Posted on 06/24/2012 6:37:00 AM PDT by pickrell
As this greatest of all hoaxes crumbles further, it should provide much merriment to watch those who previously slandered all who did not buy into it, now seek to distance themselves from their libels.
The implications were extraordinary...
Lovelock is a world-renowned scientist and environmentalist whose Gaia theory — that the Earth operates as a single, living organism — has had a profound impact on the development of global warming theory. Unlike many “environmentalists,” who have degrees in political science, Lovelock, until his recent retirement at age 92, was a much-honoured working scientist and academic....
Having observed that global temperatures since the turn of the millennium have not gone up in the way computer-based climate models predicted, Lovelock acknowledged, “the problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago.” Now, Lovelock has given a follow-up interview to the UK’s Guardian newspaper in which he delivers more bombshells sure to anger the global green movement, which for years worshipped his Gaia theory and apocalyptic predictions that billions would die from man-made climate change by the end of this century.....
If it is based on “theory” IT IS NOT A FACT, hello
“If it is based on ‘theory’ IT IS NOT A FACE, hello”
True. But if it’s a Progressive theory it is a fact because it’s so well thought out, so brilliant, so smart, so intellectual, so far-advanced and comprehensive. Amen.
/S/
All they have is an unproven hypothesis.
Someone needs to send this to the EPA. Of course they would just wipe their asses with it.
Is it true that the EPA employees must use only ONE SQUARE of toilet paper per visit????
We noticed how the heat wave in the East was front-page and feature story news with the dinosaur media.
I’m still waiting to see if the sudden cool front will get the same attention. I’m giving 7 to 2 odds against. Any takers?
The scientific usage of the word "theory" is not the same as common usage. A scientific theory provides a framework that unifies all the known facts and can be used to predict other facts (in other words, propose a hypothesis), which can then be tested experimentally. In science, a theory is actually the most reliable explanation possible.
Anthropogenic global warming is not a theory in the scientific sense. It's just a hypothesis, which still needs to be tested.
This is such a great popcorn opportunity, and it's important as conservatives that we profit from it. Thanks very much for posting.
We should be careful not to slime the idea of a theory per se as being an unreliable, unproven thing. Gravity is a theory, too—an explanation of why and how things happen and will tend to happen into the future. A fact is one event in time, and doesn't tell you anything beyond that set of circumstances. It's meaningless without a theory to put it in context.
The program of global warming-cooling-bad-vibes doesn't follow the basic requirement of theories. If a theory can't be falsified—proved to be incorrect if its predictions fall flat—you can't trust it to explain the events that tend to support it. Amazingly for people who call themselves scientists, the global-warming folks have generated no testable predictions of what we'll observe when conditions are like this or like that, except for all the ones that haven't come true. Their models don't work, because reality keeps disobeying them.
"Climate change" isn't a theory, so much as a political prejudice and grant-seeking strategy.
Well I guess it’s a theory that I am walkind the earth too, guess I could be dreaming.
You science types are so great at blowing smoke
“A fact is one event in time, and doesn’t tell you anything beyond that set of circumstances. It’s meaningless without a theory to put it in context.”
No genius, you put it in context with surrounding facts, not a theory.
That’s just Sheryl Crow...for now.
I think you are confusing "scientific theory" with "superstition".
Walking under a ladder three times and being struck by a paint can each time does not prove that walking under a ladder is "unlucky".
Proposing a theory about how painters use ladders and paint cans, will suggest a scientific theory about what harm can befall a person who walks under a ladder and can suggest experiments to prove the theory.
It depends on whether it’s been recycled.
Exceptionally well put. A shame we can't get those words onto the news wires...
"No genius"? Or: "No, genius"? And is that sarcasm? If so, why?
In any case, I'm no genius, but I do know this: People use theories every day, but rarely have to think about them (fortunately). What you call "context" is actually applying a theory—an explanation—of what's going on. It's only when you're trying to figure out cause and effect for things that are invisible and hard to test, such as the future of the weather, that you need to be conscious of using theories.
Here's a fact: The thermometer outside my kitchen window reads "80." Without a theory, it's just a number next to a red line of mercury. I don't know what to do about it. But I have a theory, which is that the thermometer responds accurately to changes in temperature outside. That theory has been proven correct just about 100 percent of the time for years. I don't need to think about it. If it reads "80," I don't need my sweater.
But if my thermometer gets busted at 80 and the season changes, I'll need a new theory—such as "Don't believe the thermometer"—or I'm going to be cold. (Or I need a new thermometer.)
Nothing against facts. Can't live without them. But they need theory to do their job. The Global Warming liars had a theory: "The world is getting catastrophically warmer and it's all your fault." They actually brought a lot of facts to the table—a collection of accurate temperature readings, for instance. But those readings were cherry-picked to show an "up" trend when the real trend was flat—as a more complete and honest collection of readings shows. The additional readings—the "surrounding facts"—help point us to the truth, but only if we use them to create a new theory. Here's mine: The world isn't getting significantly hotter, and we have approximately zero effect on it anyway.
On the other hand, Centigrade is based on the freezing point of water (for the midpoint 0), which meant that it was based upon a 'fact'.
On the other hand, Centigrade is based on the freezing point of water (for the midpoint 0), which meant that it was based upon a 'fact'.
I'm not following, quite. Aren't they both based on changes in temperature? But if we want to talk about origins, isn't it a "feeling" to consider the freezing point of water a more scientific place to put zero than somewhere else? And why water? Because we like it? Isn't that terribly annthropocentric?
Anyway, anything that successfully detects temperature changes seems fine to me.
In the East, I think temperature in the upper 80s was predicted. Instead we had 95 in the shade. April or May, I forget which, was the warmest on record. I don’t know if the global temperature has increased in the past decade, but we sure have had some crazy weather.
Good. I was heading off a cliff.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.