Quote:
Originally Posted by KSig RC
This is what undermines the specific research that was falsified, yes. It is not the only thing that undermines the scientific method, as shown by your semi-conflicting "Hand of God"/"who knows there aren't benefits?" postulating.
Of course I understand the natural cycles of temperature - and I understand that you've just committed an egregious causation/correlation fallacy in your logic. Let me be clear:
Climate change in the past is NOT and will never be proof that man cannot affect the environment in meaningful negative ways.
Actually, this is awkward logic as well - while I agree that small-sample climate data is shitty because of the inherent fluctuations (high volatility, to be more accurate), you really can't see why data from the last 50 to 100 years is the most important when looking forward? Unless the last ice age was also accompanied by an Industrial Revolution and marked increase in the number of man-made CFCs and other environmental wastes pumped into the environment, it seems like there is indeed a relevant time frame.
These dipshits mishandled and, it appears in at least some cases, manipulated data to fit their own goals. That's clear and undisputed. That does not "disprove" the entire concept of man's impact on the environment - we can go through dozens upon dozens of micro and macro examples that show that human waste has literal and severe effect on the planet, flora and fauna.
|
In the past nature/God or whatever you want to name it did influence climate change. Hence my reference to the "hand of God". You have to take this statement not so literally and reference maybe something unknown to man caused the climate change during these times. And are we sure that the world as we know it is at it's optimal temperature?
Not all climate change WAS caused by man so it is therefore inherent in any scientific endeavor for the data to
prove the original hypothesis. This is clearly not the case. If you know in the past that man was not the reason for the climate change it is even more important for one to prove that, in this case, man is the reason for the change. One must go the extra mile to overwhelmingly gathering data to support your new hypothesis. That is good science.
The problem is that the "dipshits" were/are the ones who provided the data to the U.N. that precipitated the U.N. moving forward in their endeavors. The evidence as presented is tainted and the U.N. is simply ignoring it. This is wrong. My bottomline is you can't falsify, delete, or omit data and call an hypothesis valid. Is 50 to 100 years of data, when conflicting data has been omitted, enough for us to spend ourselves into obilivion chasing what may or may not be a false hypothesis?