The Ongoing Battle Between Science Teachers And Fake News

[Machismo]

Since good science relies on a finite supply of grant money as much as bad science does, you couldn't really find a way to be any more wrong. But ok.

How could I not be more wrong? pseudoscience and faked results is not science. Period.

[Coffeexbean]

So I'll look for you to provide the evidence that the parents of these children voted for Trump... That should give you something to do.

heres some evidence, the kids are stupid af and its probably because the parents are too, hence why they probably voted for trump. how bow dat

[Seranthor]

heres some evidence, the kids are stupid af and its probably because the parents are too, hence why they probably voted for trump. how bow dat

That isn't 'evidence'... thats conjecture... but given you dont know the difference we can assume you are a Trump supporter, right?

[Garnier Fructis]

Because the climate hasn't changed since Earth came to be until industrial revolution? "la la la la la"

An effect can have more than one cause. If you paid even the slightest attention to what scientists are actually saying, it's that the current changes cannot be accounted for unless both natural effects and man-made effects are accounted for. The natural effects being things that have always been happening.

They aren't saying that the climate didn't change before. Not only is that not mutually exclusive with the theory, it's actually an integral part of the theory itself. It's what we're doing on top of the natural cycles that is causing the shit-show.

[Serpha]

An effect can have more than one cause. If you paid even the slightest attention to what scientists are actually saying, it's that the current changes cannot be accounted for unless both natural effects and man-made effects are accounted for. The natural effects being things that have always been happening.

They aren't saying that the climate didn't change before. Not only is that not mutually exclusive with the theory, it's actually an integral part of the theory itself. It's what we're doing on top of the natural cycles that is causing the shit-show.

The balded part is the only important statement.

[KrazyK923]

Going to a conservative institute and expecting nonpartisan science would be like trying to become a Priest while you're an open atheist.

It's stupid and you probably won't last long.

[Queen of Hamsters]

The irony is thick. Information, facts, can be accessed by a few clicks, yet we live in a time where the feels and opinions manage to take the center stage.

[Garnier Fructis]

The balded part is the only important statement.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is how someone with no integrity responds when their misunderstanding is pointed out.

[Serpha]

Ladies and gentlemen, this is how someone with no integrity responds when their misunderstanding is pointed out.

Misunderstanding of what? That humans have little of significance to climate change? You are either confused or parroting.

[Garnier Fructis]

Misunderstanding of what? That humans have little of significance to climate change? You are either confused or parroting.

You responded to a post saying that we're causing the climate to change with this:

Because the climate hasn't changed since Earth came to be until industrial revolution?

Which is an utterly false dichotomy. The only way this response is warranted is if you misunderstand what scientists and climate theory actually have to say about natural vs. man-made. The alternative is that you know this and you're just purposely posting bad counterarguments, and I gave you the benefit of the doubt.

But while we're on the subject, yeah. If you think humans are of little significance to climate change than you're misunderstanding that as well. Looking at natural effects alone does not account for the data. Looking at human factors alone does not account for the data. If either piece is missing, the data is unexplainable. So in any sensible definition of 'significant', we're significant.

[Endus]

Misunderstanding of what? That humans have little of significance to climate change? You are either confused or parroting.

That you highlighted "the theory" as if that meant anthropogenic climate change is a guess demonstrates a gross and complete failure to understand the very basics of the scientific method.

Scientific theories are not guesses. In scientific terms, those are called "hypotheses". In science, a body of theory is an overwhelmingly and thoroughly tested body of analysis and data, and particularly the analyses of that data which explain their behaviour. To become theory, there must be no other relevant hypotheses that can explain the available evidence. Said theory must be capable of explaining ALL the available evidence. And anthropogenic climate change meets that bar, as do things like germ theory or electromagnetic theory.

Denying anthropogenic climate change is about as sensible as denying that gravity exists, or claiming that the Earth is flat. It takes that level of egregious and willful ignorance of anything even approaching a fact. All the mountains of evidence that conclusively prove your claims wrong are simply ignored, or portrayed as the product of some grand and complicated global conspiracy.

[Venant]

Denying anthropogenic climate change is about as sensible as denying that gravity exists, or claiming that the Earth is flat. It takes that level of egregious and willful ignorance of anything even approaching a fact. All the mountains of evidence that conclusively prove your claims wrong are simply ignored, or portrayed as the product of some grand and complicated global conspiracy.

Is anthropogenic climate change falsifiable?

