how science works
Science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge. This system uses observation and experimentation to describe and explain natural phenomena. The term science also refers to the organized body of knowledge people have gained using that system. Less formally, the word science often describes any systematic field of study or the knowledge gained from it
can you lot go out and ride a bike to relax now please and just accept that other people have different beliefs than you. You can't change an entrenched view (on either side) so why bother trying?
if you don't want to ride a bike, build a snowman. It may be something to tell the grandchildren about if the species lasts that long.
Bikes?
yep bikes, you know the things that eveyone on here has in common that use vast ammounts of energy to collect the raw material, refine it, manufacture all the bits and bobbins,paint them using enviormentally damaging VOC laden paints, ship round the world to greedy consumers who then post about man made climate change and how we should all reduce our carbon footprint on the tinterweb using electricity powered by burning bits of dinosaur dug up from the ground.
think that about sums it up. 😀
😆
I would suggest that you have absolutly no grasp of science fundamentals
Funny that seeing as how I have a science phd, 5 years research experience and now teach it
HOLY CRAP!?
And you are asking on an internet forum if the moon is made of cheese?
Quick, someone call Ofsted.
at least I can read, I said proove to me the middle of the moon isnt made of cheese.
Oh come on, your not doing yourself any favours by coming on here and professing to be the all knowing Dr Science and then asking me to prove that the centre of the moon is not made from cheese?
Is it just a deflection technique away from the real debate as to why you can't prove global warming due to man.
no it isnt its as idiotic a your view that seeing as how man made climate change cannot be proved its not true or you dont accept it. IMO your making yourself look stupid. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO PROVE MAN MADE CLIMATE CHANGE unless we find another earth and eliminate man and even then we would need to repeat it.
So you agree, that there is no proof of man made climate change?
I don't know why you are getting so worked up!?
there's evidence but its not and cannot be proven so asking for it to be proven is overly simplistic tabloid stupidity.
There is evidence of climate change, yes. Due to man? - No proof.
At least we agree on that.
Now with the whole moon made of cheese thing.........
there is evidence that climate change is man made too, there's evidence that the centre of the moon is not made ofcheese but there is no proof. Do you really not get it?
Through samples, scans and monitoring moonquakes they are able to ascertain the percentage composition of the moon, the percentage iron content at the core and this is also backed up my mass analysis due to the diameter, volume and orbit the moon has in relation to the earth. ALso there is the small factor that cheese comes from cows and is a man made product. So yes there is proof that in fact the centre of the moon is in fact not made of cheese no matter what you think.
Where as with climate change they have collected data on temperature rises but in fact they can not actually prove this is due to man, only assume it is. Where as in fact a lot of scientists that contradict this and say this it is actually in keeping with natural cycles.
I don't think you will find ANY scientist out there who would agree with you that the centre of the moon is made from cheese
Where did you study again?
hainey said
Through samples, scans and monitoring moonquakes they are able to ascertain the percentage composition of the moon, the percentage iron content at the core and this is also backed up my mass analysis due to the diameter, volume and orbit the moon has in relation to the earth.
No you are categorically wrong. That is just a conspiracy theory cooked up by moon scientists so that they can carry on getting their funding from all the dairy companies who don't want us mining moon cheese and putting them out of business.
I only have an engineering degree, but I'm going to start a petition to say I believe in moon cheese and once I've got 30,000 undergraduates to sign it and a couple of tabloids to report on it I dare say it will count as a valid anti-thesis to the ludicrous "moon/rock" dogma you keep spouting.
rightpalcerighttime- that is a genius answer!
burn Hainey! - the moon-cheese heretic!
could people who say the world is getting colder please confirm that they're not using 1998 as the starting point for this cooling?
meanwhile, i'm going sledging...
(lord summersisle - i don't understand your reply to my last post, i find your use of grammer confusing
"a single year is weather when it's cold" ?)
Hainey you clearly don’t grasp science and what it does and does not do. Much of what you say is just wrong, unsubstantiated or just plain daft. Science cannot prove anything no matter how ludicrous -that is the point of the moon being made of cheese argument with you. You will not convince him as he will produce as much evidence as you do to counter global warming-NONE and you cannot prove a negative. Perhaps our measures and models are all just wrong. We have not drilled to the centre have we and even if we did think of all the taxes and money they make out of this lie why should we then believe them?
You can't prove global warming due to man exists, neither can I prove the contrary. So please just accept that neither are correct instead of the usual burn him he's a heretic or daily mail reader nonsense!
You may recall on a previous thread of this you actually accepted you had no evidence to support your suggestion that man made global warming is not occurring and now you criticise someone for doing the same.
As for your proofs can you have a go at explaining how gravity has been proved please?
