Global Warming Climate Models Have Made a Successful Prediction

On Sun, 21 Aug 2016 13:19:50 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Incorrect, peterson. Science ultimately requires the control of variables, which can only occur through experimentation. Observations are just that, observations, not science. Real scientists would agree. Now run along...

You are, of course, profoundly confused about the nature of science.

There are different kinds of observations. An observation may be a
chance recognition of some natural phenomenon, such as evolution. It
may also be a planned observation to confirm a prediction based on
some theory, in which case it is a form of experiment. The observation
of gravitational waves from the collision of a pair of black holes is
a good example of that.

On 21/08/2016 22:01, wrote:
On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 4:27:26 PM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:

So you don't believe in any of the exoplanets observed then.?

Those are observations, not necessarily science.

So in one foul stroke you dismiss the entirety of astrophysics just
because we can't actually visit eg a pulsar and take a physical sample?

Science is about building theories to describe how the universe behaves
and then testing them to find out where they fall down. The fundamental
requirement of any scientific theory is that it makes some testable
predictions that may be tested by experiment or observation of nature.

Every new observation or experiment is either consistent with the
prevailing status quo (uninteresting) or shows that there is a
discrepancy which needs an explanation. Most often these are due to
systematic errors but sometimes they are real. The superconductivity of
mercury being a classic unexpected scientific discovery.

Incidentally the binary pulsar enabled errors in VSOP84 to be found due
to light time errors when the source was near to Jupiter. That is real
science where something unexpected was found and then explained by
careful analysis of the data and the model. Model found wanting.

Actually a bug in generating Fortran continuation cards 9.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Monday, August 22, 2016 at 11:48:31 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sun, 21 Aug 2016 13:19:50 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Incorrect, peterson. Science ultimately requires the control of variables, which can only occur through experimentation. Observations are just that, observations, not science. Real scientists would agree. Now run along...

You are, of course, profoundly confused about the nature of science.

Ah, yet another empty insult from peterson.

There are different kinds of observations. An observation may be a
chance recognition of some natural phenomenon, such as evolution. It
may also be a planned observation to confirm a prediction based on
some theory, in which case it is a form of experiment. The observation
of gravitational waves from the collision of a pair of black holes is
a good example of that.

Observation by itself, doesn't not constitute science. Somewhere in the process there has to be an experiment or experiments. Your paragraph above is word salad, peterson.

On Monday, August 22, 2016 at 4:43:18 PM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:
On 21/08/2016 22:01, wrote:
On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 4:27:26 PM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:

So you don't believe in any of the exoplanets observed then.?

Those are observations, not necessarily science.

So in one foul stroke you dismiss the entirety of astrophysics just
because we can't actually visit eg a pulsar and take a physical sample?

Science is about building theories to describe how the universe behaves
and then testing them to find out where they fall down.

brown's remaining pedantry deleted

Testing = Experimentation = Science

One can "observe" any number of diminutions of stars' apparent brightness, but unless experiments have been done, somewhere, sometime, one cannot say what caused those diminutions.

On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 7:06:46 PM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:
wrote:
On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 4:27:26 PM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:

So you don't believe in any of the exoplanets observed then.?

Those are observations, not necessarily science.





Rubbish!
Maybe, one day you will be man enough to emit you're wrong.

(I'll leave the "emitting" to the warmingistas. Filthy hypocrites.)

You yourself used the word "observed." People observe all sorts of things everyday. Your task now is to show us the -science-.

Astronomy is the art of common sense and the obvious when it comes to putting observations in context as opposed to 'science' which is really a byword for empiricism and specifically its disruptive involvement with astronomy.

The problem with empiricists and the clockwork solar system with its roots in antiquity has always been an unattended issue since the emergence of heliocentricity - how to separate predictions using the 24 hour day and calendar system from the raw daily rotational and orbital cycles.

Looking at the dual rotations of Antarctica is a case in point -all it needs are individuals who can watch it spin daily like a wheel with no rotation at the South pole within its geographical parameters while watching it turn across the sunlit face of the Earth in its annual trek, much like acting as a window into the single rotation the planet has to the Sun as a function of its orbital motion -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFrP6QfbC2g

No point in dithering around declaring science is this or science is that and chanting stock phrases like predictions,experiments, evidence when only common sense is required.

