2016 set to be hottest year on record

Satellite measurement is NOT accurate to anything less than several feet. It is accurate to relative sea level changes (one part of the ocean higher than another), but not for absolute measurement.

The measurement of long-term changes in global mean sea level can provide an important corroboration of predictions by climate models of global warming. Satellite altimeter radar measurements can be combined with precisely known spacecraft orbits to measure sea level on a global basis with unprecedented accuracy. A series of satellite missions that started with TOPEX/Poseidon (T/P) in 1992 and continued with Jason-1 (2001–2013) and Jason-2 (2008–present) estimate global mean sea level every 10 days with an uncertainty of 3–4 mm.

Incorrect. The southern coast of the United States is sinking, while the northern coast of the continent is rising. There are many more stations on the southern coast.

Neither Australia or the Netherlands have a significant number of stations on all sides of the continent.

All this is known, but it is a random number. You cannot control for it.

Which is the thing you are trying to measure.

You are believing in the made up shit.

Leafsdude wrote:

Satellite measurement is NOT accurate to anything less than several feet. It is accurate to relative sea level changes (one part of the ocean higher than another), but not for absolute measurement.

According to NOAA:

The measurement of long-term changes in global mean sea level can provide an important corroboration of predictions by climate models of global warming. Satellite altimeter radar measurements can be combined with precisely known spacecraft orbits to measure sea level on a global basis with unprecedented accuracy. A series of satellite missions that started with TOPEX/Poseidon (T/P) in 1992 and continued with Jason-1 (2001–2013) and Jason-2 (2008–present) estimate global mean sea level every 10 days with an uncertainty of 3–4 mm.

Leafsdude wrote:

Incorrect. The southern coast of the United States is sinking, while the northern coast of the continent is rising. There are many more stations on the southern coast.

What did I get that was incorrect? I didn't say what was rising or lowering. At best, the implication one can make for my statement was that, when all data is combined, there's an overall lowering of all continents, though, again, tidal gauges are not widespread enough to comfortably state that conclusion.

Leafsdude wrote:

Neither Australia or the Netherlands have a significant number of stations on all sides of the continent.

Well, considering the Netherlands are not a continent, I'd agree with that part. Australia does have a significant set of stations across the country, however, but it's not surprising you don't know that.

Leafsdude wrote:

All this is known, but it is a random number. You cannot control for it.

It's a random number based on what, exactly?

Leafsdude wrote:
If you mean to say it's not completely accurate, sure, but the conclusion that you cannot control for it implies that only 100% precision is accurate, which is complete bull. Even 90% accuracy is good enough to make successful predictions off it.

Leafsdude wrote:

Which is the thing you are trying to measure.

Nope, it's not. It's an ISO standard. Your argument is analogous to saying measuring your feet in feet is a problem.

Leafsdude wrote:

You are believing in the made up shit.

Your baseless assertions aren't, and never will be, as convincing as the evidence based arguments of "the made up shit".

It is capable of measuring differences of sea level accurately. It is NOT capable of measuring absolute sea level accurately.

There is no lowering of all continents occurring.

If you feel it's significant, fine. I don't.

Already explained.

Of certain things, true. Of what you are claiming, no.

I'm talking about reference, not units of measure.

To you, that is. That's because you believe in The Religion.

Leafsdude wrote:

It is capable of measuring differences of sea level accurately. It is NOT capable of measuring absolute sea level accurately.

Why does it need to measure absolute sea levels if it measures differences accurately?

Leafsdude wrote:
You do know that the latter is the intent, not the former, right?

Leafsdude wrote:

There is no lowering of all continents occurring.

Do you have any sources to defend the above claim?

Leafsdude wrote:
AFAIK, we likely don't have enough information to say whether it is or not.

Leafsdude wrote:

If you feel it's significant, fine. I don't.

You don't find a station every 1250km or so on average along the entire coastline to be significant? Why not?

Leafsdude wrote:

Already explained.

Where?

Leafsdude wrote:

I'm talking about reference, not units of measure.

And the satellites are using the unit of measure, not a reference. *shrug*

Leafsdude wrote:

To you, that is. That's because you believe in The Religion.

More projections, I see.

Look forward to you running away from this discussion as well.

It is easier to measure sea level against sea level as the satellite travels than absolute sea level.

