Quote:
Originally Posted by dippin
You have so little understanding of how knowledge creation works it is not even worth discussing it with you. But you should be aware that if what you said holds true, every single piece of knowledge would have to be discovered anew every day, right?
|
You miss the point.
If I take 1,000,000 measurements:
Within 24 seconds to predict the next second the prediction is based on past results.
Within 24 hours to predict the next 24 hours the prediction is based on past results.
Within 24 days to predict the next 24 days the prediction is based on past results.
or if my measurements are used to predict increments that don't match the period of my data collection the prediction is based on past results, however the key is getting a meaningful match and then the accuracy of the prediction is based on either the consistency in the past results or in nailing any assumptions I make.
Quote:
|
After all, just because we've consistently estimated that at certain pressures and certain temperatures water becomes vapor doesn't mean that it will be like that in the future.
|
There are some known predictable constants and there are variables. to understand how the variables interplay with the constants and with the other variables is a challenge.
Quote:
And you have every right to know, challenge and test any assumptions scientists make:
Here's all the data you could wish for on temperature
NCDC: * National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) *
get to it. If it's so easy, you should have no problems debunking all the science that points to global warming.
|
I have not debunked anything, nor have I tried. I simply believe climate changes have more to do with natural phenomenon than with human activity. My believe is primarily based on what we think we know about the history of this planet, not 100 years of data.