[sparky]

.
The Earth centric versus heliocentric view of the universe was discussed by the ancient Greeks
Aristotle rejected the heliocentric theory for he could not see a parallax shift of stars between Summer and winter
as one could expect over a half orbit course ,
during the medieval period , some monks scholars suggested that would be because the stars were at huge distances ,
the parallax would not be observable , others monks thinkers retorted that if we can see the stars and they were at such a distance they would have to be immensely large in diameter

The discussion was to solve the riddle of the precession of the planet , seen from Earth their position in the sky go backward for a little while before moving again in the usual direction .
Kepler and Galileo , had no proof of the heliocentric theory but their argument was that it made the movment of the planet so much more simple , it must then be true

to see the parallax of stars require very powerful telescope not invented until modern days , the luminosity of the stars is due to a tunnelling effect .
without any sophisticated apparatus the ancients did a pretty good job of thinking , nobody mentioned God except some religious neo con during the crisis of faith of the 16th century when rigid orthodoxy was imposed , before , that wasn't an issue .

[AgentR11]

Personally, I don't think science has much in the way of fails to begin with. Alluded to earlier though, the reporting and politics of science, and the discussion of topics of scientific discovery by people not involved in the process of those discoveries; the fails are epic and as numerous as the stars!

The biggest fail for those guys has to be in the period where we first scientifically knew about CO2 heat trapping, and could measure our CO2 output. The math is simple-ish; its just very large numbers. If we could have acted *then* when oil was really cheap, and nukes were not really feared, I believe a very different world could have been crafted; but economic, political, and media outrage of the day type stuff ruled the roost; and the chance was lost.

Our grandchildren are going to pay horribly for that lost opportunity, and there isn't a dang thing we will do about it.

[Keith_McClary]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'K')J thinks scientists are all pointy-headed deceivers and only engineers are worth talking to.

[KaiserJeep]

My positions are misrepresented in this thread, listen up, children. (Original source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/scientific+method) (The underlines are mine.)

scientific method

noun, [sahy-uh n-tif-ik] [meth-uh d]
1. A method of research in which a problem is identified, relevant data are gathered, a hypothesis is formulated from these data, and the hypothesis is empirically tested. (This is the general definition.) (Source: Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2015.)
2. The principles and empirical processes of discovery and demonstration considered characteristic of or necessary for scientific investigation, generally involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis. (This is the definition used in Medicine.) (Source: Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 2012 Digital Edition)
3. An orderly technique of investigation that is supposed to account for scientific progress. The method consists of the following steps: (1) Careful observations of nature. (2) Deduction of natural laws. (3) Formation of hypotheses — generalizations of those laws to previously unobserved phenomena. (4) Experimental or observational testing of the validity of the predictions thus made. (This is the Cultural definition.) (Source: The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition Copyright © 2005 by Houghton Mifflin Company.)

(There exist no fourth or subsequent definitions.)

hypothesis
[hahy-poth-uh-sis, hi-]

noun, plural hypotheses [hahy-poth-uh-seez, hi-]
1. A proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts.
2. A proposition assumed as a premise in an argument.
3. The antecedent of a conditional proposition.
4. A mere assumption or guess.

NOTE:

Climate Change theory, Anthropogenic Global Warming, unusual and unprecedented weather phenomena, and all variations on these themes constitute entirely incomplete expressions of the Scientific Method, and thus resulting conclusions cannot be made until empirical testing is completed. Empirical testing of such hypotheses would involve both the Earth and an identical control planet less the human presence.

Indeed, no empirical testing has been done, and by definition Climate Change is an untested hypothesis. Again by definition, Anthropogenic Global Warming is an untested hypothesis.

Attributing unusual and unprecedented weather phenomena to untested hypotheses, then modifying human behavior or political controls on such untested hypotheses, is rank foolishness.

I have been making such arguments since I got to this place, I finally got tired of you idiots pretending that your Doomer Idiot Science had any validity whatsoever, because by any and all complete definitions of the Scientific Method, it does not.

Now I have NEVER SAID that we should be running an open ended experiment about how much carbon dioxide we should be spewing into our atmosphere, and point of fact I do not believe in doing so. I also believe that there simply is NOT ENOUGH CHEAP OIL to destroy our ecology or even seriously damage it, before it becomes too precious to burn. In fact I believe that one of the last useful acts by a generally useless US Federal Government will be the banning of petroleum vehicle fuels and the reservation of our few remaining petroleum feedstocks for critical plastics manufacturing, primarily for medical applications.