The purpose of the satellite system is to study the sea level in regional areas change due to storm activity, temperature changes, saline density changes, etc.

TOPEX/Poseidon' radar altimeter provided the first continuous global coverage of the surface topography of the oceans. From orbit 1,330 kilometers above Earth, TOPEX/Poseidon provided measurements of the surface height of 95 percent of the ice-free ocean to an accuracy of 3.3 centimeters.

Tidal stations.

We do.

Coastline is too short.

Measurement is meaningless without a reference, dude.

No projection. You have taken this position. It is history.

Leafsdude wrote:

It is easier to measure sea level against sea level as the satellite travels than absolute sea level.

I'm pretty sure that's not what they do...

The purpose of the satellite system is to study the sea level in regional areas change due to storm activity, temperature changes, saline density changes, etc.

Mmm, nope. Since 1992, satellites have been studying the ocean in whole. They've not been limited to regional areas. For example, TOPEX/Poseidon:

TOPEX/Poseidon' radar altimeter provided the first continuous global coverage of the surface topography of the oceans. From orbit 1,330 kilometers above Earth, TOPEX/Poseidon provided measurements of the surface height of 95 percent of the ice-free ocean to an accuracy of 3.3 centimeters.

...deleted link to non-authoritative source...

...deleted link to non-authoritative source...
have increased that accuracy to within 2.5mm.

Leafsdude wrote:

Tidal stations.

Can you be more specific?

We do.

Can you be more specific?

Leafsdude wrote:

Coastline is too short.

And...?

Leafsdude wrote:

Measurement is meaningless without a reference, dude.

Yes, and that reference is the standardized 1979 measurement of sea levels...

Leafsdude wrote:

No projection. You have taken this position. It is history.

Considering I've correct errors, acknowledged sourced facts (as rare as they've been) and always hedged on positive claims, you'll have a real tough time ever proving my viewpoints are religious in nature.

But good luck trying, anyway, Pope.

BOTH satellite systems can only stare straight down to a single spot at a time as the craft travels.

BOTH system utilize the same referencing system I've already described.

Both are measuring sea level to sea level accuracy (comparative sea levels), NOT absolute sea level.

That is what sea level topographical measurements are all about.

No. Go back and read my specific explanation of both of these questions.

An insignificant area is covered.

The North American continent, on the other hand, is quite large. It is too large for a single 'hill' or 'valley' of water to affect all of it or most of it at one time.

You should understand the difference between actual sea level and a hypothetical one. This standard refers to atmospheric conditions at a hypothetical sea level, among them being density, pressure, etc. The standard simply sets values of conditions often found at sea as the 'official standard' for calculation purposes. I use this standard myself in my work.

I am no Pope. Religion starts from the circular argument. It requires it.

Use of the circular argument and depending on it as a Truth of the Universe is a Religion.

Global Warming is such a common Religion that I simply refer to it as The Religion.

spot wrote:
I don't get what this is to do with the original post anyway whether its true or not it's not a religion just look in a dictionary. this post is certainly in breach of rule 2

2) Stick to the subject
Always stay on-topic in the thread you are participating in. If you want to discuss something else, then start a new thread.

and probably;
3) Use the Search machine
Many topics have been discussed several times, and a lot of questions have been answered before. Start by using the Search field (top left of the page), and try to make your post contribute to the forum in a new way.

and;

6) Don't make noise
Don't write the same post in a lot of different threads. Don't write 100 lines with identical smileys. Don' write posts with just CAPITAL LETTERS.


hence I have reported your post Its not censorship it's just trying to restore some structure so we can talk about what is happening in the real world rather then the obsessions of one individual. you are free to start your own threads.

Leafsdude wrote:

BOTH satellite systems can only stare straight down to a single spot at a time as the craft travels.

Sure, over significant periods of time where natural variations are removed.

Leafsdude wrote:

BOTH system utilize the same referencing system I've already described.

You mean the standardized one from 1979?

Leafsdude wrote:

Both are measuring sea level to sea level accuracy (comparative sea levels), NOT absolute sea level.

Which is the point, so I don't see the problem with that.

Leafsdude wrote:

That is what sea level topographical measurements are all about.

Yup. Pretty impressive, really.

Leafsdude wrote:

No. Go back and read my specific explanation of both of these questions.

Can you point me to those specific explanations? Would rather not waste my time going though 250 posts when you probably can find it much faster.