On 23/08/2016 12:11, wrote:
On Monday, August 22, 2016 at 4:43:18 PM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:
On 21/08/2016 22:01, wrote:
On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 4:27:26 PM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:

So you don't believe in any of the exoplanets observed then.?

Those are observations, not necessarily science.

So in one foul stroke you dismiss the entirety of astrophysics just
because we can't actually visit eg a pulsar and take a physical sample?

Science is about building theories to describe how the universe behaves
and then testing them to find out where they fall down.

brown's remaining pedantry deleted

Testing = Experimentation = Science

One can "observe" any number of diminutions of stars' apparent brightness,
but unless experiments have been done, somewhere, sometime, one
cannot say what caused those diminutions.

You don't have a clue. In astrophysics the observers make the best
measurements that they can and then the theoreticians interpret them. A
few observers are also excellent theoreticians but that is rare today.

In the case of cataclysmic variables the signature of the hotspot on the
white dwarf is quite easily detected by its Doppler shift.

Where close binary stars mutually occult it is also possible to
distinguish what is going on from spectroscopy and light curves even if
they cannot be resolved.

We don't need to visit the stars or put one on a lab bench to test this!

The best models describe physics as it is presently understood. That
isn't to say that a better model might not come along that includes all
our existing knowledge as a subset but it is a requirement of any
scientific theory to explain all the relevant observations.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 7:55:59 AM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:
On 23/08/2016 12:11, wrote:
On Monday, August 22, 2016 at 4:43:18 PM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:
On 21/08/2016 22:01, wrote:
On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 4:27:26 PM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:

So you don't believe in any of the exoplanets observed then.?

Those are observations, not necessarily science.

So in one foul stroke you dismiss the entirety of astrophysics just
because we can't actually visit eg a pulsar and take a physical sample?

Science is about building theories to describe how the universe behaves
and then testing them to find out where they fall down.

brown's remaining pedantry deleted

Testing = Experimentation = Science

One can "observe" any number of diminutions of stars' apparent brightness,
but unless experiments have been done, somewhere, sometime, one
cannot say what caused those diminutions.

You don't have a clue.

An empty insult, peterson style

browns's ongoing pedantry deleted

Somewhere in the chain of knowledge and technology that allows for the observations you mentioned and the interpretations thereof, experiments had to have been done, otherwise all you end up with is meaningless observations and no basis for any meaningful interpretation.

On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 04:03:58 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Monday, August 22, 2016 at 11:48:31 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sun, 21 Aug 2016 13:19:50 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Incorrect, peterson. Science ultimately requires the control of variables, which can only occur through experimentation. Observations are just that, observations, not science. Real scientists would agree. Now run along...

You are, of course, profoundly confused about the nature of science.

Ah, yet another empty insult from peterson.

There are different kinds of observations. An observation may be a
chance recognition of some natural phenomenon, such as evolution. It
may also be a planned observation to confirm a prediction based on
some theory, in which case it is a form of experiment. The observation
of gravitational waves from the collision of a pair of black holes is
a good example of that.

Observation by itself, doesn't not constitute science.

Nobody said it did. You are really quite unable to understand anything
more complex than Dr. Seuss, aren't you?

On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 5:04:01 AM UTC-6, wrote:

Observation by itself, doesn't
(typo snipped)
constitute science. Somewhere in the
process there has to be an experiment or experiments.

That has been claimed.

Usually by people with one of the following agendas:

Paleontology doesn't involve experiments, only observation. No one has demonstrated a new genus evolving over millions of years in the laboratory. Therefore Darwinism is not science!

Astrophysics doesn't involve experiments, only observation. Therefore we don't have any real science to prove the Universe wasn't created 6,000 years ago!

Climate science doesn't involve experiments, only observation. Therefore it
isn't science, and we don't have to worry about how much oil we use!

I am disposed to take the third agenda no more seriously than the first two.

The experiments of Gregor Mendel, and the practice of farmers breeding
livestock for desired characteristics, support evolution; and spectroscopy is
only possible because experiments in the laboratory assigned spectral lines to
different elements.

Climatology is no different; while we don't experiment on the climate or the
weather (except for the odd bout of cloud seeding), the computer models used
for weather forecasting derive from knowledge about how air and water vapor in
air behave that came from experiments, some even done in wind tunnels.

Whatever else paleontology, astrophysics, and climatology may be, they're not
"stamp collecting".

John Savard