Assume v. Presume

Mike0001 said:
Then provide an alternative explanation, with evidence.
Click to expand...
As I understand it, it is up to the proposer of an hypothesis to prove it is correct. I was merely pointing out that this chart isn't in itself evidence - it requires other data to support the view that it is an indication of man-made warming.
If you don't hold that view of 'science' then presumably every picture of a strange shape or light in the sky constitutes 'evidence' of UFOs because it's not usually possible to prove that they aren't.
 
So your hypothesis is that there is no man made global warming, The chart above is just a UFO. Give evidence to support that hypothesis. Do you discount all evidence in a similar way?

Even on a naïve level, pumping co2 from fossil fuels into the atmosphere at unprecedented level, together with the greenhouse effect caused by co2, is surely proof enough? If you want scientific proof, you will never get absolute certainty, just a very high probability. But then, we base our lives on very high probabilities, that our house won't suddenly collapse, that the dog won't sprout wings and fly, that miracles don't happen. What more can be demanded?

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Trev said:
Not needed is it. You have failed, so why should we?:roflmao:
Click to expand...

Bit premature, that. That was just the starter!

I am quite prepared to see you fail. Come on, give it a go! It can be the main course! :D
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mike0001 said:
So your hypothesis is that there is no man made global warming,
Click to expand...
I haven't postulated any hypothesis about global warming (or UFOs), and I haven't said what my views are on the subject. Neither am I discounting the purported evidence, merely suggesting that the chart alone, as you initially displayed it, does not prove that global warming is man-made.
You are drawing conclusions about me based on your interpretations of my comments, but said comments do not provide sufficient data to support those conclusions.
 
MikeSh said:
suggesting that the chart alone, as you initially displayed it, does not prove that global warming is man-made.
Click to expand...
I never said it did, if you read my post, it was merely a starting point. I also said that if there was an alternative cause, I welcomed Trev to suggest it, and give evidence, but he bottled it.
 
The remarks above are correct; it is a common error to confuse correlation with causation.

It is very difficult to prove anything, absolutely. The norm is to accept that the absence of contrary evidence, after a sufficient search, is adequate to promote a hypothesis to a theory.

The climate change deniers (eg Trump) rely on that for their case. The alternative is to assume that mankind may be responsible, and that it is better to act than bury ones head in the sand. However, it seems to me not to matter who or what is responsible for it, we just have to decide whether to try to do something about it or just accept the consequences.
 
Now a bit of light relief!

http://climatechangedispatch.com/why-there-is-no-empirical-evidence-of-man-made-global-warming/

http://climatechangedispatch.com/wh...-global-warming-and-became-a-climate-skeptic/

What-If-Its-A-Hoax.jpg
 
Black Hole said:
However, it seems to me not to matter who or what is responsible for it, we just have to decide whether to try to do something about it or just accept the consequences.
Click to expand...
Exactly!
Mike0001 said:
Now a bit of light relief!
Click to expand...
Whilst I may be slightly sceptical of whether climate change is occuring and where to lay the blame if it is, what is not to like about bullet points on the cartoon?
 
Black Hole said:
it is a common error to confuse correlation with causation.
Click to expand...
I use Google news at present (which is an aggregate of news headlines from a wide selection of sources with links to them) and under the 'health' section there is sometimes a link to the nhs choices page for a recent headline that has been widely reported - or misreported. The above problem often features because the research isn't (yet) supported by other lines of enquiry, but of course the press make it seem like a done deal.
 
And "a crane which removes they five-tonne side plates"

and "the navy had made a grave mistake with the Type 45 destroyers, which are vulnerable to Russia's new Kilo-class submarines, dubbed the Black Hole due to their silence" - not like ours then ;)

and the inconsistent use of "MOD" and "MoD".
 
prpr said:
and "the navy had made a grave mistake with the Type 45 destroyers, which are vulnerable to Russia's new Kilo-class submarines, dubbed the Black Hole due to their silence" - not like ours then ;)
Click to expand...

But Russia will never hear the T45s over the rattle and squeaking the little armada they recently sent to Syria, audible from a thousand miles away...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top