Leafsdude wrote:

An insignificant area is covered.

What makes 1/1350km "an insignificant area"?

Leafsdude wrote:

The North American continent, on the other hand, is quite large. It is too large for a single 'hill' or 'valley' of water to affect all of it or most of it at one time.

But not all of North America has gauges. Canada has less than even Australia. Only the continental US has a significant amount, and the length of that shoreline is smaller than Australia by about half.

Leafsdude wrote:

You should understand the difference between actual sea level and a hypothetical one. This standard refers to atmospheric conditions at a hypothetical sea level, among them being density, pressure, etc. The standard simply sets values of conditions often found at sea as the 'official standard' for calculation purposes. I use this standard myself in my work.

Not a hypothetical one. It's from measurements in 1979.

Regardless, hypothetical or not, it's still the standard used. Not actual real-time sea levels.

Leafsdude wrote:

I am no Pope. Religion starts from the circular argument. It requires it.

Feel free to point out any circular arguments I've used.

Leafsdude wrote:

Use of the circular argument and depending on it as a Truth of the Universe is a Religion.

"Truth of the Universe"?

What now?

Leafsdude wrote:

Global Warming is such a common Religion that I simply refer to it as The Religion.

Because you don't care about facts.

Non-sequitur.

Non-sequitur. There is no standardized sea level height. The standard refers to atmospheric conditions.

Then we agree.

That it is.

This entire thread consists of but a few pages, and this comment was made on the last page or so. Whining isn't going to help you here. Go do the footwork.

It's size.

It is quite true the northern edge of the continent has few gauges. It is enough to see the continental tilt. It is also the reason the average is tilted.

Already have.

This too you can go look up through your previous posts if you wish. So can others.

the demonstration. Simply using a circular argument and calling it a 'fact', as if it's the Truth of the Universe, is a Religion.

You should also learn what a 'fact' actually is. You are confusing 'fact' with 'argument'.

Your initial argument starts with Global Warming causing sea level rise.

Now you are spending most of your time attempting to justify sea level rise as proof of Global Warming using instrumentation not designed to measure it.

Since science has no proofs, you are making a circular argument.

Now you refer to the whole thing as a 'fact'. This makes it a Religion.

Leafsdude wrote:

Non-sequitur.

What makes it a non-sequitur?

Leafsdude wrote:

Non-sequitur. There is no standardized sea level height. The standard refers to atmospheric conditions.

Would you agree that, via inverse operations, it's possible to derive a mean sea level from those standard atmospheric conditions?

Leafsdude wrote:
And you clearly don't know what a non-sequitur is...

Leafsdude wrote:

Then we agree.

We agree with the fact. We don't agree with what that fact infers.

Leafsdude wrote:

This entire thread consists of but a few pages, and this comment was made on the last page or so. Whining isn't going to help you here. Go do the footwork.

Apologies, I mistook which thread this was.

You have provided nothing more specific than a statement for either claim in question. Do you have specific sources that tidal gauges show that continents are not lowering? Or do you just want me to be gullible and take your word for it?

Leafsdude wrote:

It's size.

What makes its size insignificant?

Leafsdude wrote:

It is quite true the northern edge of the continent has few gauges. It is enough to see the continental tilt. It is also the reason the average is tilted.

Yet those gauges aren't enough to see sea level rise?

Can't eat your cake and have it, too...

Leafsdude wrote:

Already have.

Nope, you haven't.

This too you can go look up through your previous posts if you wish. So can others.

Except for those who are already agreeing with you without any critical thought, everyone will see that all you have are repeated undefended assertions. Anyone with skeptical skills knows that such arguments are never sufficient to defend any claim.

Leafsdude wrote:

the demonstration. Simply using a circular argument and calling it a 'fact', as if it's the Truth of the Universe, is a Religion.

Which circular argument am I calling "a fact" with that statement?

Leafsdude wrote:

You should also learn what a 'fact' actually is. You are confusing 'fact' with 'argument'.

A fact, in scientific contexts, is something which has been shown to occur with repeated experimentation and/or observation.

Leafsdude wrote:

Of course, my intent by pointing out you don't care about facts was not to suggest that my arguments were as such, but that anyone who does care about facts would know that AGW is full of them.

Leafsdude wrote:

Your initial argument starts with Global Warming causing sea level rise.

