In response to:

Global Warming Debunked by Intelligent Design

Tertius Wrote: Aug 06, 2012 2:50 PM
I must disagree with your conclusion here. Probabliities are a very useful way of assessing the feasibility of a scientific model when experimental falsification is not possible. In fact, this is often done with biological, geological and cosmological evolution (as you mentioned.) The reason is that neither evolution (of any variety), ID or Creationism constitute scientific theories because none are subject to falsification. It is simply not possible to reconstruct all the conditions of our earth (or universe's) past in a controlled laboratory environment and subject the hypothesis to falsification. Consequently, none of these can truly be considered scientific theories, but rather models of origins.
dahni Wrote: Aug 06, 2012 2:57 PM
I think maybe we build scientific theories/models to let us predict outcomes of physical conditions, not for untestable theories/models such as philosophy or religion. We are interested in prediction, not whether or not something can be falsified. We use statistics to guesstimate how likely an outcome can be predicted from the initial condition.

Theories are testable. If a theory doesn't work, once, it isn't used by scientists to predict anything. Testing any theory, scientifically, involves trying to prove that the theory is WRONG, not that it is TRUE.
Tertius Wrote: Aug 06, 2012 4:14 PM
You are only partially correct. I agree that falsification is an attempt to prove a hypothesis wrong, not to prove it's true. I think I said that. If a hypothesis survives repeated attempts at falsification, our confidence that it is true increases. And yes, we build models when a falsifiable hypothesis cannot be formulated. Evolution is such a model. It does not properly qualify as a scientific theory because it is not falsifiable. It doesn't mean that science cannot or shoud not develop such a model, but rather that the scientific method is limited. It does not extend to questions of historical occurrance. For example, you cannot prove Abraham Lincoln was president using the scientific method.
dahni Wrote: Aug 06, 2012 4:31 PM
And you still don't understand. Falsification means to misrepresent something, to be untruthful about something, to lie about something.... That has nothing to do with trying to disprove a theory by testing a hypothesis about it that is testable by other scientists. I hope you feel comfortable with your falsification about how science advances, truthfully, and not falsely.
Reginald10 Wrote: Aug 06, 2012 5:40 PM
"Falsification" also has another meaning, which is "to prove to be false". It's the opposite of "verification", which if I recall my Latin correctly means "truth-ification".
Tertius Wrote: Aug 06, 2012 7:57 PM
Exactly. Dahni apparently does not understand the scientific method.

Definition #4 from Dictionary.com
4. to show or prove to be false; disprove: to falsify a theory.
0_BAMANATION Wrote: Aug 06, 2012 8:45 PM
Tertius... on this issue dahni is correct.
Tertius Wrote: Aug 07, 2012 12:40 AM
As I stated in my original post, only partially. When it comes to theories vs models, he is less correct. When it comes to falsification (in the context the scientific method), he is completely wrong.
Tertius Wrote: Aug 06, 2012 2:54 PM
(cont) And models, as such, can be assessed probabalistically. So it i appropriate for Hansen to apply probabilities in search of conclusions. Whai is not appropriate for Hansen to do is cherry pick the data which he has done. He looked at a sample from the 1950's to the 1980's. Recall, this was a period when science told us we were on the verge of a new ice age. So, compared to then, we are warmer. However, compared to the decade of the 1930's +/- a few years, we are in fact much cooler. Conclusion: Golbal warming is still false and Hansen is a fraud for peddling it.

Global warming has long been used to justify burdensome regulations that increase costs, increases unemployment, increases dependency on government, and reduces our individual freedom.

Now, a recent global warming propaganda "study" says that meteorological and climate events over the last few years are so statistically rare that they must be man-made global warming.  Translation: Global warming has been debunked by science.

“The relentless, weather-gone-crazy type of heat that has blistered the United States and other parts of the world in recent years is so rare that it can't be anything but man-made global warming, says...