Global Warming

[TimberWolf]

Good idea. The theory is simple - the increasing CO2 (and other gases) chucked out has a feedback mechanism that leads to higher temperatures.

So why not do a simple experiment to test this:

http://www.picotech.com/experiments/...alwarming.html

The carbon cycle isn't understood. HTH.

[sasguru]

The corruption of science by these wordly motives is something that I regret very deeply
It's a bit like the church selling indulgences

How do you know the science had has been corrupted? Have you been reading about it? Do you have the background to understand it?
The answer is no.

[sasguru]

The carbon cycle isn't understood. HTH.

Nothing is "understood" fully. You really have an incredibly ignorant view of what science is. There are no "laws" in science - something that your previous posts revealed you don't get. There are only approximations.
The only things that are certain are mathematical proofs.
Try reading some Kuhn and Popper.
As for Global Warming I beleive the balance of evidence suggests that man is causing an appreciable effect on the environment. Like all scientific theories this one is subject to modification and maybe complete rejection. However a good scientific theory should make predictions and this one does.
Time will tell.

[Diver]

http://xtronics.com/reference/globalwarming.htm

[TimberWolf]

Nothing is "understood" fully. You really have an incredibly ignorant view of what science is. There are no "laws" in science - something that your previous posts revealed you don't get. There are only approximations.
The only things that are certain are mathematical proofs.
Try reading some Kuhn and Popper.
As for Global Warming I beleive the balance of evidence suggests that man is causing an appreciable effect on the environment. Like all scientific theories this one is subject to modification and maybe complete rejection. However a good scientific theory should make predictions and this one does.
Time will tell.

So you think you know science now First you claim Newton's laws are called Newton's approximations, before correctly calling them laws, after beiong corrected. Now you say the science is simple, but then approximations that may be rejected. At least your follow-up posts show some improvement.

Reading popular science books won't make you a scientist sasguru.

[RichardCranium]

The corruption of science by these wordly motives is something that I regret very deeply.

It's a bit like the church selling indulgences.

May I steal that? It sums up my feelings very nicely.

Although firmly against the death penalty, I have no problem with qualified and funded scientists who fiddle their results to keep their sponsor happy being burned at the stake.

[EternalOptimist]

May I steal that? It sums up my feelings very nicely.

Although firmly against the death penalty, I have no problem with qualified and funded scientists who fiddle their results to keep their sponsor happy being burned at the stake.

feel free

please dont let SG know that a scientist ever fiddled his data though, his head may explode.

SG, you are feeble sometimes. I didnt say the AGW science was corrupted just as I didnt say that all churchmen sold indulgences.
Threaded and others have made a pretty good case for it though and they are a damn sight more convincing and consistant than you are

and if they are right then I agree with RC that a good burning is appropriate

[sasguru]

So you think you know science now First you claim Newton's laws are called Newton's approximations, before correctly calling them laws, after beiong corrected. Now you say the science is simple, but then approximations that may be rejected. At least your follow-up posts show some improvement.

Reading popular science books won't make you a scientist sasguru.

You are a cretin. I mean that as a statement of fact not as an insult.
Newton's "Laws" have been superseded/subsumed by Einstein's theories.
The fact that you don't know this is not surprising given that you probably had a Labour Educashun - but a man really should know his limitations.
Try reading the "Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by Kuhn. Hint: Its not popular science.
Or anything by Popper. Nope. Not popular science either.

[sasguru]

[QUOTE=EternalOptimist;1041058Threaded and others

[/QUOTE]


Ah yes those famous CUK scientists.

[EternalOptimist]

Ah yes those famous CUK scientists.

good spinning there. Invent something that the other guy didnt say then attack it
You try to build yourself a fortress that cannot be assailed, so you can never be proved wrong.
A true scientist does the opposite - he builds a theory and says 'come and have a go' PLEASE prove me wrong

I think you know the tune SG ,but you dont know the words