‘I was tossed out of the tribe’: climate scientist Judith Curry interviewed

Bad analogy. What would be more accurate would be "researchers" who believe in bigfoot get all the grant money to help prove they exist. While on the other hand the researchers who do not believe in bigfoot and want to study why people believe or claim to see them get no grant money.

 

No you don't. You obviously don't know your butt from a hole in the ground about science. You've just been deluded by the Dunning-Kruger Effect into imagining that you know anything.

In reality, the intelligent, educated, scientifically literate people know that the standard for science has always been about a preponderance of evidence supporting a good theory that accounts for the data and is consistent with the rest of our scientific knowledge. There are no "proofs" in science. Only scientifically ignorant retards talk about "proof". BTW, there are no other viable theories that can explain what is happening to our planet except for the theory of anthropogenic global warming due to the increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

Common misconceptions about science I: “Scientific proof”
Why there is no such thing as a scientific proof.
Psychology Today
by Satoshi Kanazawa
November 16, 2008
(excerpts)
Misconceptions about the nature and practice of science abound. One of the most common misconceptions concerns the so-called “scientific proofs.” Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof. Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science. Proofs have two features that do not exist in science: They are final, and they are binary. Once a theorem is proven, it will forever be true and there will be nothing in the future that will threaten its status as a proven theorem (unless a flaw is discovered in the proof). Apart from a discovery of an error, a proven theorem will forever and always be a proven theorem.

In contrast, all scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, and nothing is final. There is no such thing as final proven knowledge in science. The currently accepted theory of a phenomenon is simply the best explanation for it among all available alternatives. Its status as the accepted theory is contingent on what other theories are available and might suddenly change tomorrow if there appears a better theory or new evidence that might challenge the accepted theory. Some theories are better, more credible, and more accepted than others. There is always more credible and better evidence for some theories than others. For example, experimental evidence is better and more credible than correlational evidence, but even the former cannot prove a theory; it only provides very strong evidence for the theory and against its alternatives. The knowledge that there is no such thing as a scientific proof should give you a very easy way to tell real scientists from hacks and wannabes. Real scientists never use the words “scientific proofs,” because they know no such thing exists. Anyone who uses the words “proof,” “prove” and “proven” in their discussion of science is not a real scientist.

 

Love the bold and red txt! It doesn't make you look crazy at all.. But maybe try typing in all caps?? And maybe try a bigger font!

 

Most things are not proved. But you don't understand why they created the term LAW and the strict standards imposed prior to the idea being called a LAW.

You speak of proof. As did the other mistaken person. I said proved. LAWS are proved. If they would not be proved, they don't get called LAW.

Rather than take any of the known LAWS and show me any of them you believe are not proven, you rant.

I gave a list of some of the laws. So, prove you are correct by proving the laws are wrong.

 

Livefree claims on one post that nothing is proved.

Then he launches an attack by telling me AGW is proved.

The guy sure does not understand LAWS nor does he understand science.

He lectures me that science does not prove things. But he acts as if that very science proved the warming is to be blamed on humans. That is not science.

That is politics.

 

OKay, so shaddup about claiming science PROVED there is human created global warming.

 

Where do you see the word "proved" in any post by livefree about AGW. Are you just outright lying or can you not even read what you post

 

Climatologists have been conservative about what they have attributed to climate change.

I know that there are those who are not climatologists and have not been conservative - in fact, those who have made statements without even consulting climatology. Plus, there are those who are not scientists, but do recognize the problem, and go overboard in trying to make the case that we need to do something about it.

Also, proper reporting of science is shrinking into the sunset. America isn't very interested in science right now, so news outlets are more interested in hiring writers of splashy, but unsupported headlines.

Today, I swear most people don't even read the news articles. They see the had line and say "That's just Fox" or "That's just HuffPo". They don't even bother to consider verifying what science is saying.

However, the existence of those who do not get it right does not suggest that climatologists are wrong.


Dr. Judith Curry says we DO need to do something about it. And, SHE is a climatologist who is a "denier" in modern partisan political parlance.

