CarolSeer2016 wrote:
Well, then maybe it's just your reading ability that's at fault. Or maybe you haven't read all my comments on this site. You should try it, you might learn something.
If you like I can try to get you a list of my threads. I could work on that tonight.
I do apologize if I was wrong.
CarolSeer2016 wrote:
Absolutely. So when media-politicians-academics say 97% of scientists believe the globe is warming and it is caused by man, Galileo is saying that is not proof.
That is a correct interpretation of what he said. On the other hand, that is not what scientists are saying. They are saying based on measurements and scientific modeling that Global climate change is a reality and that humans have a good part of the blame for it.
skott wrote:
That is a correct interpretation of what he said. On the other hand, that is not what scientists are saying. They are saying based on measurements and scientific modeling that Global climate change is a reality and that humans have a good part of the blame for it.
And they would be wrong.
But they are also saying the other.
skott wrote:
That is a correct interpretation of what he said. On the other hand, that is not what scientists are saying. They are saying based on measurements and scientific modeling that Global climate change is a reality and that humans have a good part of the blame for it.
What do you think of Galileo's logical principle stated above, #9, I believe, that in order to have a true established "proof" the scientists must also be able to show his own hypothesis to be untenable?
skott wrote:
I do apologize if I was wrong.
Skott, post links that verify that there were no Jews left in Jerusalem / the Levant /Palestine, take your pick, at any given time in history after Zion (Jerusalem) was founded.
Waiting...... Ready to apologize yet? STILL WAITING.....
CarolSeer2016 wrote:
What do you think of Galileo's logical principle stated above, #9, I believe, that in order to have a true established "proof" the scientists must also be able to show his own hypothesis to be untenable?
Arghhhh... I meant, scientists of the opposing view must show MY hypothesis to be untenable. Sorry for the confusion .
CarolSeer2016 wrote:
What do you think of Galileo's logical principle stated above, #9, I believe, that in order to have a true established "proof" the scientists must also be able to show his own hypothesis to be untenable?
I know he wrote it, but disagree with it. Here is why. Scientifically, if you can prove a theory wrong, then it is no longer a theory.
Applied to global climate change: If you prove no warming is going on, or that the theory has a hole that can be proven wrong, then no theory would exist. This has not happened.
The last decade has been the hottest average temperatures recorded by man. (Proof of warming.)
That man has a hand in this through chemicals released by his products. (NOT Proven yet, but no scientific proof against.)
Blacksheep wrote:
Skott, post links that verify that there were no Jews left in Jerusalem / the Levant /Palestine, take your pick, at any given time in history after Zion (Jerusalem) was founded.
Waiting...... Ready to apologize yet? STILL WAITING.....
I told you I could prove that the Jews as a nation were moved. And I did. I cannot, nor do I need to, prove that every single person living there had no Jewish blood. And you cannot prove that the did. I call it an impasse. I proved what I said, and you want something else.
So, back to my original question. If the native Americans were here first, will they have a better claim than Americans to the land after 1000 years of not possessing it?
Neither do the Israelis.
skott wrote:
I know he wrote it, but disagree with it. Here is why. Scientifically, if you can prove a theory wrong, then it is no longer a theory.
Applied to global climate change: If you prove no warming is going on, or that the theory has a hole that can be proven wrong, then no theory would exist. This has not happened.
The last decade has been the hottest average temperatures recorded by man. (Proof of warming.)
That man has a hand in this through chemicals released by his products. (NOT Proven yet, but no scientific proof against.)
I know he wrote it, but disagree with it. Here is ... (
show quote)
1.) Well, that's the point, skott. If you prove my theory wrong, then it's no longer a theory. Agreed.
2.) "The last decade has been the hottest average temperatures recorded by man. So you are saying that we know only temperatures for the last, what is it, 150 years? What about the hundreds of years before that? What was happening, exactly?
3.) You can't prove a general statement, skott; what Aristotle called an "A" statement, "All A are B", when put in strict Aristotlean logical form. You can only disprove an "A" statement with a "contradictory"--an "O" statement: "Some A are not B."
You have not a leg to stand on.
skott wrote:
I know he wrote it, but disagree with it. Here is why. Scientifically, if you can prove a theory wrong, then it is no longer a theory.
Applied to global climate change: If you prove no warming is going on, or that the theory has a hole that can be proven wrong, then no theory would exist. This has not happened.
The last decade has been the hottest average temperatures recorded by man. (Proof of warming.)
That man has a hand in this through chemicals released by his products. (NOT Proven yet, but no scientific proof against.)
I know he wrote it, but disagree with it. Here is ... (
show quote)
I'm not arguing that the planet is not warming, or, that is, hasn't been warming. My argument with the global warming theorists has to do with the major cause of the warming.
There is a mathematical description and derivation, which involves harmonic motion, that would account for warming; and not only warming but would include a possible cooling period, as well, and perhaps account for increased earthquake and volcanic activity.
Anyway, I find the numbers and statistics of global warming theorists faulty for no other reason that they can't with any certitude go back longer than a few hundred years. The observation of numbers further back than that is highly suspect.
Talking about glaciers?
And what is your proof, experimentally speaking, that the numbers--I guess it's CO2 levels--are related to global warming or even are accurate in fact?
CarolSeer2016 wrote:
Talking about glaciers?
And what is your proof, experimentally speaking, that the numbers--I guess it's CO2 levels--are related to global warming or even are accurate in fact?
That is, do the CO2 concentrations found in core samples taken from glaciers or polar ice caps correctly reflect either atmospheric CO2 levels, and therefore, global temperature?
What is your calibration method?
You've stepped in it now, skott.
Not doing so well with Jews either, are you?
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.