Can someone explain this to me?

Explain why it's nonsense.

>Making predictions and testing them is an experiment you clueless retard. An experiment is simply an action which reveals data and/or tests a hypothesis. Climate science is founded completely on both.

Are they being tested by using the earth? For experiments to mean anything they have to produce the same result under the same conditions. Our climate is constantly changing, we can barely predict the weather tomorrow, let alone what the climate is going to be like in a hundred years.

You're an idiot

Gravity is a fundamental property of the universe that can be described on large scales with ease but on small scales with great difficulty

Climate change is not a fundamental property of the universe but instead an emergent property of the fundamental properties of thermodynamics and chemistry

You're basically falling for the "we can't fully describe gravity at all scales yet so we can't assume gravity is real" even though we know gravity is real

Can you tell me the physical features of the property called gravity?

>Explain why it's nonsense.
Because gravity is empirically measurable, and descriptive of a physical system. Explain why it's "non-physical."

>Are they being tested by using the earth?
Are you an idiot? The climate of the earth is the only thing being empirically measured.

>For experiments to mean anything they have to produce the same result under the same conditions.
Producing the same results under the same conditions is simply the necessary result of a correct theory. If they don't produce the same results under the same relevant conditions, then the theory is incorrect. Whether the earth's climate is always changing has no bearing on whether the theory is correct and the predicted results occur. Basically, you're attempting to ignore the overwhelming balance of evidence by narrowly defining what evidence is. It's pure semantics that fails to touch on the actual scientific argument.

>Our climate is constantly changing, we can barely predict the weather tomorrow, let alone what the climate is going to be like in a hundred years.
Weather is chaotic, climate less so, since much variability gets averaged out over time and space. Weather is not climate.

What does the term "physical features" refer to? Try not to make up terminology and just make your argument directly.

What's being empirically measured, the physical object, or some separate "force" called gravity?

>The climate of the earth is the only thing being empirically measured.

Models and simulations are not the earth.

>Producing the same results under the same conditions is simply the necessary result of a correct theory. If they don't produce the same results under the same relevant conditions, then the theory is incorrect. Whether the earth's climate is always changing has no bearing on whether the theory is correct and the predicted results occur. Basically, you're attempting to ignore the overwhelming balance of evidence by narrowly defining what evidence is. It's pure semantics that fails to touch on the actual scientific argument.

Science is all about semantics, it's an integral part of science.

>Weather is chaotic, climate less so, since much variability gets averaged out over time and space. Weather is not climate.

If the climate is so predictable, why where climate "scientists" saying we were heading for another ice age all those years ago?

If gravity is a physical thing, then it must have physical properties like atoms or some other "particle". It should weigh something, and have a width and height etc.

Are vibrations a physical thing?

The thing vibrating is, but not the property of vibrating.

>What's being empirically measured, the physical object, or some separate "force" called gravity?
What's being measured is gravity's effect on objects.

>Models and simulations are not the earth.
Models and simulations are based on empirical data. Try responding to the point.

>Science is all about semantics, it's an integral part of science.
Your semantic argument is not science, and misrepresents science. Try responding to the point.

>If the climate is so predictable, why where climate "scientists" saying we were heading for another ice age all those years ago?
We are currently in an ice age, so that claim makes no sense. Can you point me to a single climatologist who thinks or thought we aren't currently in an ice age?

>If gravity is a physical thing, then it must have physical properties like atoms or some other "particle". It should weigh something, and have a width and height etc.
Those are properties of matter, not physical things. Gravity is not matter. The fact that you made up your own term for matter is cute but has no bearing on what gravity is or isn't. Physics is the study of force, energy, and space in addition to matter. All these are physical.

>What's being measured is gravity's effect on objects.

So in other words, you are measuring the physical object to try and measure something else, rather than measuring gravity directly (because you can't).

>Models and simulations are based on empirical data.

Based on empirical data from the earth. Models and simulations are not the earth.

>We are currently in an ice age, so that claim makes no sense. Can you point me to a single climatologist who thinks or thought we aren't currently in an ice age?

So couldn't that mean we're just coming out of the ice age?

What makes forces and energy physical?

