Science/Environment Science - What is hypothesis, what is theory, what is fact, what is the difference?

Bruce is quoting 1984.

I also kind of take issue with your use of the word 'belief' as far as it pertains to climate change science, even if it's a commonplace use of the word. Science is not a matter of belief, it's a matter of a theory upon which all observable evidence has verified up to this point. 'Belief' denotes a static thing, something which cannot be moved; Michael Faraday is attributed the quote, "I hold my theories on the tips of my fingers, so that the merest breath of fact will blow them away."

I'm not a scientist either, but I respect the work and the process by which they've arrived at their conclusions. The point of the scientific review process is to place enough weight behind a theory that it can be relied upon as though it were almost a fact via repeated testing of a theory by many people over time, in different ways and with different methods in order to increase what is known; that others seem to use that slightest of ambiguities to justify a cavalcade of ignorance or grift demonstrates the degree to which this is misunderstood.
Do you think man made climate change is real?

Would that make you happy?

Of course Bruce is quoting Orwell I should have known he'd think that was a decent rebuttal to the overwhelming evidence in favour of man made climate change
 
May 1, 2016
28,402
55,360
AFL Club
Carlton
Do you think man made climate change is real?

Would that make you happy?
Happier, yes.
Of course Bruce is quoting Orwell I should have known he'd think that was a decent rebuttal to the overwhelming evidence in favour of man made climate change
Because he's doing as he does when he cannot argue with the overarching point: he's going for your version of this argument specifically. Your use of the word 'belief' and your phrasing of climate change as a belief system opened the door to what he's trying to argue; that, according to 'your beliefs', these things should have happened but haven't. Your replies to his posts - saying where and when did I/they say these things - is somewhat reminiscent of Orwell in that book; of course we're not at war with Eurasia, we never were (despite being at war with them yesterday).

Note that he's not arguing against the actual argument - that these claims existed within a spectrum of the projections for climate change at the worse end of things, and the projections are continuously updated by climate scientists as more information comes to light - but against your version of it.

He's deliberately sought out a weaker version and made that the argument, knowing that he cannot beat the actual thing.

That's why I posted what I did; I'm sick of Bruce operating this way. It's how he 'gets' people; he doesn't argue the facts or the merits. He's not interested in truth. He picks his arguments rather carefully, and doesn't mind losing if he gets to derail conversation. He picks a fight he can win, or one to lure you into a fight he can win. He's the most disingenuous poster on this board, by far.

Don't walk into his trap. Don't let him define the terms of the argument and control the narrative via a bad argument.
 
Jan 13, 2007
14,553
17,676
Melbourne
AFL Club
Sydney
Happier, yes.

Because he's doing as he does when he cannot argue with the overarching point: he's going for your version of this argument specifically. Your use of the word 'belief' and your phrasing of climate change as a belief system opened the door to what he's trying to argue; that, according to 'your beliefs', these things should have happened but haven't. Your replies to his posts - saying where and when did I/they say these things - is somewhat reminiscent of Orwell in that book; of course we're not at war with Eurasia, we never were (despite being at war with them yesterday).

Note that he's not arguing against the actual argument - that these claims existed within a spectrum of the projections for climate change at the worse end of things, and the projections are continuously updated by climate scientists as more information comes to light - but against your version of it.

He's deliberately sought out a weaker version and made that the argument, knowing that he cannot beat the actual thing.

That's why I posted what I did; I'm sick of Bruce operating this way. It's how he 'gets' people; he doesn't argue the facts or the merits. He's not interested in truth. He picks his arguments rather carefully, and doesn't mind losing if he gets to derail conversation. He picks a fight he can win, or one to lure you into a fight he can win. He's the most disingenuous poster on this board, by far.

Don't walk into his trap. Don't let him define the terms of the argument and control the narrative via a bad argument.
You give me far too much credit.

Another chap asked questions about the level of contribution of Australia towards the current floods and he was immediately shot down as a "denier". By Gralin

My intervention at that point was merely an exercise in saying "How about you give this bloke a go rather than mischaracterising his post and applying a label"?

You are correct, Gethelred that the more extreme predictions related to climate science have muddied the waters.