[Masark]

Is anthropogenic climate change falsifiable?

Yes.

Though judging by your avatar, your reply is going to contain some nonsensical statement to the contrary.

[Venant]

Yes.

Though judging by your avatar, your reply is going to contain some nonsensical statement to the contrary.

Answering 'yes' to the question is pretty nonsensical, but more importantly it is wrong. Endus was making the claim that people were being willfully ignorant while himself being willfully ignorant and comparing climate change to the shape of the earth.

[Wyrt]

Teachers should not teach unproven theories

Someone doesn't understand how science works.

Gravity is "just a theory."

[Garnier Fructis]

Answering 'yes' to the question is pretty nonsensical, but more importantly it is wrong. Endus was making the claim that people were being willfully ignorant while himself being willfully ignorant and comparing climate change to the shape of the earth.

What parts aren't falsifiable?

I'm asking this, because the usual answers have the 'unfortunate' side effect of applying equally well to large portions of astronomy, cosmology and even evolution.

[Barnabas]

That you highlighted "the theory" as if that meant anthropogenic climate change is a guess demonstrates a gross and complete failure to understand the very basics of the scientific method.

Scientific theories are not guesses. In scientific terms, those are called "hypotheses". In science, a body of theory is an overwhelmingly and thoroughly tested body of analysis and data, and particularly the analyses of that data which explain their behaviour. To become theory, there must be no other relevant hypotheses that can explain the available evidence. Said theory must be capable of explaining ALL the available evidence. And anthropogenic climate change meets that bar, as do things like germ theory or electromagnetic theory.

Denying anthropogenic climate change is about as sensible as denying that gravity exists, or claiming that the Earth is flat. It takes that level of egregious and willful ignorance of anything even approaching a fact. All the mountains of evidence that conclusively prove your claims wrong are simply ignored, or portrayed as the product of some grand and complicated global conspiracy.

Will denying climate change make any difference at all and stop the advancement of technology? Even if every scientist that agrees is later found out to be wrong will it stop any advancement in technology? Has climate change data found to be falsified? Yes and has it changed any advancement in technology? The point is these debates don't really matter if you believe it or not. It has been turned into belonging to cool kids club if you believe or something.

[Garnier Fructis]

To briefly cover some points, the core of climate theory is grounded in other physical sciences, such as chemistry, fluid dynamics, statistical mechanics, and other relevant physics (dealing with radiation and such). So climate science sort of trivially 'inherits' some of the falsifiability of those fields.

There's also the rather obvious falsifiability that comes from the fact that climate models provide different scenarios for how various quantities should evolve moving forward: sea level, sea temperature, surface temperature, etc. Models of different scenarios eventually diverge with enough decades, and we can check if we were right down the line by measuring those quantities down the line, counting up our emissions, and comparing with the right scenario to see if that scenario was correct.

A common objection is that 'predictions' that take decades to verify are basically unfalsifiable. Well, this would come as a surprise to general relativists and particle physicists, who routinely predict things and then spend a ton of taxpayer money and multiple decades before actually finding them.

[Draco-Onis]

Will denying climate change make any difference at all and stop the advancement of technology?

Yes, it stalls implementation, funding and support for greener technology especially if the person denying it is the president of the United States and congressmen. It also enables the passing of things like allowing companies to dump their toxic waste in waters.

[Endus]

Is anthropogenic climate change falsifiable?

It absolutely is, yes. Not understanding that just means you have no idea what the subject is, to begin with. Every single element of anthropogenic climate change theory is falsifiable, and tested continuously.

Answering 'yes' to the question is pretty nonsensical, but more importantly it is wrong. Endus was making the claim that people were being willfully ignorant while himself being willfully ignorant and comparing climate change to the shape of the earth.

It's exactly as willfully ignorant as flat-earther views, and for exactly the same reasons.

There are mountains of evidence that all confirm one possible outcome, and no evidence that indicates anything else. And yet, deniers, whether of climate science or the shape of the Earth, just pretend that evidence is a grand conspiracy and ignore it. Without exception.

Will denying climate change make any difference at all and stop the advancement of technology?

It definitely has already had impacts in delaying our response to the issue, which is why we're in the rough spot we're already in.

Even if every scientist that agrees is later found out to be they were wrong?

This is nonsensical. Is it possible that all scientist are totally wrong about what gravity is, and it turns out it's just invisible imps fucking with us? Sure. Is that likely? Is there any evidence to support that? No.