Remember me
▼ Content

A Slap in the Face for Climate Change


A Slap in the Face for Climate Change03-01-2018 21:37
Wake
★★★★★
(3396)
The very first thing that science must have to be real science is reproducibility.

"an unidentified NIH official 'reckons, despairingly, that researchers would find it hard to reproduce at least three quarters' of published medical findings."

This means that this isn't science at all. We should also note that this means that many drugs developed over the last several decades are worthless.

"By calling attention to the news story without disputing the above statistic, Francis Collins, the director of the NIH, all but shouted from the rooftops that 75% of medical research is unreliable – a shocking state of affairs. In his words: 'the checks and balances that once ensured scientific fidelity' have collapsed."

In Climate Research virtually the entire stick-man of Global Warming stands not upon scientific fact but upon computer modeling. In the "short" term these models have proven to be totally inaccurate. So inaccurate that if you use them backwards instead of forwards they cannot even "predict" what HAS happened already.

Instead of trying again and again to arrive at accurate modeling what NASA has done is to CHANGE THE TEMPERATURE DATA TO MATCH THE MODELS!

But the time is running out for such tricks. Dr. Roy Spenser of NASA's satellite program has already shown that the temperatures that NASA has advertised as "HOTTEST YEAR ON RECORD" is no such thing. That on the average over the last 39 years when these satellites have been in place, the average change in temperature is zero.

"The editor-in-chief of the equally prestigious Lancet declares that 'science has taken a turn toward darkness' and that 'much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue'"

What with the latest well respected studies that shows that the IPCC is nothing more than a Frat House describing themselves as the smartest scientists on the planet the Dark Lord of Global Warming is about to meet the last Jedi.
03-01-2018 23:12
L8112
★☆☆☆☆
(76)
C is no such thing that shouted from these models have been in place, the temperature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue'"

What without disputing them backwards instead of forwards the above state of affairs. In the entire stick-man of Global Warming state of affairs. In these modeling. In the average change in temperature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue'"

What with the time is to CHANGE THE TEMPERATURE DATA TO MATCH THE TEMPERATURE DATA TO MATCH THE MODELS!

But the director of trying again
04-01-2018 02:01
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5558)
Wake wrote:
The very first thing that science must have to be real science is reproducibility.

Nope. Reproducibility is NOT a requirement of science. You are discussing observation and data, not science. Science is a set of falsifiable theories that describe nature, not a set of reproducible data. Reproducible data isn't even a reason to validate data. Any twit computer program can easily produce reproducible columns of numbers that don't mean anything.
Wake wrote:
"an unidentified NIH official 'reckons, despairingly, that researchers would find it hard to reproduce at least three quarters' of published medical findings."

This means that this isn't science at all.

That's right. You are talking about data, not science.
Wake wrote:
We should also note that this means that many drugs developed over the last several decades are worthless.

No, it doesn't. They were developed using theories of science that have not yet been falsified.
Wake wrote:
"By calling attention to the news story without disputing the above statistic, Francis Collins, the director of the NIH, all but shouted from the rooftops that 75% of medical research is unreliable – a shocking state of affairs. In his words: 'the checks and balances that once ensured scientific fidelity' have collapsed."

There is only one 'check and balance'. The requirement for any theory of science to be falsifiable.
Wake wrote:
In Climate Research virtually the entire stick-man of Global Warming stands not upon scientific fact but upon computer modeling.

More or less true. The remainder depends on arguments from randU, or in other words, completely fabricated numbers.
Wake wrote:
In the "short" term these models have proven to be totally inaccurate.

An understatement to say the least.
Wake wrote:
So inaccurate that if you use them backwards instead of forwards they cannot even "predict" what HAS happened already.

No theory of science has the power of prediction without formalizing a theory into a closed system such as mathematics. The equations you refer to have no theory behind them.
Wake wrote:
Instead of trying again and again to arrive at accurate modeling what NASA has done is to CHANGE THE TEMPERATURE DATA TO MATCH THE MODELS!

