Diogenes wrote:hanelyp wrote:Happyjack, Diogenes is saying that you're citing religious texts. And I agree with him on that.
Exactly right. I figured the more intelligent among us would get it immediately.
"Global Warming" is a religious cult that pretends to be scientific. They use science Jargon and they pretend to use scientific methods, but their claims and methodology are fundamentally religious in nature.
The only argument I have yet seen from Happy Jack is that we must believe in Global Warming because his high priests and prophets tell us so. If he has made a single argument based on his own understanding of the issue, I must have missed it.
copying my response in full because apparently Diogenes didn't read a word of it:
hanelyp wrote:Happyjack, Diogenes is saying that you're citing religious texts. And I agree with him on that.
i don't recall citing any religious texts. can you show me where i did?
i've been citing scientific studies well-backed by research and evidence. All which are reproducible and falsifiable.
To better understand how science differs from religion (and more generally, non-science), you can read up on what's called "the demarcation problem".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demarcation_problem
See for example Popper's demarcation criterion:
Falsifiability is the demarcation criterion proposed by Karl Popper as opposed to verificationism: "statements or systems of statements, in order to be ranked as scientific, must be capable of conflicting with possible, or conceivable observations".[14] Popper saw demarcation as a central problem in the philosophy of science. Unlike the Vienna Circle, Popper stated that his proposal was not a criterion of "meaningfulness".
Popper's demarcation criterion has been criticized both for excluding legitimate science… and for giving some pseudosciences the status of being scientific… According to Larry Laudan (1983, 121), it "has the untoward consequence of countenancing as 'scientific' every crank claim which makes ascertainably false assertions". Astrology, rightly taken by Popper as an unusually clear example of a pseudoscience, has in fact been tested and thoroughly refuted… Similarly, the major threats to the scientific status of psychoanalysis, another of his major targets, do not come from claims that it is untestable but from claims that it has been tested and failed the tests.[14]
— Sven Ove Hansson, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "Science and Pseudo-Science"
In Popper's later work, he stated that falsifiability is both a necessary and a sufficient criterion for demarcation. He described falsifiability as a property of "the logical structure of sentences and classes of sentences," so that a statement's scientific or non-scientific status does not change over time. This has been summarized as a statement being falsifiable "if and only if it logically contradicts some (empirical) sentence that describes a logically possible event that it would be logically possible to observe."[14]/quote]
--From wikipedia,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demarcati ... ifiability
here's an excerpt from karl popper's "conjectures and refutations", read out loud:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztmvtKLuR7I
As I said, the images are visual representations of data collected by various instruments around the globe. As such, they clearly are "capable of conflicting with possible, or conceivable observations".
For more on what differentiates science from religion, if you enjoy short videos (i do!), i highly recommend Feynamn explaining the scientific method:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw
(EDIT: here's an excerpt if the video is too much information to digest at once:
"In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First, we guess it (audience laughter), no, don’t laugh, that’s really true. Then we compute the consequences of the guess, to see what, if this is right, if this law we guess is right, to see what it would imply and then we compare the computation results to nature, or we say compare to experiment or experience, compare it directly with observations to see if it works.
If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is… (audience laughter) If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.” -- Richard Feynman
END EDIT)
As i've mentioned many times now, if you think any of the research or data is wrong, you are welcome to do your own empirical research and submit it for review. (The research and data that these images summarize are "capable of conflicting with possible, or conceivable observations".)
i'd give you some papers but like i said there are millions, and new studies and measurements and what not are constantly being done. the articles i've linked to provide a decent starting point, though.