I am not so sanguine about coal. After all, M. King Hubbert did also predict Peak Coal - even Peak Uranium. I believe there is enough dirty coal to complete the destruction of our environment, and I believe that China and India in particular are foolish enough to burn all the available coal, rather than to allow people to perish from a lack of energy. I think it is about a 50/50 proposition whether or not the Western Democracies can actually stop burning coal - it's a debate we have not seriously addressed yet, but unlike China and India, the Western Democracies can afford enough alternative energies to (barely) survive. I believe that if we burn all our accessible coal, we will complete the mass extinction event that kills 7+ billion human beings. In fact if there was a "Peak Coal Dot Com" web page without all you foolish ninnies who so routinely ignore the real definition of the Scientific Method, I would be there in a heartbeat.

Folks, we truly have nothing to fear from the Peak Oil phenomenon that we all (including me) have accepted as the most likely near term hypothesis. The deadly consequence of Peak Oil has never been that we ARE BURNING OIL, it has always been that we HAVE TO STOP BURNING OIL when it becomes too precious to burn.

Again, sorry to disappoint all you Greenies, but your favorite target "Big Oil" will still be pumping and selling the stuff when it crosses the $1000/barrel threshold and the $10,000/barrel threshold. It is simply too useful a commodity to stop using it cold. Just as we today continue to consume a few dozen gallons of sperm whale oil per year, over a century since "peak sperm whale oil", because it has unique properties that are useful in lubricating fine instruments and space craft. We did after all pretty much ban the hunting of sperm whales, but it is perfectly OK to use whale carcasses found already dead, or those killed for purposes of "Science".

Didn't anyone ever note the resemblance between these two Engineers:


M. King Hubbert, 1903-1989. Engineer Shell Oil, 1943-1964

[dorlomin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('KaiserJeep', '
')Climate Change theory, Anthropogenic Global Warming, unusual and unprecedented weather phenomena, and all variations on these themes constitute entirely incomplete expressions of the Scientific Method,

[KaiserJeep]

A big Raspberry to your incoherent and defective rant. Go back and study spelling, punctuation, the untested and unconfirmed hypothesis of Plate Tectonics, and (especially) Science.

[dorlomin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('KaiserJeep', 'A') big Raspberry to your incoherent and defective rant. Go back and study spelling, punctuation, and (especially) Science.

[KaiserJeep]

I read the abstracts and immediately recognized the topic of both, and the fact that you want to debate the untested hypothesis of AGW with me. I have never doubted the Greenhouse Effect or Orbital measurements of surface temperatures, neither of which we are talking about.

I do, in fact doubt your ability to understand the definition of the Scientific Method.

[dorlomin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('KaiserJeep', 'I') read the abstracts and immediately recognized the topic of both, and the fact that you want to debate the untested hypothesis of AGW with me.

[Lore]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('KaiserJeep', '
')NOTE:

Climate Change theory, Anthropogenic Global Warming, unusual and unprecedented weather phenomena, and all variations on these themes constitute entirely incomplete expressions of the Scientific Method, and thus resulting conclusions cannot be made until empirical testing is completed. Empirical testing of such hypotheses would involve both the Earth and an identical control planet less the human presence.

[KaiserJeep]

Look, one more time for the mentally retarded among you:

I have typed dozens of pages here at PO.com, and have observed that none of you Doomer Idiot "Scientists" have come close to changing your closed minds about this topic, which most of you decided upon decades ago, and have simply been selectively stroking your egos by accepting pro-AGW evidence (there is plenty), and rejecting anti-AGW evidence (there is plenty).

I do not believe that this constitutes a valid application of the Scientific Method. If you want to talk about climate, start by admitting it is impossible to separate out the effects of FF carbon dioxide - or anthropogenic generated carbon dioxide - from natural carbon dioxide, or carbon dioxide exhaled by the overshoot population (plus their food animals). Now consider the other things that influence climate, such as the albedo change from forests to grasslands to paved cities, or the pollution of the sea and die-off of ocean plankton, coral animals, fish, etc world-wide. We can and have discussed all these things before, there are thousands of impacts on the environment caused by mankind, some dramatic enough to be seen from orbit, and you cannot focus on just one and blame that one for everything. Point of fact, you cannot even prove with your climate models that mankind changes the climate with everything he does collectively.

So I have decided (as have virtually all of the minority of PO.com members who do not believe in AGW) that we are wasting our time by pointing out that you are wrong. "We" are not going to convince "you", ever. The oil peak will soon render the whole debate moot, before we have burned enough oil to kill us. We will never know for sure who was right and who was wrong. I am fine with that, and if you still feel that you have to be right, then do me a favor and don't do anything in the way of doomer prep, and die early. Those of us grounded in reality no longer even care who wins the AGW debate.

Since I do not actually think we will refrain from burning all the coal after oil has declined and is too expensive to burn, we can at least agree that we are all doomed who choose to continue to inhabit the Earth. I think we have about a century or so left, but that century will be "an interesting time", in the Chinese sense of that phrase.

So in fact, any of you FLAMING NATURE DENIERS who believe that AGW is real, continue your debate forever, but leave the rest of us, who understand the Scientific Method, in peace.