Perhaps if those less extreme outcomes had not driven the political discussion then reasonable debate could have been had about costs and risk mitigation. Instead, we continue to silence and ridicule as "deniers" (such a religious term) rather than persuade.
 
You give me far too much credit.

Another chap asked questions about the level of contribution of Australia towards the current floods and he was immediately shot down as a "denier". By Gralin

My intervention at that point was merely an exercise in saying "How about you give this bloke a go rather than mischaracterising his post and applying a label"?

You are correct, Gethelred that the more extreme predictions related to climate science have muddied the waters.

Perhaps if those less extreme outcomes had not driven the political discussion then reasonable debate could have been had about costs and risk mitigation. Instead, we continue to silence and ridicule as "deniers" (such a religious term) rather than persuade.
champion of the downtrodden aye Bruce
I asked them questions about what specifically they were trying to get at, same as I've asked you to which I get why aren't polar bears extinct as a response

When someone is asking for evidence that Australia has a big impact on climate change globally but they don't believe being one of the top couple of exporters of coal globally counts, I start asking what it is they take issue with
 
Jan 13, 2007
14,553
17,676
Melbourne
AFL Club
Sydney
champion of the downtrodden aye Bruce
I asked them questions about what specifically they were trying to get at, same as I've asked you to which I get why aren't polar bears extinct as a response

When someone is asking for evidence that Australia has a big impact on climate change globally but they don't believe being one of the top couple of exporters of coal globally counts, I start asking what it is they take issue with

You didn't do that though.

Are you denying climate change?
Are you denying the impact of climate change?
Or are you denying Australia's impact on climate change?

You tried to pocket it into extreme religious terms. Easy way out.
 
You didn't do that though.



You tried to pocket it into extreme religious terms. Easy way out.
Forget all that distraction.

Do you think that "being one of the top couple of exporters of coal globally" counts as a big impact on climate change?
 
Jan 13, 2007
14,553
17,676
Melbourne
AFL Club
Sydney
If you are reading that post as me giving you credit, you are reading it incorrectly.

A liar or dissembler, no matter how intelligent, is still a liar or a dissembler; their intelligence, if anything, makes the lying worse.

Whatever. A bloke asked a question. It was a reasonable one in the thread. And he got jumped on by someone who couldn't support his certainty when challenged.
 
May 1, 2016
28,402
55,360
AFL Club
Carlton
Whatever. A bloke asked a question. It was a reasonable one in the thread. And he got jumped on by someone who couldn't support his certainty when challenged.
See?

Operating precisely as I stated. You genuinely don't care if you lose argument A if it lets you get to argument B, and you do not care if you have to lie, misdirect, exaggerate, obfuscate, be selective with your sources in order to do it.

The ends justify the means for you, Bruce, even in something so petty as a social media argument.
 
Jan 13, 2007
14,553
17,676
Melbourne
AFL Club
Sydney
See?

Operating precisely as I stated. You genuinely don't care if you lose argument A if it lets you get to argument B, and you do not care if you have to lie, misdirect, exaggerate, obfuscate, be selective with your sources in order to do it.

The ends justify the means for you, Bruce, even in something so petty as a social media argument.
Is Argument A the insult? Yeah I ignored it.
 

Nice Swan Brother

Team Captain
Feb 13, 2022
390
490
AFL Club
Sydney
Interesting article on the current floods



Obviously no smoking gun for what is happening currently given history and how complex our weather systems and climate is
So you’re agreeing with my original statement.

Nice balanced article but I did find this comment interesting:

“there’s evidence to suggest climate change may be influencing the frequency”

Evidence, suggest, maybe

It kind of sums up climate Science. A lot don’t see the suggest or may be, just the word evidence and use ‘Science’ to back their arguments.
 
So you’re agreeing with my original statement.

Nice balanced article but I did find this comment interesting:

“there’s evidence to suggest climate change may be influencing the frequency”

Evidence, suggest, maybe

It kind of sums up climate Science. A lot don’t see the suggest or may be, just the word evidence and use ‘Science’ to back their arguments.
You didn't make a statement, you still haven't made a statement
 
Back