Now by this clearly I mean non Newtonian gravity [as I am sure you know his inverse square law is an excellent approximation but has been supereceeded by Einstein]and the gravity proposed by Einstein. Within this clearly you will be able to explain to us why it cannot be accounted in a universal theory of everything, You will realign quantum and non quantum physics and explain why other explanations of gravity - oh you did not realise that bit did you?what non consensus even over gravity SHOCKER-and also why Goedelisation will not occur.
Science is about eliminating infinite error not about finding truth. NOTHING CAN BE PROVED -no scientist will tell you otherwise [including Einstein] and the fact you keep saying shows you are no scientists.
I don't think you will find ANY scientist out there who would agree with you that the centre of the moon is made from cheeseWhere did you study again?
I didnt say I believed it, I said prove to me it isnt. I studied at UEA (BSc Ecology), Lancaster (MRes Environmental Science), Newcastle (PhD) and worked doing research at Reading.
this thread makes me 🙂
some right spanners on here...
Junkyard, I am astounded that you don't think Science can prove anything? Seriously astounded. You quite obviously aren't a scientist and have no grasp at all of the subject.
The simple matter is that you can not prove that global warming at the moment is down to man. You can't. No one can. Just like i can't prove that it isn't.
I don't know why you can't see that people have different points of view, again back to the burn him he's a heretic style.
Whilst i am quite happy to say that i definitly can not prove that global warming is not down to man, you are so arrogant to sit there and say it is. By your own reasoning you are saying you can not prove anything.
The issue we have is that the warming at the moment can be interpreted in many different ways, and historically we have seen this AND much worse climate change, which would suggest that there it may not be down to mans influence.
out of interst hainey have you ever done any science?
Yes.
care to expand that answer?
Not on an internet forum no.
at what sort of level then?
Is it top secret?
[img] 
[/img]
[b]Is it top secret? [/b]
[img] 
[/img]
We probably know too much already.
Any more and ........... we can expect a "knock on the door"
PhD from the Institute of Spurious Statistics?
Junkyard, I am astounded that you don't think Science can prove anything? Seriously astounded. You quite obviously aren't a scientist and have no grasp at all of the subject.
Yes I just got lucky with that science degree then 🙄
Putting it simply if we have proof in science why do theories change and when they do is it still proof?
More complicated answer
You are confusing the everyday use of the word with what science does- you need to understand the axioms that underlie the scientific approach. In its crudest sense it is searching for truth but it cannot find it. More accurately it is about eliminating infinite error [ saying ridiculous unevidenced claims like the moon is made of cheese for example] via the experimental methodology and controlled observation. We give a percentage of that observation occurring byrandom chance [usually less than 0.05 or 1in 20] we don’t say it could not occur by chance etc - we then have evidence to support or not support a hypothesis/theory via replication of experiments/observation. The theory makes predictions and describes observed events etc.. It can never really be considered to be true.- by which I mean beyond doubt….that is the beauty of science it is a truly open system capable of both creating and destroying its own “truths”.
Clearly the more evidence and divergent sourcing adds more weight making it look more like the truth or more reliable or robust -say evolution with its divergent evidence but [ highly unlikely] there may be another explanation for this -say Creationism or some other unknown factor..
Even in maths itself you cannot get truth only an understanding that if the axioms or rules of maths have been observed and the axioms are true [which of course cannot be tested by the system as they built the system] then what follows will also be true. If they are wrong then what we have concluded is also wrong. See for example Euclidian and non Euclidian [spelling] geometry. There is also the issue of Godelisation to consider.
The only way that global warming cannot be proved yet other things, in science , can be is if you wish to commit the phallacy of equivocation-which would obviously make your argument illogical.
Hope that helped.
I don't have any scientific background at all so this proof thing is a tad confusing
Are NASA scientists lying in this article? or something else?
Where they claim [b][i]"These results are direct proof that dark matter exists." [/i][/b]
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/aug/HQ_06297_CHANDRA_Dark_Matter.html
junkyard.... eh? whats an axiom?
Uplink, not lying as such just over egging the soufle, they wouldnt get away with that language in a peer reviewd paper. Would it be semantics to say theres a difference between proof which is like evidence and saying something is proven.
It also says 'These observations provide the strongest evidence yet' - ie not 'these observations prove once and for all'
Proof is different to truth, if i said it is true that all swans are white, you might believe me, but if you travelled to NZ and saw a black swan you might bring one back to PROVE black swans exists, being able to show that white and black swans both exits doesn't mean you are true if you say swans are only black or white... surely you did this when you were 11?