Not my argument. It's what the scientific literature claims

Leafsdude wrote:

Now you are spending most of your time attempting to justify sea level rise as proof of Global Warming using instrumentation not designed to measure it.

Regardless of whether it does so reasonably accurately, which it absolutely does (something I've provided numerous sources for to defend, including NOAA, which you rejected without any reasoning except essentially asserting "they claim stupid shit" without any examples and then asserted you know better than them, something you also have yet to provide any evidence for as well), you cannot seriously suggest the instrumentation was not designed to measure it. If they weren't, then exactly what were they designed for?

Leafsdude wrote:

Since science has no proofs, you are making a circular argument.

Define "proofs".

Leafsdude wrote:

Now you refer to the whole thing as a 'fact'. This makes it a Religion.

Mmm, no, it doesn't.

And I never referred to "the whole thing" as a fact, I just asserted you don't care about facts.

Go look it up.

No.

I know exactly what a non-sequitur is.

Then you admit you are synthesizing the accuracy of your claimed measurement. If you do not, then you cannot agree with this fact.

I don't do footwork for people. If you want to look it up, it's online. You can use Google as well as anyone else (assumption).

It's size.

Not to the accuracy you are claiming.

The difference in their readings is better at determining continental movement though. For that, all you need is just a few of them.

I expect you to take anything I say with a grain of salt, but to do your own research concerning any argument I present if you want to find out why I make the argument.

I described it in the last post.

This is an argument of the Stone.

There is no such thing as a 'scientific' fact. There are no proofs in science.

Only to those who agree with AGW. Learn what a 'fact' is.

It is made your argument by accepting what you are hearing. You can't disclaim it that way!

There is no consensus in science either.

Neither is there anyone that owns science at all. No magazine, university, collection of studies, political organization, or government that owns science.

Supporting evidence, even if there is mountains of it, mean nothing in science.

I still reject NOAA for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the amount of manufactured data they present.

These satellites were designed to measure differences in ocean water height referenced between different regions of ocean water. They help to measure things like storm surges, height differences caused by temperature and salinity. They are not designed for absolute sea level measurements.

A proof requires a closed system, such as mathematics, that is made up of unchanging axioms. This same property gives mathematics the ability to predict, whereas an open system does not have that ability.

Science is an open system. Anyone can come up with a theory. There are no axioms (other than the basic definition of science itself). Therefore a proof is not possible. Prediction is not possible. Science explains, it doesn't predict. It must turn to a closed system such as mathematics for that.

Yes, it does.

I care about facts. I care more than most people about facts because I see many people like you who misuse the term.

A fact is nothing more than an assumed predicate in a conversation. As long as all members of that conservation can assume that predicate, that predicate is a fact. If a single member disagrees with that predicate, it is no longer a fact. It has become an argument.

Leafsdude wrote:

Go look it up.

I'm not gonna do your footwork for you.

No.

Why not?

Leafsdude wrote:

I know exactly what a non-sequitur is.

I don't believe you.

Leafsdude wrote:

Then you admit you are synthesizing the accuracy of your claimed measurement. If you do not, then you cannot agree with this fact.

Speaking literally? Sure. What's wrong with such a concept?

Leafsdude wrote:

I don't do footwork for people. If you want to look it up, it's online. You can use Google as well as anyone else (assumption).

I can and have. I've produced sources saying your claim is wrong in this thread. I base my opinion on verifiable sources. If you can provide one that counters my source, I will change that opinion. If you cannot, I will not.

Such is how real skeptical inquiry works. Not just by denying claims outright but by presenting evidence to counter them.

Leafsdude wrote:

Not to the accuracy you are claiming.

NOAA disagrees. No offense, but I trust a reputable scientific body made up of people of many different walks of life over a single poster on the internet who has nothing but his own assertions to go on.

Leafsdude wrote:

There is no such thing as a 'scientific' fact. There are no proofs in science.

A scientific fact as defined by Webster's Dictionary.

Epic fail.

Leafsdude wrote:

Only to those who agree with AGW. Learn what a 'fact' is.

I've stated what a fact is twice, once in my own words and once with a dictionary definition.

Your move, genius.

Leafsdude wrote:

There is no consensus in science either.

Of course there is. Consensus is how theories are formed and accepted.

Leafsdude wrote:

Neither is there anyone that owns science at all. No magazine, university, collection of studies, political organization, or government that owns science.