Then why have all the gloom and doom predictions about global warming/climate change failed over the last 10-15 years? It is clearly a not fully understood phenomenon. Does man have an effect on the climate? Yes, of course to some extent, but it is not clear that human activity is causing major changes to the climate, yet many people are extremely eager to start taxing people, directly or indirectly, to 'fix the climate'.

>So in other words, you are measuring the physical object to try and measure something else, rather than measuring gravity directly (because you can't).
You can't measure physical things directly. For example, measuring the height of a bunch of atoms is not a direct measurement of anything physical, since height has no rigorous physical meaning. That jumble of atoms is constantly jiggling, and the atoms have no set boundaries, and the tool you are using to measure is not even touching the atoms. So on the one hand you claim that height is a physical property, yet it seems that by your standards of denying gravity as physical, you must also reject height as physical. Height is simply a model which attempts to describe a physical thing. Any empirical science is a model attempting to describe physical things, like gravity.

>Are they being tested by using the earth?
>>The climate of the earth is the only thing being empirically measured.
>Based on empirical data from the earth. Models and simulations are not the earth.
So you concede the point. Good.

>So couldn't that mean we're just coming out of the ice age?
Couldn't *what* mean we're just coming out of an ice age? The alleged prediction that we are "heading into another ice age" or global warming?

And what is the point of the question? Coming out of an ice age would be disastrous since it would mean extremely high sea levels. Humans have always lived in an ice age and are adapted to living in an ice age.

They are empirically measurable and necessary to describe a physical system. You are arguing that physics studies non-physical things. That's simply incorrect and a meaningless statement. Fuck off already.

>Then why have all the gloom and doom predictions about global warming/climate change failed over the last 10-15 years?
You keep repeating this, yet you have never provided a source which shows the accuracy of climate scientist's predictions. Usually deniers can at least cherrypick a handful of predictions from non-scientists in order to feebly support this lie, yet you can't even do that.

>It is clearly a not fully understood phenomenon.
No one claimed it was. Nothing in science is fully understood. That doesn't mean we don't understand enough to say what we're saying. Why do you think "we don't fully understand" is an excuse to ignore what we do understand? Why is it important for you to deny scientific facts?

>Does man have an effect on the climate? Yes, of course to some extent, but it is not clear that human activity is causing major changes to the climate
Unfortunately, climatologists have found that it is quite clear. Sticking your fingers in your ears does nothing. I suggest you explain why all the evidence they have provided is wrong, otherwise no one is going to buy anything you're saying.

>That jumble of atoms is constantly jiggling, and the atoms have no set boundaries.

It doesn't matter, they still have what we consider a height whether we can measure it accurately or not. Gravity has no such property.

>And what is the point of the question? Coming out of an ice age would be disastrous since it would mean extremely high sea levels. Humans have always lived in an ice age and are adapted to living in an ice age.

So if we've been in an ice age for so long, why did climate scientists say we were heading for one?

>It doesn't matter, they still have what we consider a height whether we can measure it accurately or not. Gravity has no such property.
So the force of gravity is not measurable? You just said weight is a physical property. You fucked yourself. You lost.

>So if we've been in an ice age for so long, why did climate scientists say we were heading for one?
They didn't. You just made that up, remember?

>So the force of gravity is not measurable? You just said weight is a physical property. You fucked yourself. You lost.

Is weight the property of the physical object, or a property of gravity?

>Is weight the property of the physical object, or a property of gravity?
Both. Care to actually make a substantive point instead of just making up arbitrary categories?

Your entire argument is one big categorical error.

Humans have cars therefore anyone without a car is not human.

Both? So what features does gravity have that makes it different to the physical object it is supposedly affecting?

If you think gravity is more complex than climate, you're an idiot.

The actual problem is that scientists aren't trying to figure out how global warming works on the most fundamental level, as they are with gravity, because climates are so much more complex that it's simply not feasible to do so. We know climate change occurs in the same way we know that gravity invariably causes things to fall. Understanding why the universe has gravity, and what determines the strength of gravity in comparison to every other force in the universe, is entirely different.

When something is affected by gravity, the force being placed upon it is caused by the gravity well of another object.
Gravity isn't a physical thing, it's a force caused due to mass

Physicists don't measure the something's gravity, they measure the acceleration caused by gravity.
The same way magnetism is a property of magnetic materials, gravity is property of things that have mass

Gravity is a force, while an object is not. Stop being obtuse, retardo.