Axiom-the fundamantal building blocks of a system- assumptions really that are taken as self evident truths example include parallel lines do not touchin geometry.Now if you base your geometry on this then you can never test whether it is true or not as everything follows from this axiom/rule. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom
No report will end with and that proves that X is such and such It will strongly suggest, refute,support , etc
That NASA one has
These observations provide the strongest evidence yet that most of the matter in the universe is dark. Despite considerable evidence for dark matter, some scientists have proposed alternative theories for gravity where it is stronger on intergalactic scales than predicted by Newton and Einstein, removing the need for dark matter. However, such theories cannot explain the observed effects of this collision.
They have not said they have proof have they?
Dark matter arose because computer models of the univers fell apart as there was not enough mass in them...it is still theoretical but it is IMHO the most likely explanation .
NO SCIENTIFIC PAPER WILL HAVE PROOF OF ANYTHING IT WILL HAVE EVIDENCE
THe IPCC report strongly suggests that it is man made it has notproved it because it cannot.
Ok, O scientific ones. here is a serious Q. Take Mr Average;ME in this example, we recycle everything we can.We cycles rather than take the car if we can.If poss food etc come from sustainable sources (fish,for example, home grown veg) I have two kids (sorry, overcrowding not really on my mind at the time.)I would suggest that that is a similar story to a vast % of families...So; what is the point in me doing these small things if third world Countries are commited to building a million fridges (India) or China which has made a promise to provide electricity to 99% of population by 2020? These countries are just trying to increase the standard of living to a level we would consider basic.So do we explain nicely how they shouldn't have chilled food because we have already damaged the planet too much.What is the solution? I am curious.If everybody in the "developed world" did the wee things that most on here already do, would it make the slightest difference, bearing in mind the speed at which climate is changing?
Hainey wrote, "Again, my point stands true. You can't prove global warming due to man exists, neither can i prove the contrary. So please just accept that neither are correct"
Wait, wuh. You're saying that because you can't prove either case, neither is correct? That there is anthromorphic global warming, and also that there isn't?
Interesting.
Wait, wuh. You're saying that because you can't prove either case, neither is correct? That there is anthromorphic global warming, and also that there isn't?
hang on - don't you go calling it global warming again after everyone's said it's not, it's climate change
I'll be getting all confused again
😕
duckman, I dont know but we cant hope to convince them to do anything at all if we carry on unchanged .
You see again its so easy to try and digress away from the real point by poking fun and discussing rediculous scenarios. From the majority of your discussion you have essentially said that there is no proof of climate change due to man - my point exactly. The data can and IS being interpreted in different ways so preaching and shouting down in a religious heretic style doesn't help things. I am being completly open minded about the whole subject where as, again like a religious fanatic, you are being so closed off and arrogant that it couldn't possibly be anything else. That does not stand true with a scientific point of view and so really does undo your debate.
Are you so arrogant to argue on one hand that climate change is definitly down to man, but on the other hand argue that science can not prove anything and hence completly contradict yourself? Seemingly so.
Throughout all this I have tried to point out that there is not proof that climate change is down to man, from your arguments you seem to agree with this but on the flip side of your seemingly multi personality disorder you argue the complete opposite.
It is all too easy to take focus away from the real debate, all too hard to admit that you may not be right!
I have a question... Alot of people are talking about 40 years ago people were predicting global cooling. This was before some legislation about chimney height, people burning wood/coal etc etc. If the case is that sut in the atmosphere that was low down so light wasn't able to reach the ground would it actually have been 'local' cooling?
I know its abit off topic but there seems to be alot of people making wildclaims about this and using it to 'prove' that climate change/'global warming' is a conspiracy.
I'm not questioning whether by the way I just think that this might help clear up some peoples lack of understanding.
I do have another question but I'll ask that later once this one has been cleared up.
hainey, who are you directing your arguments to? I'll try and explain my view. I think that climate change is real and that to some extent its man made. I base this on a kind of blind acceptance of the current scientific opinions I admit. However having been an ecologist by trade I would in order to be totally convinced I'd have to spend months sat down reading the evidence from primary sources and I really cant be bothered.
Your position seems to be that it cant be proven to be man made and so therefore you dont think its worth trying to reduce CO2 production. However this totally misses the point, you are expecting the scientists to do something they are not able to do.
Not once have i said that i don't think it is worth reducing CO2 output, if you read previous posts i also say on multiple occasions that the way we pilege this planet for natural resources is completly unacceptable. Your opinion that i want to destroy this planet single handedly is born out of the fact that i disagree with you on one point only!
our opinion that i want to destroy this planet single handedly is born out of the fact that i disagree with you on one point only!
Have you always struggled to read? Anway we dont disagree we agree man made climate change is not proven. We disagree on how this truism should be interpreted.