Who the **** is talking about "owning"? Sounds like a strawman to me. Or maybe just a red herring.

Leafsdude wrote:

Supporting evidence, even if there is mountains of it, mean nothing in science.

Uh, what now?

What else, if not evidence, does science rely on, at the core?

Leafsdude wrote:

I still reject NOAA for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the amount of manufactured data they present.

Do you have a source for any of this "manufactured data"?

Leafsdude wrote:

A proof requires a closed system, such as mathematics, that is made up of unchanging axioms. This same property gives mathematics the ability to predict, whereas an open system does not have that ability.

Science is an open system. Anyone can come up with a theory. There are no axioms (other than the basic definition of science itself). Therefore a proof is not possible. Prediction is not possible. Science explains, it doesn't predict. It must turn to a closed system such as mathematics for that.

Define "open system" and "closed system" in these contexts.

Leafsdude wrote:
And of course prediction is possible in science. It's another core requirement for scientific discovery, along with evidence. Darwin predicted ring species. That prediction has been confirmed. Einstein predicted numerous things, such as black holes. That prediction has been confirmed. Big Bang theory predicted cosmic background radiation. That's been confirmed, too. Hell, any scientific hypothesis by requirement needs a positive prediction in order to be tested, what with the whole ideal of the null hypothesis.

Leafsdude wrote:
Whatever you mean by "science" when you use it, it's clearly not the science that resulted in theories and laws that allowed for the production of microchips, cellphones and even the bloody lightbulb, as that "science" is exactly the opposite of your description.

Leafsdude wrote:

Yes, it does.

Nope. A religion is "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods."

No gods, no superhuman controlling power. You're objectively, factually, wrong.

Leafsdude wrote:

I care about facts. I care more than most people about facts because I see many people like you who misuse the term.

Sounds like hubris more than knowledge. YMMV.

A fact is nothing more than an assumed predicate in a conversation. As long as all members of that conservation can assume that predicate, that predicate is a fact. If a single member disagrees with that predicate, it is no longer a fact. It has become an argument.

And you base this on what, exactly? The unique language of Into the Nightish? Definition of words doesn't work like that.

spot wrote:
Religion means something can be understood, Buddhism is a religion, germ theory is not.

spot wrote:
He has a little bit of knowledge and a lot of time on his hands but I can't tell if he's deliberately winding people up or an insane Walter Mitty type. Obviously we can define our own words but if we want to be understood its important that we use words the same way other people use them. Religion means something can be understood, Buddhism is a religion, germ theory is not. The laws of thermodynamics confirm what can be observed, and things can be mesured. Its a frustrating game and he will win because making the last post in a thread is victory in his eyes.

Because I am not charitable to lazy asses like yourself.

Too bad.

It is a paradox to claim both, stupid.

No, it is how you try to justify an argument of the Stone. It is Bulverism.

There is nothing about any link or reference that makes it 'holy'.

NOAA is not a scientific body. It is a government organization.

Consensus has no meaning in science.

So...using Webster as a science and philosophy textbook now?

No on 'owns' words either.

None necessary.

Wrong. Theories are formed by a wide number of reasons. They are accepted until a flaw is found in them. The more tests for the null hypothesis of a theory get passed, the more the theory is trusted.

You are. This is the essence of consensus in science.

Falsifiability of a theory, and the evidence against it. Do not change the wording. The evidence you are using is supporting evidence, which has no place in science.

Manufactured data has no source, stupid. It's MANUFACTURED.

I have already described why it is not possible to measure global temperature.

Just did. Reread my paragraph quoted here.

Darwin made a circular argument. That is not a prediction.

Einstein used mathematics for his predictions.

Big Bang theory uses circular arguments. The background radiation creates the Big Bang theory...the Big Bang theory is 'proven' by background radiation.

You cannot test a theory with supporting evidence. To do so makes a circular argument.

Science did not invent the lightbulb, nor was any prediction necessary.

Microchips and cellphones are based on the mathematics behind them.

But you have a God. It's called Consensus. It is a false god.

Definition of words works EXACTLY like that.

Words are defined by the people, not the dictionary. The dictionary follows the meanings that are used by people.

Dictionaries are useful for standardizing spelling and pronunciation

They are not the reason a word is defined the way it is. Dictionaries follow the people's use of the word, not the other way around.

