientific method: hypotheses- theory - science- law that these perpetrators are stupid and or evil.
 
Last edited:
iewitness said:
Right real people use real science and reject fake, illegitimate leftist "science", which is not science at all, but it is hypotheses and theory only; and because a bunch of theorists theorize a thing does not make it science. Leftists/ wrongists/ the damned of Earth also exercise their delusional, illegitimacy in application of law. Lawless losers.
Click to expand...

STFU and go jack off to some Bible verses, phony Christian pervert.
 
Truth Detector said:
Tell that to the snowflakes; they think MAN has the power to alter earths climate; regardless of the FACT that it has been altered many times before man even walked the earth. ;)
Click to expand...

I know. It's part of the all powerful nature of the gods of the Church of Global Warming. There are two:
The Great God Consensus, all powerful, able to change physical laws in a single utterance. Overrules any and all science and mathematics.
The Great Goddess Gaia, the goddess of the Earth itself, that feels every pain inflicted upon Her.

There is also the Son Al Gore, politically put to death by the people but raises from the dead from time to time to say something stupid.

...and of course the Holy Gas, all pervasive, capable of showing the Sins of Man.It is formless, shapeless, colorless, and gathers light unto itself, forever destroying it.
 
domer76 said:
^And they say there’s no such thing as a stupid question. Folks, here’s a great example.
Click to expand...
It is a stupid question but one that needs to be asked of anyone who thinks the sun has no input into causing the earth to warm.
 
Last edited:
hvilleherb said:
Domer is one of those partisan idiots who would love to the the Trump economy damaged by job killing pollution controls.
Click to expand...

Coal is dying, stupid fuck. Get used to it.

You want Mexico-like water? You want Beijing-like air? You want melamine in your pet food?

Pull your head out if your ass, dumbfuck. Industry will put PCBs in your lakes and streams, nitrates into your groundwater, and poison your air, drinking water and even your pet food for the sake of profit. The only thing standing between you and those cocksuckers is the government setting standards and monitoring them.

Fucking moron
 
Cypress said:
Half of Republicans do not believe in Evolution.

Which reminds me, I need to buy stock in the Creation Science museum - because that is a freakin' huge potential market of conservative dim wits just waiting to be suckered out of their money.
Click to expand...

The Theory of Creation is not science. It is not falsifiable. We can't go back to see what actually happened. It is just like the Theory of Abiogenesis in that way. Science has no theories about past unobserved events for this reason. The only way to test the null hypothesis is to go back in time and actually see what happened.
 
anonymoose said:
It is a stupid question but one that needs to be asked of anyone who thinks the sun has no input into causing the earth to warm. S
Click to expand...

Where did I say it didn’t?

The thing the deniers want to avoid is that global warming and cooling took place over thousands of years or longer.

Comprende, pally boy?
 
iewitness said:
My testimony condemns you . You mad ? My prostate therapy is normal. I have the prostate of a 19 year old. I reckon your prostate is the size of a coconut.
Click to expand...

What you have is the maturity of a 19 year old and a coconut for a fucking brain, weirdo.
 
iewitness said:
Right real people use real science and reject fake, illegitimate leftist "science", which is not science at all, but it is hypotheses and theory only; and because a bunch of theorists theorize a thing does not make it science. Leftists/ wrongists/ the damned of Earth also exercise their delusional, illegitimacy in application of law. Lawless losers.
Click to expand...

Actually, neither 'global warming' nor 'climate change' is a theory at all.These phrases are meaningless buzzwords. No one has been able to define them as anything but themselves. Since a theory is an explanatory argument, this means the resulting argument from such meaningless words is a void argument fallacy. No theory can exist (scientific or nonscientific) based on a fallacy. A hypothesis is NOT an explanatory argument, and always is attached to an existing theory (such as the null hypothesis of a theory). Not all theories are scientific ones, to be sure, but all theories are explanatory arguments.

For a theory to be a scientific one, that theory must be falsifiable. It must have a null hypothesis for it. The test for the null hypothesis must be available, practical, specific, and produce a specific result. It a theory has all that, and it survives such a test against it, that theory is automatically science. It will continue to be a theory of science until it is destroyed by falsification (a test upon the null hypothesis is successful).
 
Watermark said:
Science will win out in the end over politics. The human race will suffer for it, but the greedy will be long dead by then and unable to be punished for their great sins.
Click to expand...

Science always wins over politics because science does not use consensus. It is nothing more than a set of falsifiable theories.

What suffering are you envisioning and why?
 
Watermark said:
If the Earth had no atmosphere what would the surface temperature of the Earth be? Would it stay the same, as it would have to according to your "calculations"?

Let's just ignore that two of your postulates are essentially the same thing.
Click to expand...

Assuming the same distance from the Sun, and minus the mass of the atmosphere (which absorbs heat from the Sun just as the surface does), and assuming the terrain stays the same, the Earth would be slightly cooler, on average. This would be due to the loss of mass in the atmosphere. Surface temperatures would also swing wildly, but the average would only be slightly cooler.

I only made two postulates. They are not the same thing. Please re-read the post.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top