Can Trump TRULY unify the GOP, or has that ship sailed?

#152
#152
hog88 said:
Yes and what do all of those have in common?

They do what the people paying them tell them to do.
Click to expand...

Yeah OK, You have clearly lost the argument but continue to dig a deeper hole for yourself like you always do. MAGA gonna MAGA.
 
#162
#162
jvol1 said:
Mountains cause air to rise and cool, which causes water to precipitate out on one side and be dry on the other. It would just rain more on the one side of the mountains if there were more water in the air. Geography has a big impact on weather locally.
Click to expand...
I completely track with you. Geography is a consideration in weather patterns. In addition to geography, warm air naturally rises and, if humid, creates clouds which can become rain. So, If more water vapor is in the atmosphere, wouldn't that mean more rain in the regions that currently get rain? And doesn't it also mean more rain is possible in regions that currently only get a little rain?

The geography a/effecting condensation and the physics of temp and pressure producing precipitation isn't changing. Correct?
 
#163
#163
TN Ribs said:
Science disagrees with you. Clearly you were digging in the wrong place. Sounds like you are more concerned about your MAGA bona fides being questioned than actual science.
Click to expand...
Would it be more accurate to say.... Scientist can disagree with him. The observational part of the scientific method may disagree.

Does science have to follow the scientific method to be valid science? GW isn't science as I think of the scientific method. As I understand it, the conclusions are not reproducible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol since 77, MemphisVol77, hog88 and 2 others
#165
#165
McDad said:
Would it be more accurate to say.... Scientist can disagree with him. The observational part of the scientific method may disagree.

Does science have to follow the scientific method to be valid science? GW isn't science as I think of the scientific method. As I understand it, the conclusions are not reproducible.
Click to expand...
As to the first question in your 2nd paragraph, immediate, or instant discovery, would still only be valid through redundant testing of the result
 
  • Like
Reactions: whodeycin85
#167
#167
BernardKingGOAT said:
As to the first question in your 2nd paragraph, immediate, or instant discovery, would still only be valid through redundant testing of the result
Click to expand...
I am unfamiliar with "immediate or instant discovery". But others testing and coming to the same conclusion to be a valid scientific experiment. Ex: gravity is the same in Australia as America. Same test, conducted the same equals same results.

Can we call climate science 'science'? Is it observational only? I wouldn't say it is psuedo science, though,
 
  • Like
Reactions: whodeycin85 and BernardKingGOAT
#170
#170
McDad said:
I am unfamiliar with "immediate or instant discovery". But others testing and coming to the same conclusion to be a valid scientific experiment. Ex: gravity is the same in Australia as America. Same test, conducted the same equals same results.

Can we call climate science 'science'? Is it observational only? I wouldn't say it is psuedo science, though,
Click to expand...
Certainly "climate science" could be classified as a real "science". Lots of natural forces involved that can be tracked to definitive patterns throughout distinctive geographic areas and their unique conditions
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#171
#171
McDad said:
Would it be more accurate to say.... Scientist can disagree with him. The observational part of the scientific method may disagree.

Does science have to follow the scientific method to be valid science? GW isn't science as I think of the scientific method. As I understand it, the conclusions are not reproducible.
Click to expand...

yeah what ^^he said!
 
#173
#173
BernardKingGOAT said:
Certainly "climate science" could be classified as a real "science". Lots of natural forces involved that can be tracked to definitive patterns throughout distinctive geographic areas and their unique conditions
Click to expand...
In your opinion, are there other sciences which don't have strict adherence to the scientific method?
 
#174
#174
McDad said:
In your opinion, are there other sciences which don't have strict adherence to the scientific method?
Click to expand...
You would need to ask me about a specific "science", as labeled, in order for me to know if I have an opinion. I always loved my science classes, from elementary school through college. I may not be aware of all the New sciences🤭

I'm 61, retired and only use WSJ and The Economist as my sources of quality info
 
#175
#175
BernardKingGOAT said:
You would need to ask me about a specific "science", as labeled, in order for me to know if I have an opinion. I always loved my science classes, from elementary school through college. I may not be aware of all the New sciences🤭

I'm 61, retired and only use WSJ and The Economist as my sources of quality info
Click to expand...
Climate science is similar to psychology. Things can be observed, rationalized, and those discoveries can even lend to predictability. But climate and weather is too vast and has too many variables...like people to reach definitive conclusions.

It isn't rigid science to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MemphisVol77, 825VOL, BernardKingGOAT and 1 other person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top