If one is unable to make a reproducible experiment, and thus

>>8788984
It may not be science but it is sciencey.

File: anteater1.jpg (50KB, 438x293px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 438x293px

>>8789003
So you agree that climate change research is unscientific and relies solely upon observation, without any reproducible conclusions?

May I also ask how many crystals you own, and if you store them next to your chakra-aligner?

>>8788984
Well they have a hypothesis and are able to show that using that hypothesis, along with other well established tools, you can reach a conclusion that affirms the hypothesis. Moreover since they have a well defined hypothesis you can formulate conditions where that hypothesis fails.

I don't really see what the issue is.

File: anteater2.jpg (11KB, 259x194px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 259x194px

>>8789021
this piece of ice melts because i will it to melt

as you can see, the ice melts because i will it so. this is the starting temperature, here is the temperature as my will increases, and my peak will is demonstrated here when the ice is fully melted. due to this well researched data, we can conclude that i have ice-melting willpower

>I don't really see what the issue is.

>>8789038
>will
But now you've introduced some bizarre concept that needs further study. Can you show that "will" exists and that this "will" can cause temperature increases? With global warming we would need to show that CO2 can cause an increase in temperature (easy to do, it's done in most school labs). So from that, and basic thermodynamics, we're lead to the conclusion that increasing CO2 concentrations will lead to increasing temperatures. It's now just a case of modeling the outcomes.

I still don't see what the issue is.

>>8789052
>Can you show that "will" exists and that this "will" can cause temperature increases?
of course, im sure you are familiar with my work demonstrated here:
>>8789038

how do you reconcile your beliefs about CO2 with the fact that an increase in CO2 causes an increase in plant growth to take care of it, and that increases in methane cause atmospheric and sea-based organisms that use methane to synthesize glucose energy?

>>8789070
No that's not showing that "will" exists anymore than setting fire to a stick shows that phlogiston exists. You've claimed that there exists some physical force "will", now you need to show design some experiment to show it.

In the case of global warming this would amount to showing that CO2 exists, then showing that it can trap heat (both have been known since at least the 19th century).

>how do you reconcile your beliefs about CO2 with the fact that an increase in CO2 causes an increase in plant growth to take care of it

This assumes that the two are related (ie an increase in CO2 will cause an increase in growth exactly proportional to that increase to cancel it out). This clearly need not be the case.

>and that increases in methane cause atmospheric and sea-based organisms that use methane to synthesize glucose energy?

Same issue. In fact the two systems are coupled, so an increase in CO2 would lead to an increase in ocean acidity which (might at least) hinder the growth of these organisms, thereby meaning any increase in CO2 would also lead to an increase in atmospheric CH4, since there would be fewer sinks.

I still don't see what the problem is, other than you being a brainlet.

>>8788984
No matter how far the Koch brothers have their dicks down your throat, it's science.

>>8788984
By your logic, any observational science cannot be part of STEM. So astronomy, most subfields of geology, much of evolutionary biology are all false science now, too?

>hurrr but you can do thought experiments and derive mathematical predictions in those other fields
Climatologists do that too...

>>8789093
>design an experiment
my science precludes reproducible experiments, friend

>>8788984
Climatology IS reproducible though. What do you think the different independent data sets are for?

>>8788984
The classification of facts, the recognition of their sequence and relative significance is the function of science, and the habit of forming a judgment upon these facts unbiased by personal feeling is characteristic of what may be termed the scientific frame of mind.

so what about astronomy?
Limiting science to just reproducable experiments is stupid.

>>8788984
It is a reproducible process.

You gather a large amount of observational data over a long period of time. Introduce a hypothesis that can be tested with a statistical model. Then you randomize and subset from the large data pool and insert it into the model to test the hypothesis.

>>8789427
>astronomy
It seems like many things that were assumed to be facts(ie "99% of astronomers agree") have later been disproven. If I'm not mistaken, even Big Bang is in question now.

>>8789093
>>8789052
>>8789021
OP btfo

>>8788984
I mean by your logic astronomers are not scientists because they can't replicate supernovas in a lab

All scientific evidence is correlative. The job of the research scientist is to design experiments such that causation is the only reasonable explanation for observed correlation.

However, experimental observations are not the only means we have available for inferring causation. There are a whole host of criteria that have been used and widely accepted for concluding causation from the analysis of purely observational data.

For example, the link between tobacco smoking and lung cancer was determined decades before we had strong experimental demonstrations of the same phenomenon.

>>8790894
That's how all science works, buddy. Theories get thrown out all the time when new information is uncovered.

>>8788984
Can we observe it?
Yes.
Can we build models from said observations?
Yes.
Can we make predictions based on those models?
Yes.
Can we verify whether those predictions are correct through further observation?
Yes.

So what's your fugging problem? I mean, sure, you gotta observe for a long arse time, but that sounds like science to me.

>>8791218
So man made global warming is a theory and not a fact? And climate deniers are really just theory deniers?

>>8791257
>sure, you gotta observe for a long arse time
Meanwhile the carbon tax meter is running awaiting conclusions. Is there possibly a rebate waiting for those being strong armed into funding the "science" for every failed model of earths climate? If we had a nickel for every time the weatherman was wrong...and yet they are predicting weather 100 years out? Seriously, get a fucking grip.

>>8792875
Except the conclusions have already been reached for a while now.

File: spurdo fugg.gif (271KB, 384x216px) Image search: [Google]

271KB, 384x216px

>people are still seriously responding to a memethread i made whilst at the tail end of a 3 day fast
why

>>8792844
It's a fact that man-made emissions cause global warming. The theory of anthropogenic global warming is the broad spectrum of science which explains this fact. Deniers reject both the basic facts of climatology and the theory which connects these facts.

>>8792930
>forced blogpost to spur a discussion about your fasting
They say 7 day fasts significantly reduce your risk of cancer. What do you think, anon?

>>8792892
Awaiting confirmation of the "conclusions" more precisely I suppose.

I respect meteorologists, I use their science almost every day, for example when they say a shitstorm is enroute to my neck of the woods I believe them. They might be off a day if that forecast is a week out but you can trust them more or less, trust the science.

A climatologist, wait, all climatologists are predicting warmer weather anywhere from 1 year to 100 years out. Well yes I agree to some extent, our last ice age may be ending.
Why do I not respect or trust them? Have no real need for their information? Why do I hate them so?

Perhaps it's because their useless science is only good for one thing, enabling politicians to pilfer my pocket.

>>8792965
not a doctor who studies anything like that, couldnt tell you. some people will do a weeklong fast twice a year or whatever, and they are still alive

either way it wouldnt kill you, if you are suggesting that i kill myself, as you obviously drink water during a fast

>>8792934
>Deniers reject both the basic facts of climatology and the theory which connects these facts.
I don't think that's true. They are calling into question the dire predictions made by the proponents of the theory that man made carbon is having drastic affects on the climate.

File: aesth4.gif (3MB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 640x360px

>>8788984
science is merely the educated explanation of observable phenomena. there's causation behind global warming and it can be tested therefore, it's science. get back to /pol/

>>8792965
Because the people doing 7 day fast give a shit about their health.