 

No, he is lying. Notice how anguished he gets when told blaming man is wrong.

He launches attacks on a number of us and shouts at us.

Your comments suggest he has not proved it and that not even you believe what he says.

 

Of course he has not proved AGW theory. NO SCIENTIFIC THEORY OR LAW HAS EVER BEEN PROVED. Holy cow how can you not get this already.

 

LAWS are proven. Ergo they get called LAWS.

Glad you agree with me that he has never proven that man causes AGW.

I realize few take physics courses. But this guy took physics both in high school and in college.

LAWS get called LAWS because they have been proven.

Theory is not proven so on that you are correct.

 

That is completely factually incorrect. You were cited a reference by another to show you where you went wrong. You yourself have cited no reference because one does not exist that supports your position. You are just flat out wrong. You can claim the moon is made of green cheese if you want but that would be equal to your other claim as well. LOL

 

Sounds like you disagree with those that say " the science is settled". That's a start

 

You make my point. Notice they never say, "We have proven....." You guys are hilarious

 

The most important parts are emphasized for people like you who can't seem to understand even the most basic essentials of science.

As usual with you denier cultists, you ignore the facts that debunk your mistaken ideas and instead focus on the most trivial things....like font and color. People who read....which you probably don't....are used to articles in magazines and newspapers that use various sized fonts and bright colors to emphasize and highlight significant sections or lines or quotes. This is normal. Your focus on these details as a means to ignore what is being communicated is the act of a cowardly ignoramus.

 

You seem to be massively ignorant.....and even worse.....way too ignorant to be capable of realizing how extremely ignorant you are.

You are very mistaken about what the term 'scientific law' means. It DOES NOT mean "proven".....because there are no "proofs" in science. As has been explained to you in detail, but your unjustifiably arrogant ignorance seems rather impenetrable. However, I'll try one more time.

Here's more details....

What Is a Law in Science?
LiveScience
by Alina Bradford, Live Science Contributor
March 25, 2015
In general, a scientific law is the description of an observed phenomenon. It doesn't explain why the phenomenon exists or what causes it. The explanation of the phenomenon is called a scientific theory. It is a misconception that theories turn into laws with enough research.

"In science, laws are a starting place," said Peter Coppinger, an associate professor of biology and biomedical engineering at the Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology. "From there, scientists can then ask the questions, 'Why and how?'"

Scientific theory vs. scientific law

Both scientific laws and theories are supported by a large body of empirical data and are widely accepted by the vast majority of scientists within a discipline. Both also help unify a particular field of scientific study. However, theories and laws, as well as hypotheses, are separate parts of the scientific method.

"Hypotheses, theories and laws are rather like apples, oranges and kumquats: one cannot grow into another, no matter how much fertilizer and water are offered," according to University of California. A hypothesis is a limited explanation of a phenomenon; a scientific theory is an in-depth explanation of the observed phenomenon. A law is a statement about an observed phenomenon or a unifying concept, according to Kennesaw State University.

"There are four major concepts in science: facts, hypotheses, laws, and theories," Coppinger told Live Science. "Laws are descriptions — often mathematical descriptions — of natural phenomenon; for example, Newton’s Law of Gravity or Mendel’s Law of Independent Assortment. These laws simply describe the observation. Not how or why they work."

Coppinger pointed out that the Law of Gravity was discovered by Newton in the 17th century. This law mathematically describes how two different bodies in the universe interact with each other. However, Newton’s law doesn’t explain what gravity is, or how it works. It wasn’t until three centuries later, when Albert Einstein developed the Theory of Relativity, that scientists began to understand what gravity is, and how it works.

"Newton’s law is useful to scientists in that astrophysicists can use this centuries-old law to land robots on Mars. But it doesn’t explain how gravity works, or what it is. Similarly, Mendel’s Law of Independent Assortment describes how different traits are passed from parent to offspring, not how or why it happens," Coppinger said.