Change it from what? It's not possible to determine the temperature of the Earth. No, NASA has simply published random numbers from computers and elsewhere as 'fact'.
Wake wrote:
But the time is running out for such tricks. Dr. Roy Spenser of NASA's satellite program has already shown that the temperatures that NASA has advertised as "HOTTEST YEAR ON RECORD" is no such thing.

There IS such a thing, but it's not possible to determine which year that was.
Wake wrote:
That on the average over the last 39 years when these satellites have been in place, the average change in temperature is zero.

Satellites are incapable of measuring temperature. They can only measure light. You don't know the Earth's emissivity.
Wake wrote:
"The editor-in-chief of the equally prestigious Lancet declares that 'science has taken a turn toward darkness' and that 'much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue'"

As evidenced by the kind of 'science' you are quoting, which isn't science at all. Apparently the editor of Lancet and I feel the same way...hence the name of myu moniker.
Wake wrote:
What with the latest well respected studies that shows that the IPCC is nothing more than a Frat House describing themselves as the smartest scientists on the planet the Dark Lord of Global Warming is about to meet the last Jedi.

Didn't I say it comes from the force?


The Parrot Killer
08-01-2018 18:07
Wake
★★★★★
(3396)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
The very first thing that science must have to be real science is reproducibility.

Nope. Reproducibility is NOT a requirement of science.


hollowman strikes again. "Falsified" means to prove wrong and the inability to reproduce the results of an experiment means it was wrong. The parrot continues to squawk the only lines it knows.

It also thinks that you reproduce an experiment by doing the same experiment again. Never having worked in science it is reduced to repeating platitudes which are wrong.
08-01-2018 19:42
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5558)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
The very first thing that science must have to be real science is reproducibility.

Nope. Reproducibility is NOT a requirement of science.


hollowman strikes again. "Falsified" means to prove wrong and the inability to reproduce the results of an experiment means it was wrong. The parrot continues to squawk the only lines it knows.

You do not use experiments as supporting evidence in science. Science doesn't use supporting evidence at all. Religions happen to though. The purpose of any experiment in science is to try to break the theory, not to support it.

Wake wrote:
It also thinks that you reproduce an experiment by doing the same experiment again.

People do exactly that. Otherwise you are not reproducing the experiment, are you?
Wake wrote:
Never having worked in science it is reduced to repeating platitudes which are wrong.

Science isn't a job title. Science is a set of falsifiable theories that describe nature.


The Parrot Killer
08-01-2018 20:24
Wake
★★★★★
(3396)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
The very first thing that science must have to be real science is reproducibility.

Nope. Reproducibility is NOT a requirement of science.


hollowman strikes again. "Falsified" means to prove wrong and the inability to reproduce the results of an experiment means it was wrong. The parrot continues to squawk the only lines it knows.

You do not use experiments as supporting evidence in science. Science doesn't use supporting evidence at all. Religions happen to though. The purpose of any experiment in science is to try to break the theory, not to support it.

Wake wrote:
It also thinks that you reproduce an experiment by doing the same experiment again.

People do exactly that. Otherwise you are not reproducing the experiment, are you?
Wake wrote:
Never having worked in science it is reduced to repeating platitudes which are wrong.

Science isn't a job title. Science is a set of falsifiable theories that describe nature.


hollowman - you aren't going to get anywhere when you haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about.
08-01-2018 20:49
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5558)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
The very first thing that science must have to be real science is reproducibility.

Nope. Reproducibility is NOT a requirement of science.


hollowman strikes again. "Falsified" means to prove wrong and the inability to reproduce the results of an experiment means it was wrong. The parrot continues to squawk the only lines it knows.

You do not use experiments as supporting evidence in science. Science doesn't use supporting evidence at all. Religions happen to though. The purpose of any experiment in science is to try to break the theory, not to support it.

Wake wrote:
It also thinks that you reproduce an experiment by doing the same experiment again.