A dictionary cannot act as a substitute for a science textbook.
A dictionary cannot act as a substitute for a philosophy textbook.
A dictionary cannot act as a substitute for a mathematics or formal logic textbook.

This definition of a fact stems from philosophy and linguistics, as it applies to informal logic.

Let us entertain a concept here.

Do you consider the Pythagorean Theorem a fact?

Leafsdude wrote: I can and have. I've produced sources saying your claim is wrong in this thread.

Leafsdude wrote: I base my opinion on verifiable sources.

Leafsdude wrote:
If you can provide one that counters my source, I will change that opinion. If you cannot, I will not.

Such is how real skeptical inquiry works.

Leafsdude wrote:NOAA disagrees. No offense, but I trust a reputable scientific body made up of people of many different walks of life over a single poster on the internet who has nothing but his own assertions to go on.

Leafsdude wrote: I know why you make the argument: because you deny science.

Leafsdude wrote:Epic fail.

Leafsdude wrote: Consensus is how theories are formed and accepted.

Leafsdude wrote: Who the **** is talking about "owning"? Sounds like a strawman to me. Or maybe just a red herring.

Leafsdude wrote:Uh, what now? What else, if not evidence, does science rely on, at the core?

Leafsdude wrote: Do you have a source for any of this "manufactured data"?

Leafsdude wrote: Define "open system" and "closed system" in these contexts.

Leafsdude wrote: Darwin predicted ring species.

Leafsdude wrote:Whatever you mean by "science" when you use it, it's clearly not the science that resulted in theories and laws that allowed for the production of microchips, cellphones and even the bloody lightbulb, as that "science" is exactly the opposite of your description.

Leafsdude wrote:Nope. A religion is "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods."

Leafsdude wrote:

Let us entertain a concept here.

Do you consider the Pythagorean Theorem a fact?

As far as anything can be called a fact, yes.

Science is not based on consensus. Science is not determined by subjective opinion or democratic vote.

Yet you think it is.

Translation: "I adopt the opinions of those I choose to do my thinking for me, and if you critique my opinions I'll tell you to take it up with them!"

Allow me to catch my breath. Real skepticism involves doubting and questioning, which involves independent thinking ... and you cannot do that if you have others doing your thinking for you.

It's obvious to anyone who has put some independent thinking into it that the mean global sea level cannot be computed to any accuracy.

However, when those who do your thinking for you tell you that they just can, you cannot question them.

You cannot doubt. You cannot take the science approach.

...

You, not so much. You deny science. You won't think for yourself. You won't doubt anything you are told by your clergy. You won't question anything you are told by your clergy. You give science the finger.

Look at you! You think a dictionary is a science textbook!

There is no such thing as a "scientific" fact.

There is no such thing as a "scientific" color. There are only colors.

There is no such thing as a "scientific" material. There are only materials. ...but I'll happily let you allow an online dictionary to run your life and keep you from having to think for yourself.

You are scientifically illiterate ... and PROUD of it!

You are. Your WORDS imply that some person/university/institution's permission/approval is required for an idea to become "accepted" as science.

So, my question to you: Whose permission/approval is required for an idea to become science? Who do you believe gets a veto?

You believe that subjective "consensus" is somehow required for science to come into existence. Of course this is the most ABSURD idea ever levied against science. You believe that science is determined by democratic vote!

HINT: Science comes into existence by being falsifiable and by no one being able to show it to be false. Otherwise, no person's opinion/declaration ever comes into play. No one's. Science is COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT of anything that anyone has to say. Science stands on its own.

So the question to you is "Who's consensus do you believe determines science?" Am I one of them?

The political appointee in charge of NOAA.

Why can you not find this out for yourself? If he were to define them as "peanut butter" and "jelly" respectively would you take his word for it? If the answer is "no" and that you would then "look up the correct answer" then why don't you just do it now?

...and I predicted Michael Phelps would take the gold in the men's 200m IM.

Neither is science. Neither used falsifiable models from which to make the predictions.

You don't know what "falsifiable" means, do you? It's an absolute requirement for science.

You clearly do not know what science is. Since you can't be bothered to learn, you're in a world of hurt.

What you are describing above is the scientific process, not to be confused with the body of science and not to be confused with the scientific method ... which you do, in fact, confuse.