Another example of the difference between a theory and a law would be the case of Gregor Mendel. Mendel discovered that two different genetic traits would appear independently of each other in different offspring. "Yet Mendel knew nothing of DNA or chromosomes. It wasn’t until a century later that scientists discovered DNA and chromosomes — the biochemical explanation of Mendel’s laws. It was only then that scientists, such as T.H. Morgan working with fruit flies, explained the Law of Independent Assortment using the theory of chromosomal inheritance. Still today, this is the universally accepted explanation (theory) for Mendel’s Law," Coppinger said.

Laws and mathematics

Many scientific laws can be boiled down to a mathematical equation. For example, Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation states:

Fg = G (m1 ∙ m2) / d2

Fg is the force of gravity; G is the universal gravitational constant, which can be measured; m1 and m2 are the masses of the two objects, and d is the distance between them, according to Ohio State University.

Another example of where mathematics influences scientific law is probabilities. "My favorite scientific law is that we live in a probabilistic world, not a deterministic one. With large numbers, probability always works. The house always wins," said Dr. Sylvia Wassertheil-Smoller, a professor at Albert Einstein University of California.

"A good scientist is one who always asks the question, 'How can I show myself wrong?'" Coppinger said. "In regards to the Law of Gravity or the Law of Independent Assortment, continual testing and observations have 'tweaked' these laws. Exceptions have been found. For example, Newton’s Law of Gravity breaks down when looking at the quantum (sub-atomic) level. Mendel’s Law of Independent Assortment breaks down when traits are “linked” on the same chromosome."

Additional resources

* University of California-Berkeley: Understanding Science
* Midwestern State University: What to Expect, the Scientific Method and Metrics
* Kennesaw State University: Scientific Laws and Theories

Editor's Recommendations

* What is Science? The Scientific Method
* What is a Scientific Hypothesis?
* Empirical Evidence: A Definition
* What is a Scientific Theory?
* Deductive Reasoning vs. Inductive Reasoning

 

thanks but it needs to be bigger! More caps! More color

 

You love to type apparently.

However, you don't know what Laws are.

Dufus brains claims man causes climate changes.

To date, he has failed to prove it and in fact debunks his own claims by discussing laws of science.

 

Still waiting for that reference.....crickets....crickets....LOL

 

Great. you disproved that man causes climate or changes.

 

He proved that AGW is wrong. Read his references. LMAO

YES, I know exactly what laws are and theories and hypothesis. See, I studied this in college as well as in high school. I notice you have not claimed to take any courses in this topic.

 

Still with the disproved? You are freaking hilarious!

- - - Updated - - -

reference....oh reference....where are you? lol

 

Yeah, a true climate scientist that had the chutzpah to listen to all sides of the issue like a real scientist would. I see you are back to ThinkProgress science again.

 

You make the same mistake other Democrats make.

They shout, make posts in a wide variety of colors, completely ignorant that their opponent (me in this case) went to college to study the topic. I have books at hand should I need to refer to them.

You wander all over the landscape thinking you can bluff your way past me.

Why are you wasting time trying to discuss this when all you managed to do is debunk AGW?

Do you understand you have blasted the scientists and their science by telling this forum that science does not prove anything?

Even scientific laws, you try to debunk.

What is the flaw in Ohm's law for instance?

 

Dude you had to go and make this so easy. LOL


Ohm's law describes simple resistive properties, and hence, Ohm's law works for "ohmic" conditions - conditions where simple resistance predominates. But there are other sources of impedance that can can also affect a circuit.

Inductance is the most common. As an example, measure the DC resistance on the primary coils of a 120V transformer. You'll find the resistance to be low enough that huge amounts of current would flow - except that the large inductance of the windings present an impedance which keeps the current low. If you ignore the impedance from the inductance, and tried to apply only ohm's law, you'd get an answer that didn't reflect reality. If you were to replace "R" with "R+Z", then you'd find things working out.

There are other devices, like bipolar devices, which operate on more of a voltage drop than a resistance. You can't apply ohm's law across a silicon diode.