Jump to content

twylyght

Member Since 04 Dec 2008
Last Active Today, 05:26 PM
-----

Posts I've Made

In Topic: 2015 Blizzard: Northeast Edition

Today, 05:13 PM

either you cannot read or you compress all data given to you into mold that makes them into little straw men you can easily tip over with your pinkie. either way it's truly astounding that you managed to synthesize everything everyone has carefully composed for you into such a nugget of wrongness.


And it is so wrong you needn't trifle with a fraction of what I gifted to you to demonstrate.

In Topic: 2015 Blizzard: Northeast Edition

Today, 04:17 PM

And there you have it folks.  According to PhillyB and CK, the vaunted halls of whatever passes for science cannot be questioned


In Topic: 2015 Blizzard: Northeast Edition

Today, 03:55 PM

i don't think you understand what it means to test models with data.

 

AGAIN, you have yet to even broach the subject of data fidelity that hits at the very heart of this

 

come'on little birdie... it's right there... all you have to do it reach out and grab it


In Topic: 2015 Blizzard: Northeast Edition

Today, 03:54 PM

ego helps upend existing claims. ego wants fame and fortune, upending current doxa would lead to plenty of both.

 

regarding prior widely-held scientific beliefs, i find them solid boosters of the method: they're proof that science can kick out old ideas when the evidence ceases to support them and move on to new ideas, even opening up to simply having no fuging clue.

 

again, these things generally require having a clue what science is, what it does, and how the scientific community works irl to understand.

 

Yet, somehow, in spite of your proclamation, mistruths persisted for a generation at a time until the elders of the field died out under the guise of scientific enlightenment.  If what you are saying is absolute truth, then how does this continue to happen?


In Topic: 2015 Blizzard: Northeast Edition

Today, 03:51 PM

I actually thought Phillyb's answer properly addressed your post. Falsifiability is pretty much the standard in science across all fields. To show existing climate change predictions are wrong, the onus is on he who disputes the results to disprove the results. Like everyone else, scientists have egos. Being the one to definitively disprove climate change would be the most egotistical thing a scientist could accomplish. His name would be in science books all across the world. He would sign book deals worth eight figures.

 

If falsifiable = testable, what exactly has been tested?