Edit: The discussion of AGW is Off Topic in THIS thread. The discussion of the Scientific Method - and Dilbert and Hubbert and KaiserJeep for that matter - those of us who consciously promoted BAU while we worked our whole careers, because it was the RIGHT THING TO DO after you FLAMING IDIOT SCIENTISTS doomed us all, is On Topic for this thread. So stop the AGW foolishness.

[Lore]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('KaiserJeep', 'L')ook, one more time for the mentally retarded among you:

I have typed dozens of pages here at PO.com, and have observed that none of you Doomer Idiot "Scientists" have come close to changing your closed minds about this topic, which most of you decided upon decades ago, and have simply been selectively stroking your egos by accepting pro-AGW evidence (there is plenty), and rejecting anti-AGW evidence (there is plenty).

[KaiserJeep]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Lore', '
')-snip-
You're comprehension skills need improvement!

[Lore]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('KaiserJeep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Lore', '
')-snip-
You're comprehension skills need improvement!

[Keith_McClary]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('KaiserJeep', 'M')y positions are misrepresented in this thread, listen up, children. (Original source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/scientific+method) (The underlines are mine.)

scientific method

noun, [sahy-uh n-tif-ik] [meth-uh d]
1. A method of research in which a problem is identified, relevant data are gathered, a hypothesis is formulated from these data, and the hypothesis is empirically tested. (This is the general definition.) (Source: Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2015.)
2. The principles and empirical processes of discovery and demonstration considered characteristic of or necessary for scientific investigation, generally involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis. (This is the definition used in Medicine.) (Source: Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 2012 Digital Edition)
3. An orderly technique of investigation that is supposed to account for scientific progress. The method consists of the following steps: (1) Careful observations of nature. (2) Deduction of natural laws. (3) Formation of hypotheses — generalizations of those laws to previously unobserved phenomena. (4) Experimental or observational testing of the validity of the predictions thus made. (This is the Cultural definition.) (Source: The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition Copyright © 2005 by Houghton Mifflin Company.)

(There exist no fourth or subsequent definitions.)

hypothesis
[hahy-poth-uh-sis, hi-]

noun, plural hypotheses [hahy-poth-uh-seez, hi-]
1. A proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts.
2. A proposition assumed as a premise in an argument.
3. The antecedent of a conditional proposition.
4. A mere assumption or guess.

NOTE:

Climate Change theory, Anthropogenic Global Warming, unusual and unprecedented weather phenomena, and all variations on these themes constitute entirely incomplete expressions of the Scientific Method, and thus resulting conclusions cannot be made until empirical testing is completed. Empirical testing of such hypotheses would involve both the Earth and an identical control planet less the human presence.

[KaiserJeep]

Evolution is not a science, it is a theory in the science of Biology which was proposed by Dr. Charles Darwin, MD and self-proclaimed "Naturalist".

Astrophysics and Cosmology are theoretical branches of the science of Astronomy. The theoretical branch of any science does not necessarily use the Scientific Method. Note that multiple theories exist for pulsars, neutron stars, and other stellar phenomena, and nobody will actually know which theory is correct until we have developed practical star travel, and can perform experiments and observations in Astrophysics. By contrast Astronomy is an observational science that describes and records the same phenomena as Astrophysics/Cosmology.

Geology is an observational science that observes and describes the physical structure of the planet we are on. Plate Tectonics is a theory that attempts to explain the observed structure of the Earth's crust.

These concepts are not hard if you think about them. Most of you are so stupidly hide-bound that you will not consider for one moment that the theory of AGW could very well be wrong, and that there is in fact beaucoups evidence that it is wrong. (Go ahead and deny it, it's trying to escape your head, you can't help yourself, you are simply expressing an urge that is so old that it is a reflex.)

[Lore]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('KaiserJeep', '
')These concepts are not hard if you think about them. Most of you are so stupidly hide-bound that you will not consider for one moment that the theory of AGW could very well be wrong, and that there is in fact beaucoups evidence that it is wrong. (Go ahead and deny it, it's trying to escape your head, you can't help yourself, you are simply expressing an urge that is so old that it is a reflex.)

[KaiserJeep]

Within the last month we talked about the Mini Ice Age and the Medieval Warming Period, both of which are examples of natural climate variations that are far greater climate extremes than the AGW theory accounts for.

Note that there are entire orders of magnitude smaller than both "minute" and "insignificant". As I have pointed out before, if a mouse farts in the midst of a Force 5 hurricane, there is an effect. The magnitude of that effect is insignificant.

So "how bad and how soon" could well be "insignificant" and "already", and might vary all the way up to "noticeable" and "next century".

But the effects of ceasing to burn FF's are "huge" and "immediate". At least 5 billion humans starve, and all the American cities fold, for example. That is no theory, we KNOW what happens without cheap oil. It is only YOU genocidal AGW fanatics that want to kill that many people.