Right. You have created a religion around the deity "Science" (no relation to actual science) of which you know nothing but everything about which you are instructed by your clergy you take on complete faith. COMPLETE FAITH.

Since you consider this Theorem a fact, that means you allow for things that are only in the imagination to be a fact. After all, mathematics is a thing that can only be imagined.

If this it the case, then, how do you explain the definition of a fact as shown in the Merriam Webster dictionary?

Leafsdude wrote:Nope, I do not.

Leafsdude wrote: Nope. No translations necessary.

Leafsdude wrote:What "thinking" leads you to that conclusion?

Leafsdude wrote: And I'm the one who can't think for themselves. *laugh*

Leafsdude wrote:Thankfully, they don't just say "they just can". They've provide methodology in scientific papers available for anyone to read.

Leafsdude wrote: Of course I can doubt. I doubt everything.

Leafsdude wrote: I just understand there's a point where reasonable doubt becomes unreasonable.

Leafsdude wrote: Mmmm, nope. Never said that.

Leafsdude wrote:Well, that's a false analogy if I ever heard one...

Leafsdude wrote: Of course, you probably, like through most of your post(s), read my words through a biased lens where you already saw me believing such things, even though I gave absolutely no indication of doing so.

Leafsdude wrote: The fact is, you've said everything you've said to me solely because I accept climate change,

Leafsdude wrote: And science is a process, not a label. Things don't "become science". Such a statement is nonsensical.

Leafsdude wrote: No, I believe that objective consensus, such as meta-analysis of the peer-reviewed scientific literature, is required to identify the theories that best describe observed phenomena.

Leafsdude wrote: Yet again, you have to pretend to know what I believe, even though you clearly don't have the first clue,

Leafsdude wrote: Agreed.

Leafsdude wrote: What data did this "political appointee" manufacture?

Leafsdude wrote: So did I, what with the evidence being overwhelming that Michael Phelps is the best swimmer in the world. I assume you made the prediction for the same reason.

Leafsdude wrote:Actually, that's exactly what Darwin used. The fact is, the model was the source of falsifiability of evolution.

Leafsdude wrote: If ring species didn't exist, then that would have falsified evolution,

Leafsdude wrote: because if evolution primarily occurred due to population drift, then you'd get species that could breed with all their neighbour species, but not with any other species within the chain.

Leafsdude wrote:"Fasifiable" means a statement that has a possible result or results with which it can be shown to be false. *shrug*
It means that the requirements to show an argument to be false are inherent, and formally stated, in the argument such that a direct test of such can be implemented.

[quote]Leafsdude wrote: Mmm, nope. If it was "complete faith", then I would not consider evidence that would go contrary to my views and be willing to change said views if such evidence was sufficient.

Leafsdude wrote: Mathematics cannot only be "imagined".

Leafsdude wrote: I can provide you a right triangle,

Leafsdude wrote: But regardless of that, you're providing a false dilemma. I could view the Pythagorean Theorem as a fact and still consider other things of different natures facts.

Leafsdude wrote:

Science is not based on consensus. Science is not determined by subjective opinion or democratic vote.

Yet you think it is.

Nope, I do not.

But enjoy your strawmen.

Leafsdude wrote:
No, I believe that objective consensus, such as meta-analysis of the peer-reviewed scientific literature, is required to identify the theories that best describe observed phenomena.

Leafsdude wrote:
Considering you're not a peer-reviewed, scientific paper, no, you are not.

Leafsdude wrote:

Since you consider this Theorem a fact, that means you allow for things that are only in the imagination to be a fact. After all, mathematics is a thing that can only be imagined.

Oh, my...where to start?

Mathematics cannot only be "imagined".

I can provide you a right triangle, I can measure it's opposite side and non-right angles, square them and then compare them. They'll always be equal. There's nothing imagined about that.

But regardless of that, you're providing a false dilemma. I could view the Pythagorean Theorem as a fact and still consider other things of different natures facts. There's nothing about the former that contradicts the latter.

If this it the case, then, how do you explain the definition of a fact as shown in the Merriam Webster dictionary?

As above, because your statement "mathematics is a thing that can only be imagined" is not a fact.

IBdaMann wrote:
While we're at it, do you know of any discount stores selling cheap limits?

Yes you do. You wrote: "I've produced sources saying your claim is wrong in this thread" in expressing your belief that science is a product of consensus/opinions.

The translation was a necessary "plain English" clarification of your quote "I base my opinion on verifiable sources." You need "verifiable sources" to do your thinking for you rather than performing your own thinking based on science.

Try thinking about it, e.g. how would you go about providing a usefully accurate (say, to the millimeter).

not "themselves" but "himself," i.e. I'm not the one who can't think for himself.

So you've been able to read them. Great! Explain that methodology here, in this thread, in your own words, the concepts that you gleaned from these "scientific" papers.

How are they "scientific" papers as opposed to just "papers"?

I'm not convinced. You apparently have been instilled with great FEAR of questioning what your clergy orders you to BELIEVE.

That's a great rationalization. NOT.

Did you just try to tell me that you question EVERYTHING but then admit that questioning your profound religious dogma is unreasonable? Sure sounds like it to me.

Yes but you THINK that.

You mocked Into the Night for not adopting Webster's online dictionary's usage of "scientific fact" as opposed to anything having to do with science. You turned to the dictionary on matters of science as though it were an authoritative science reference. That's worth repeating. You turned to the dictionary on matters of science. You think the dictionary is a science text. This explains a lot.

It's an appropriate analogy and an absolutely true statement. But then again, you think the dictionary is an authoritative science reference.

No. I'm just reading your words.

I also notice that you have a fear reflex to learning something new or at correcting any long-held misunderstandings

...just like it's a profound religious belief of yours that is suddenly being threatened.

You obviously could stand to learn from people posting in this forum, especially those that discuss science that runs counter to your beliefs. Of course, whether you do or not is up to you.

That's enough. That speaks volumes. You are up to your neck in religion, having the clergy of that religion direct you as to what to think and what to BELIEVE.

That is all I have said.

That's your WACKY religious dogma taking control of your cognitive functions.

I'll lay it out for you.

* (Body of) Science is our collection of falsifiable models that predict nature. Yes, there is "science" to which you can point. It is most definitely a label.

What I listed above is how it is, but it runs against your WACKY "climate change" dogma that is intended to keep believers from questioning the dogma, so you either need to let go of your religion or let the science denial sink in.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. The term "peer reviewed" is simply a euphamism for "reviewed by members of the board that owns science, or those who approve science."

There is no such thing as any obligatory process for science to come into existence. No one's "peer review" is required.

No one gets any sort of veto. Theories are not athletes that need to be "discovered." There is no institution that approves science and has scouts out looking "top talent" to become science. What you wrote shows a HUGE misunderstanding of how science comes to be.

Did you write "objective consensus"? WTF? Could you elaborate on what you mean by this term and how it applies to science coming into existence?

Apparently not. You believe in "peer review" and in regular literature being ordained as "scientific" literature ... by some unnamed group/organization/institution.

You believe that there is some group out there that gets to "identify" which theories are best as opposed to the inherent falsifiability of the model saying whether it is correct or incorrect.

Your view is ENTIRELY personality based, like any religion, having some higher governing body that determines what dogma is officially sanctioned.

Ditch the "peer review" requirement. Ditch the personality-based focus. Concentrate on the models and the falsifiability. No people. No organizations. No one's view matters. Just concentrate on the science and the falsifiable ideas.

The data required to support the administration's official position.

...and sometimes we're mistaken and we lose the bet. It's not science. It's an assumption. It's just a guess.

You don't understand falsifiability.

Let's look at this more closely. First, please state for me the theory of Evolution.

Next, show me how I can derive the conclusion "ring species existed" from the theory you just expressed.

You have just shifted away from Evolution to biology and genetics. (Are you going to try to imply that they are one in the same?)

Would you consider/accept existing science?

So mathematics is more than just conceptual? Are you saying I can go down to the mathematics warehouse and get some mathematics on my hands?

...or can you only provide me a physical object that conceptually we perceive in terms of a "right triangle"?

You're fine with this. It's the denial of true concepts, like mathematics, as being facts that generates the problems.

Mathematics is a real object???

Hank wrote:
I'm new here but saw where someone asked about the rate of temperature increase from 1998. From the NASA data file the 2015 global temperature was 0.855 C above the base period. The 1998 anomaly was 0.63 C above the base period. That difference was 0.225 C over an 17 year period which calculates to 0.013 C per year. At that rate by 2100 the temperature would be an additional 1.125 C above the 2015 value.