People do exactly that. Otherwise you are not reproducing the experiment, are you?
Wake wrote:
Never having worked in science it is reduced to repeating platitudes which are wrong.

Science isn't a job title. Science is a set of falsifiable theories that describe nature.


hollowman - you aren't going to get anywhere when you haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about.

And again, the usual mantra 2...1...


The Parrot Killer
08-01-2018 22:11
Wake
★★★★★
(3396)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
The very first thing that science must have to be real science is reproducibility.

Nope. Reproducibility is NOT a requirement of science.


hollowman strikes again. "Falsified" means to prove wrong and the inability to reproduce the results of an experiment means it was wrong. The parrot continues to squawk the only lines it knows.

You do not use experiments as supporting evidence in science. Science doesn't use supporting evidence at all. Religions happen to though. The purpose of any experiment in science is to try to break the theory, not to support it.

Wake wrote:
It also thinks that you reproduce an experiment by doing the same experiment again.

People do exactly that. Otherwise you are not reproducing the experiment, are you?
Wake wrote:
Never having worked in science it is reduced to repeating platitudes which are wrong.

Science isn't a job title. Science is a set of falsifiable theories that describe nature.


hollowman - you aren't going to get anywhere when you haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about.

And again, the usual mantra 2...1...


What did you say the rainfall was in the central valley again? "Ahhhkkk, falsifiable falsifiable. Ahhhkkk, Stefan-Boltzmann, Stefan-Boltzmann". Didn't we just go through this? Falsifiable means proving untrue? Why do you want to use words from your "Big Book of Words to Make You Sound Smart" all of the time. You don't think that one person here thinks you're smart enough to use English when you can't do anything else but parrot everything?
08-01-2018 23:17
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5558)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
The very first thing that science must have to be real science is reproducibility.

Nope. Reproducibility is NOT a requirement of science.


hollowman strikes again. "Falsified" means to prove wrong and the inability to reproduce the results of an experiment means it was wrong. The parrot continues to squawk the only lines it knows.

You do not use experiments as supporting evidence in science. Science doesn't use supporting evidence at all. Religions happen to though. The purpose of any experiment in science is to try to break the theory, not to support it.

Wake wrote:
It also thinks that you reproduce an experiment by doing the same experiment again.

People do exactly that. Otherwise you are not reproducing the experiment, are you?
Wake wrote:
Never having worked in science it is reduced to repeating platitudes which are wrong.

Science isn't a job title. Science is a set of falsifiable theories that describe nature.


hollowman - you aren't going to get anywhere when you haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about.

And again, the usual mantra 2...1...


What did you say the rainfall was in the central valley again?

Maybe you should go read the post again. Seems you have a short memory.
Wake wrote:
"Ahhhkkk, falsifiable falsifiable. Ahhhkkk, Stefan-Boltzmann, Stefan-Boltzmann". Didn't we just go through this?

It is YOU that keeps trying to deny this law. This is YOUR problem. Inversion fallacy.
Wake wrote:
Falsifiable means proving untrue?

Nope. I've already explained this concept to you multiple times also. Argument of the Stone.
Wake wrote:
Why do you want to use words from your "Big Book of Words to Make You Sound Smart" all of the time.
...deleted argument of ignorance...Mantra 2...10...(attempted definition of 'English' to void)...1...

Fallacy fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
09-01-2018 00:22
Wake
★★★★★
(3396)
I don't even have to say anything. I let your postings do all the work for me.
09-01-2018 02:25
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5558)
Wake wrote:
I don't even have to say anything. I let your postings do all the work for me.


Grasping at straws now?


The Parrot Killer
09-01-2018 04:31
Wake
★★★★★
(3396)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
I don't even have to say anything. I let your postings do all the work for me.


Grasping at straws now?


If you talking about the hay you have for brains - no. Your postings speak for themselves.




Join the debate A Slap in the Face for Climate Change:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Want to get punched in the face?708-05-2018 16:03
In Your Face - the IPCC and Fraud904-01-2018 00:14
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2017 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact