Mr. Wake

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Mr. Wake

Page 1 of 2

Mr. Wake02-02-2017 05:42
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2932)	Where did you come from?! You hit harder than a 408 PPM driven hurricane! Never been real good at expressing my feelings..........I love you man! Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan
02-02-2017 09:16
spot ★★★★☆ (1323)	Putin bot probably
02-02-2017 10:42
Surface Detail ★★★★☆ (1673)	spot wrote: Putin bot probably Almost certainly a paid troll. He/she writes clearly and grammatically, but the content is almost entirely fictitious. Solar panels require 3 times more energy to make than they produce? It's colder now than in the last million years? Complete nonsense. GasGuzzler would do well to ask for some sort of evidence before believing what random people write on the internet, no matter how much he longs to believe it.
02-02-2017 19:44
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	Surface Detail wrote: spot wrote: Putin bot probably Almost certainly a paid troll. He/she writes clearly and grammatically, but the content is almost entirely fictitious. Solar panels require 3 times more energy to make than they produce? It's colder now than in the last million years? Complete nonsense. GasGuzzler would do well to ask for some sort of evidence before believing what random people write on the internet, no matter how much he longs to believe it. It is noted that when you don't have any scientific evidence on your side you simply lie. I said that solar cells require more energy than they produce in their usable lifetime and not three times. So splatter your thoughts all over this group instead of flushing them. With all mouth and no brains you are totally unaware that we are presently in and interglacial period of an ice age. https://tinyurl.com/zymxtwh But that's probably a too complex chart to show you anything. And it wouldn't matter if it did because idiots only want to argue for political reasons and not for scientifically sound reasons.
02-02-2017 19:57
Surface Detail ★★★★☆ (1673)	Wake wrote: It is noted that when you don't have any scientific evidence on your side you simply lie. I said that solar cells require more energy than they produce in their usable lifetime and not three times. So splatter your thoughts all over this group instead of flushing them. My apologies. So you did. You're a little less wrong than I thought. Still wrong though. With all mouth and no brains you are totally unaware that we are presently in and interglacial period of an ice age. https://tinyurl.com/zymxtwh I'm fully aware that we are in an interglacial period. This doesn't make your claim that it is colder now than any time in the last million years any less wrong. But that's probably a too complex chart to show you anything. And it wouldn't matter if it did because idiots only want to argue for political reasons and not for scientifically sound reasons. I'm calling you out simply because you're lying. It was a lot colder 20,000 years ago than it is now. That is a simple fact. Nothing political about it at all.

02-02-2017 21:28
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	Surface Detail wrote: Wake wrote: It is noted that when you don't have any scientific evidence on your side you simply lie. I said that solar cells require more energy than they produce in their usable lifetime and not three times. So splatter your thoughts all over this group instead of flushing them. My apologies. So you did. You're a little less wrong than I thought. Still wrong though. With all mouth and no brains you are totally unaware that we are presently in and interglacial period of an ice age. https://tinyurl.com/zymxtwh I'm fully aware that we are in an interglacial period. This doesn't make your claim that it is colder now than any time in the last million years any less wrong. But that's probably a too complex chart to show you anything. And it wouldn't matter if it did because idiots only want to argue for political reasons and not for scientifically sound reasons. I'm calling you out simply because you're lying. It was a lot colder 20,000 years ago than it is now. That is a simple fact. Nothing political about it at all. By ALL means demonstrate that you know anything about solar power. I have gone TO the companies themselves and talked to their engineers. What exactly have you done? Why do you suppose almost ALL of the solar power companies are now bankrupt? A child could have looked up the geologic temperature record and you cannot. Fascinating. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/media/File:65_Myr_Climate_Change.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/media/File hanerozoic_Climate_Change.png When your science is nothing more than a political agenda you find yourself up a creek without a paddle.
02-02-2017 21:44
Surface Detail ★★★★☆ (1673)	Wake wrote: Surface Detail wrote: Wake wrote: It is noted that when you don't have any scientific evidence on your side you simply lie. I said that solar cells require more energy than they produce in their usable lifetime and not three times. So splatter your thoughts all over this group instead of flushing them. My apologies. So you did. You're a little less wrong than I thought. Still wrong though. With all mouth and no brains you are totally unaware that we are presently in and interglacial period of an ice age. https://tinyurl.com/zymxtwh I'm fully aware that we are in an interglacial period. This doesn't make your claim that it is colder now than any time in the last million years any less wrong. But that's probably a too complex chart to show you anything. And it wouldn't matter if it did because idiots only want to argue for political reasons and not for scientifically sound reasons. I'm calling you out simply because you're lying. It was a lot colder 20,000 years ago than it is now. That is a simple fact. Nothing political about it at all. By ALL means demonstrate that you know anything about solar power. I have gone TO the companies themselves and talked to their engineers. What exactly have you done? Why do you suppose almost ALL of the solar power companies are now bankrupt? A child could have looked up the geologic temperature record and you cannot. Fascinating. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/media/File:65_Myr_Climate_Change.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/media/File hanerozoic_Climate_Change.png When your science is nothing more than a political agenda you find yourself up a creek without a paddle. Simple question. Was it colder 20,000 years ago than it is today? Yes or no.
03-02-2017 22:47
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	Surface Detail wrote: Wake wrote: Surface Detail wrote: Wake wrote: It is noted that when you don't have any scientific evidence on your side you simply lie. I said that solar cells require more energy than they produce in their usable lifetime and not three times. So splatter your thoughts all over this group instead of flushing them. My apologies. So you did. You're a little less wrong than I thought. Still wrong though. With all mouth and no brains you are totally unaware that we are presently in and interglacial period of an ice age. https://tinyurl.com/zymxtwh I'm fully aware that we are in an interglacial period. This doesn't make your claim that it is colder now than any time in the last million years any less wrong. But that's probably a too complex chart to show you anything. And it wouldn't matter if it did because idiots only want to argue for political reasons and not for scientifically sound reasons. I'm calling you out simply because you're lying. It was a lot colder 20,000 years ago than it is now. That is a simple fact. Nothing political about it at all. By ALL means demonstrate that you know anything about solar power. I have gone TO the companies themselves and talked to their engineers. What exactly have you done? Why do you suppose almost ALL of the solar power companies are now bankrupt? A child could have looked up the geologic temperature record and you cannot. Fascinating. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/media/File:65_Myr_Climate_Change.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/media/File hanerozoic_Climate_Change.png When your science is nothing more than a political agenda you find yourself up a creek without a paddle. Simple question. Was it colder 20,000 years ago than it is today? Yes or no. OK, let me see if I can explain your fools paradise to you. The PRESENT ice age started 2.6 million years ago. It has been bouncing between glacial and interglacial periods since then. But according to you a slightly warmer time in an ice age doesn't count as being PART of that ice age. Well, I'll give you this - when you want to be stupid there's no stopping you.
03-02-2017 22:55
Surface Detail ★★★★☆ (1673)	Wake wrote: Surface Detail wrote: Wake wrote: Surface Detail wrote: Wake wrote: It is noted that when you don't have any scientific evidence on your side you simply lie. I said that solar cells require more energy than they produce in their usable lifetime and not three times. So splatter your thoughts all over this group instead of flushing them. My apologies. So you did. You're a little less wrong than I thought. Still wrong though. With all mouth and no brains you are totally unaware that we are presently in and interglacial period of an ice age. https://tinyurl.com/zymxtwh I'm fully aware that we are in an interglacial period. This doesn't make your claim that it is colder now than any time in the last million years any less wrong. But that's probably a too complex chart to show you anything. And it wouldn't matter if it did because idiots only want to argue for political reasons and not for scientifically sound reasons. I'm calling you out simply because you're lying. It was a lot colder 20,000 years ago than it is now. That is a simple fact. Nothing political about it at all. By ALL means demonstrate that you know anything about solar power. I have gone TO the companies themselves and talked to their engineers. What exactly have you done? Why do you suppose almost ALL of the solar power companies are now bankrupt? A child could have looked up the geologic temperature record and you cannot. Fascinating. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/media/File:65_Myr_Climate_Change.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/media/File hanerozoic_Climate_Change.png When your science is nothing more than a political agenda you find yourself up a creek without a paddle. Simple question. Was it colder 20,000 years ago than it is today? Yes or no. OK, let me see if I can explain your fools paradise to you. The PRESENT ice age started 2.6 million years ago. It has been bouncing between glacial and interglacial periods since then. But according to you a slightly warmer time in an ice age doesn't count as being PART of that ice age. Well, I'll give you this - when you want to be stupid there's no stopping you. I'm fully aware that we are in an interglacial period within an ice age. I don't dispute that at all. But it remains a simple fact that the current temperature is not colder than it has been throughout the last million years. In fact, most of the last million years has been substantially colder than today. If it were not for human influences, we'd expect the current interglacial period to end within the next few thousand years and for the planet to cool back down to deep ice age conditions as CO2 is drawn from the atmosphere. This won't happen now, due to our intervention. Instead, the global temperature will continue to rise.
04-02-2017 00:36
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	[b]Surface Detail wrote: I'm fully aware that we are in an interglacial period within an ice age. I don't dispute that at all. But it remains a simple fact that the current temperature is not colder than it has been throughout the last million years. In fact, most of the last million years has been substantially colder than today. If it were not for human influences, we'd expect the current interglacial period to end within the next few thousand years and for the planet to cool back down to deep ice age conditions as CO2 is drawn from the atmosphere. This won't happen now, due to our intervention. Instead, the global temperature will continue to rise. So despite this CO2 business only being a hypothesis from Dr. Michael Mann back in 1998 and there never being one single shred of evidence of the slightest truth you still believe this huh? You believe that the Earth's present warm period that started in the beginning of the industrial era was natural but that CO2 despite tests that even a standup comedian can prove false is going to prevent the natural cooling cycle from occurring. Then it shouldn't be difficult for you to find ONE PAPER that shows HOW CO2 can retain heat more than the O2 it replaces.
04-02-2017 11:19
Surface Detail ★★★★☆ (1673)	Wake wrote: [b]Surface Detail wrote: I'm fully aware that we are in an interglacial period within an ice age. I don't dispute that at all. But it remains a simple fact that the current temperature is not colder than it has been throughout the last million years. In fact, most of the last million years has been substantially colder than today. If it were not for human influences, we'd expect the current interglacial period to end within the next few thousand years and for the planet to cool back down to deep ice age conditions as CO2 is drawn from the atmosphere. This won't happen now, due to our intervention. Instead, the global temperature will continue to rise. So despite this CO2 business only being a hypothesis from Dr. Michael Mann back in 1998 and there never being one single shred of evidence of the slightest truth you still believe this huh? You believe that the Earth's present warm period that started in the beginning of the industrial era was natural but that CO2 despite tests that even a standup comedian can prove false is going to prevent the natural cooling cycle from occurring. Then it shouldn't be difficult for you to find ONE PAPER that shows HOW CO2 can retain heat more than the O2 it replaces. You really are completely clueless about this, aren't you? This page on the American Institute of Physics website briefly summarises the main developments in climate science: Global Warming Timeline The hypothesis that human emissions of CO2 could affect the global climate was first proposed by Arrhenius in 1896. He was building on the work of Tyndall, who discovered as long ago as 1859 that some gases (such as CO2) block IR radiation while others (such as oxygen) don't. Later work, especially by Plass in the 1950s, confirmed and refined Arrhenius's initial hypothesis. Here is Tyndall's original paper: Note on the Transmission of Radiant Heat through Gaseous Bodies
05-02-2017 00:53
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	Surface Detail - did you not even read your own references? "Meteorology is a branch of physics," a weather expert remarked in 1939, "and physics makes use of two powerful tools: experiment and mathematics. The first of these tools is denied to the meteorologist and the second does not prove of much use to him in climatological problems." So many interrelated factors affected climate, he explained, that you couldn't write it all down mathematically without making so many simplifying assumptions that the result would never match reality. It wasn't even possible to calculate from first principles the average temperature of a place, let alone how the temperature might change in future years. And "without numerical values our deductions are only opinions." There is STILL no experimental developments and likewise ALL of the calculations have been balanced on a house of cards. Individual components of the arguments FOR global warming have ALL be successfully shown to be faulty. The present warm period is shown to be part of the Milankovitch Cycles. TODAY man's supposed addition of CO2 to the atmosphere is only 0.12% of ALL greenhouse gases. If that's what you want to call an atmosphere that holds in heat. But why isn't Mar's showing more heat than it would otherwise normally hold with an atmosphere composed almost entirely of CO2? And tell me - why are you arguing this in the first place? Do you intend to not heat your home in the winter? Or are you saying that only others should? Are you intending to go to work via walking or mass transit and not drive your own car? Or are you telling us that only someone else should stop driving? Over half of ALL the energy consumed is for heating, air conditioning and lights. Are YOU planning on doing without lights at night? Or are you assuming that you can do as you like while others are forced to live in the dark? This entire subject is being argued by the most complete hypocrites I've ever seen. NONE of you are going to not use commercial airlines which account for 40% of the CO2 generation of transportation. You intend to take vacations as lavishly as possible. So do tell me what your purpose is in arguing the subject.
05-02-2017 01:14
Surface Detail ★★★★☆ (1673)	Wake wrote: Surface Detail - did you not even read your own references? "Meteorology is a branch of physics," a weather expert remarked in 1939, "and physics makes use of two powerful tools: experiment and mathematics. The first of these tools is denied to the meteorologist and the second does not prove of much use to him in climatological problems." So many interrelated factors affected climate, he explained, that you couldn't write it all down mathematically without making so many simplifying assumptions that the result would never match reality. It wasn't even possible to calculate from first principles the average temperature of a place, let alone how the temperature might change in future years. And "without numerical values our deductions are only opinions." So you didn't get past the first paragraph then? If you'd read further, you'd have seen how computer data analysis and modelling has made it possible to perform calculations that meteorologists could only dream of in 1939.
06-02-2017 20:24
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	[b]Surface Detail wrote: So you didn't get past the first paragraph then? If you'd read further, you'd have seen how computer data analysis and modelling has made it possible to perform calculations that meteorologists could only dream of in 1939. You seem to think that modeling means accurate prediction. None of the modelling of the temperature curves predicted by the global warming crowd have EVER met nor even gotten close to expectations. Despite Snopes claim that the team of Dr. Michael Mann were not counterfeiting the data to fit the predictions. Snopes tells us that the emails that showed this were counterfeit themselves. I suppose that this was why Dr. Mann threw all of them under the bus to save his own job.
06-02-2017 20:50
spot ★★★★☆ (1323)	I know who Mann is in relation to this, he lead a team that did a proxy temperature reconstruction. other people have also worked on this. Who the hell are Snopes and why should I care. Is Snopes a science journal. and Emails are science now?

06-02-2017 23:33
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	spot wrote: I know who Mann is in relation to this, he lead a team that did a proxy temperature reconstruction. other people have also worked on this. Who the hell are Snopes and why should I care. Is Snopes a science journal. and Emails are science now? Snopes is a group funded by George Soros that provides political excuses for the Global Warmies and the liberals in general. They are your best friend since you can reference them for the science you have never shown any qualifications to emit from your nether regions.
07-02-2017 10:50
spot ★★★★☆ (1323)	So it's not a primary source like a textbook, we are disscussing secondary school science here.
08-02-2017 22:35
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	spot wrote: So it's not a primary source like a textbook, we are disscussing secondary school science here. I have spent the last 40 years in Research and Development in science and medicine. And the previous 10 years on the fringes of it. Tell me what qualifications you have? Oh, that's right - you don't have any qualifications next to your loud mouth.
08-02-2017 22:39
Surface Detail ★★★★☆ (1673)	Wake wrote: spot wrote: So it's not a primary source like a textbook, we are disscussing secondary school science here. I have spent the last 40 years in Research and Development in science and medicine. And the previous 10 years on the fringes of it. Tell me what qualifications you have? Oh, that's right - you don't have any qualifications next to your loud mouth. But you're incapable of even the simplest arithmetic. Presumably you were sweeping the lab floors.
09-02-2017 02:38
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	Surface Detail wrote: Wake wrote: spot wrote: So it's not a primary source like a textbook, we are disscussing secondary school science here. I have spent the last 40 years in Research and Development in science and medicine. And the previous 10 years on the fringes of it. Tell me what qualifications you have? Oh, that's right - you don't have any qualifications next to your loud mouth. But you're incapable of even the simplest arithmetic. Presumably you were sweeping the lab floors. This from the guy that doesn't understand the random number argument (randU fallacy). This from the guy that thinks you can print random numbers from a computer printout in nice neat columns and they can be considered data. This from the guy that doesn't understand random number generation, probability mathematics, or statistics mathematics. You are the last one to challenge ANYONE on qualifications. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
09-02-2017 02:39
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	Wake wrote: spot wrote: So it's not a primary source like a textbook, we are disscussing secondary school science here. I have spent the last 40 years in Research and Development in science and medicine. And the previous 10 years on the fringes of it. Tell me what qualifications you have? Oh, that's right - you don't have any qualifications next to your loud mouth. You will find that any claim of qualifications on any of these forums doesn't mean much. You are making your arguments against entrenched religious types from the Church of Global Warming. I myself have spent much of my career in developing instrumentation for everything from wastewater treatment to space shuttles and satellites. That is also ignored by the religious nuts here. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 09-02-2017 02:41
09-02-2017 09:17
spot ★★★★☆ (1323)	My qualications aren't great but my arguments aren't reliant on my qualifications but I can imbed a link. And This isn't the first time you have made a big deal out of yours. If what you say has any truth then you have gotten to the stage In life where dementia is known to set in.
09-02-2017 23:17
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	spot wrote: My qualications aren't great but my arguments aren't reliant on my qualifications but I can imbed a link. And This isn't the first time you have made a big deal out of yours. If what you say has any truth then you have gotten to the stage In life where dementia is known to set in. The only links you embed are when you are using someone elses argument as your own. It's when you don't want to think for yourself. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
11-02-2017 00:45
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	Into the Night wrote: Wake wrote: spot wrote: So it's not a primary source like a textbook, we are disscussing secondary school science here. I have spent the last 40 years in Research and Development in science and medicine. And the previous 10 years on the fringes of it. Tell me what qualifications you have? Oh, that's right - you don't have any qualifications next to your loud mouth. You will find that any claim of qualifications on any of these forums doesn't mean much. You are making your arguments against entrenched religious types from the Church of Global Warming. I myself have spent much of my career in developing instrumentation for everything from wastewater treatment to space shuttles and satellites. That is also ignored by the religious nuts here. Well, for good reason - since they have no capacity to think problems through they have struck a political answer to everything. That forces the unknowing to cherry pick their answers from those who self proclaim themselves as "climate scientists". These are those who obtain their research grants by cherry picking data that satisfies a political trend and not a scientific fact. Since 2008 it has gotten progressively worse every single day. When the only way they can achieve 97% agreement is by disqualifying 96% of the actual poll on the grounds that "they aren't climate specialists" that should have been the stench smelled around the world. But what happened? Now they are saying that the heads of most of the world's scientific organizations believe this sort of thing. And then you read the quote from the chairman of the IPCC, "This is not about climate change - the is about redistribution of the world's resources". So who owns the oil wells? The people who spent millions searching, drilling 100 wells to get one producing well in Montana, or the Slum Dog Millionaire in India?
11-02-2017 01:21
Surface Detail ★★★★☆ (1673)	Wake wrote: When the only way they can achieve 97% agreement is by disqualifying 96% of the actual poll on the grounds that "they aren't climate specialists" that should have been the stench smelled around the world. But what happened? This is complete nonsense. The 97% consensus figure isn't based on a poll. It is based on a systematic survey of scientific papers relating to climate change: Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.
11-02-2017 02:09
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	Surface Detail wrote: Wake wrote: When the only way they can achieve 97% agreement is by disqualifying 96% of the actual poll on the grounds that "they aren't climate specialists" that should have been the stench smelled around the world. But what happened? This is complete nonsense. The 97% consensus figure isn't based on a poll. It is based on a systematic survey of scientific papers relating to climate change: Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. Again without a clue you carry on: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/pdf In short - from 12,000 papers only 32.6% agreed with it. The Global Warming Petition Project has had some 32,000 scientists sign it rejecting OUTRIGHT the idea of man-made global warming. Among the foremost are Dr. Edward Teller Dr. Fred Seitz wrote: "Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful." http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/pdf states blankly that the IPCC papers on their AGW were NOT corrected to the findings of the peer review process. We are again back the the 10^10th. When you stick your head where the sun doesn't shine you can't see any light.
11-02-2017 02:36
Surface Detail ★★★★☆ (1673)	Wake wrote: Surface Detail wrote: Wake wrote: When the only way they can achieve 97% agreement is by disqualifying 96% of the actual poll on the grounds that "they aren't climate specialists" that should have been the stench smelled around the world. But what happened? This is complete nonsense. The 97% consensus figure isn't based on a poll. It is based on a systematic survey of scientific papers relating to climate change: Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. Again without a clue you carry on: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/pdf In short - from 12,000 papers only 32.6% agreed with it. And 66.4% of the papers expressed no opinion on AGW, which means they aren't relevant to the survey. They can't be taken as evidence either way; that's why they are discounted. Good grief, this is really basic stuff. Obviously statistical analysis is another area that is outside your area of expertise.
11-02-2017 03:17
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	Surface Detail wrote: Wake wrote: Surface Detail wrote: Wake wrote: When the only way they can achieve 97% agreement is by disqualifying 96% of the actual poll on the grounds that "they aren't climate specialists" that should have been the stench smelled around the world. But what happened? This is complete nonsense. The 97% consensus figure isn't based on a poll. It is based on a systematic survey of scientific papers relating to climate change: Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. Again without a clue you carry on: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/pdf In short - from 12,000 papers only 32.6% agreed with it. And 66.4% of the papers expressed no opinion on AGW, which means they aren't relevant to the survey. They can't be taken as evidence either way; that's why they are discounted. Good grief, this is really basic stuff. Obviously statistical analysis is another area that is outside your area of expertise. This isn't even statistics. It is random numbers. There is no raw data for the population, the selection process is not visible so it can't be verified that it conforms to the demands of statistical math, and the summary average is quoted like it was some Holy Universal Truth. I have considerably more demands of numbers presented to me than most people do. I want to see the raw data. I want to see how that data was collected, by whom, and for what purpose. I want to see the selection process used so that I can confirm for myself whether it conforms to a randN independent of the data itself (the requirements of any selection used in statistics). Then I will point out to you that consensus is not part of science and never has been. Science is just a set of falsifiable theories. No supporting evidence is used in science. Only falsifying evidence. No peer group, scientific political organization, lists of scientists organized by what is supposedly in their research papers, magazine, university, government agency, or any other kind of group has voting power over a theory. No one 'owns' science. Consensus does not bless, sanctify, or otherwise legitimize a theory. If a theory can pass the test of at least the null hypothesis, it IS a scientific theory automatically and becomes part of the body of science. Global Warming is not a scientific theory. It is not falsifiable, since we cannot measure or calculate anything like a global temperature to any useful degree of accuracy. Statistical math describes why. We do not have sufficient instrumentation for it. Greenhouse Effect is not a scientific theory either. It is not externally consistent and it's falsifiability depends on the Global Warming theory. The whole argument about the so-called 97% is pointless. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
11-02-2017 16:38
Surface Detail ★★★★☆ (1673)	Into the Night wrote: Surface Detail wrote: And 66.4% of the papers expressed no opinion on AGW, which means they aren't relevant to the survey. They can't be taken as evidence either way; that's why they are discounted. Good grief, this is really basic stuff. Obviously statistical analysis is another area that is outside your area of expertise. This isn't even statistics. It is random numbers. There is no raw data for the population, the selection process is not visible so it can't be verified that it conforms to the demands of statistical math, and the summary average is quoted like it was some Holy Universal Truth. Your comment makes no sense whatsoever. The raw data is simply the abstracts of papers that refer to AGW, as stated in the methodology description. What population are you talking about? Are you sure you're commenting on the right thread?
11-02-2017 22:27
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	Surface Detail wrote: Into the Night wrote: Surface Detail wrote: And 66.4% of the papers expressed no opinion on AGW, which means they aren't relevant to the survey. They can't be taken as evidence either way; that's why they are discounted. Good grief, this is really basic stuff. Obviously statistical analysis is another area that is outside your area of expertise. This isn't even statistics. It is random numbers. There is no raw data for the population, the selection process is not visible so it can't be verified that it conforms to the demands of statistical math, and the summary average is quoted like it was some Holy Universal Truth. Your comment makes no sense whatsoever. The raw data is simply the abstracts of papers that refer to AGW, as stated in the methodology description. What population are you talking about? Are you sure you're commenting on the right thread? Nope. No raw data there. You are talking about a claimed dataset. No raw data is available on this subject. This clown never provided any. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

11-02-2017 22:39
Surface Detail ★★★★☆ (1673)	Into the Night wrote: Surface Detail wrote: Into the Night wrote: Surface Detail wrote: And 66.4% of the papers expressed no opinion on AGW, which means they aren't relevant to the survey. They can't be taken as evidence either way; that's why they are discounted. Good grief, this is really basic stuff. Obviously statistical analysis is another area that is outside your area of expertise. This isn't even statistics. It is random numbers. There is no raw data for the population, the selection process is not visible so it can't be verified that it conforms to the demands of statistical math, and the summary average is quoted like it was some Holy Universal Truth. Your comment makes no sense whatsoever. The raw data is simply the abstracts of papers that refer to AGW, as stated in the methodology description. What population are you talking about? Are you sure you're commenting on the right thread? Nope. No raw data there. You are talking about a claimed dataset. No raw data is available on this subject. This clown never provided any. How can the raw data not be available? You're making no sense at all. The raw data is simply the abstracts of papers about AGW that have been published in scientific journals. It could hardly be more available!
11-02-2017 23:52
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	Surface Detail wrote: Wake wrote: In short - from 12,000 papers only 32.6% agreed with it. And 66.4% of the papers expressed no opinion on AGW, which means they aren't relevant to the survey. They can't be taken as evidence either way; that's why they are discounted. Good grief, this is really basic stuff. Obviously statistical analysis is another area that is outside your area of expertise. Do you have any knowledge of statistics? Apparently know when you are so stupid that you would say, "Those who don't agree with me don't count."
11-02-2017 23:58
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	Into the Night wrote: Surface Detail wrote: Wake wrote: Surface Detail wrote: Wake wrote: When the only way they can achieve 97% agreement is by disqualifying 96% of the actual poll on the grounds that "they aren't climate specialists" that should have been the stench smelled around the world. But what happened? This is complete nonsense. The 97% consensus figure isn't based on a poll. It is based on a systematic survey of scientific papers relating to climate change: Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. Again without a clue you carry on: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/pdf In short - from 12,000 papers only 32.6% agreed with it. And 66.4% of the papers expressed no opinion on AGW, which means they aren't relevant to the survey. They can't be taken as evidence either way; that's why they are discounted. Good grief, this is really basic stuff. Obviously statistical analysis is another area that is outside your area of expertise. This isn't even statistics. It is random numbers. There is no raw data for the population, the selection process is not visible so it can't be verified that it conforms to the demands of statistical math, and the summary average is quoted like it was some Holy Universal Truth. I have considerably more demands of numbers presented to me than most people do. I want to see the raw data. I want to see how that data was collected, by whom, and for what purpose. I want to see the selection process used so that I can confirm for myself whether it conforms to a randN independent of the data itself (the requirements of any selection used in statistics). Then I will point out to you that consensus is not part of science and never has been. Science is just a set of falsifiable theories. No supporting evidence is used in science. Only falsifying evidence. No peer group, scientific political organization, lists of scientists organized by what is supposedly in their research papers, magazine, university, government agency, or any other kind of group has voting power over a theory. No one 'owns' science. Consensus does not bless, sanctify, or otherwise legitimize a theory. If a theory can pass The whole argument about the so-called 97% is pointless. This is one of the points I have simply tried to explain only to get nothing more than blank stares from these people. They do not believe that entirety of scientists over the complete globe could believe something and ONE scientist can prove them entirely wrong. To them science is a vote with winner take all.
12-02-2017 00:02
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	[b]Surface Detail wrote: The raw data is simply the abstracts of papers about AGW that have been published in scientific journals. It could hardly be more available! I JUST showed you that that 97% of the papers agreeing with AGW were written by only 37% of climate scientists. But don't let that have the slightest effect on you because you have all these conceptual truths.
12-02-2017 00:34
Surface Detail ★★★★☆ (1673)	Wake wrote: Surface Detail wrote: Wake wrote: In short - from 12,000 papers only 32.6% agreed with it. And 66.4% of the papers expressed no opinion on AGW, which means they aren't relevant to the survey. They can't be taken as evidence either way; that's why they are discounted. Good grief, this is really basic stuff. Obviously statistical analysis is another area that is outside your area of expertise. Do you have any knowledge of statistics? Apparently know when you are so stupid that you would say, "Those who don't agree with me don't count." I didn't say that. Please learn to read. I said that those papers that don't express an opinion either way don't count for this purpose.
12-02-2017 00:38
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	Surface Detail wrote: Wake wrote: Do you have any knowledge of statistics? Apparently know when you are so stupid that you would say, "Those who don't agree with me don't count." I didn't say that. Please learn to read. I said that those papers that don't express an opinion either way don't count for this purpose. Does it for even ONE second dawn on you that no opinion due to a lack of data IS an opinion? That the VAST majority of scientists say that there isn't enough data to be able to express an opinion and so there isn't enough for the psychos EITHER?
12-02-2017 00:39
Surface Detail ★★★★☆ (1673)	Wake wrote: [b]Surface Detail wrote: The raw data is simply the abstracts of papers about AGW that have been published in scientific journals. It could hardly be more available! I JUST showed you that that 97% of the papers agreeing with AGW were written by only 37% of climate scientists. No you didn't. You showed nothing of the kind.
12-02-2017 00:50
Surface Detail ★★★★☆ (1673)	Wake wrote: Surface Detail wrote: Wake wrote: Do you have any knowledge of statistics? Apparently know when you are so stupid that you would say, "Those who don't agree with me don't count." I didn't say that. Please learn to read. I said that those papers that don't express an opinion either way don't count for this purpose. That the VAST majority of scientists say that there isn't enough data to be able to express an opinion? But they don't. That's not what the survey says. Most of the abstracts of papers concerned with climate change simply don't explicitly state the reality or otherwise of AGW. It's taken as a given. In just the same way, I doubt that most of the abstracts of papers concerned with, say, geology, explicitly state that the Earth is spheroidal. You wouldn't take this to mean that most geologists believe that there is not enough data to express an opinion on whether the Earth is flat or not! Edited on 12-02-2017 00:54
12-02-2017 19:26
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	Surface Detail wrote: Wake wrote: Surface Detail wrote: Wake wrote: Do you have any knowledge of statistics? Apparently know when you are so stupid that you would say, "Those who don't agree with me don't count." I didn't say that. Please learn to read. I said that those papers that don't express an opinion either way don't count for this purpose. That the VAST majority of scientists say that there isn't enough data to be able to express an opinion? But they don't. That's not what the survey says. Most of the abstracts of papers concerned with climate change simply don't explicitly state the reality or otherwise of AGW. It's taken as a given. In just the same way, I doubt that most of the abstracts of papers concerned with, say, geology, explicitly state that the Earth is spheroidal. You wouldn't take this to mean that most geologists believe that there is not enough data to express an opinion on whether the Earth is flat or not! Leeeettt mmmeee rrrreeepppeeaaatt The 97% of the papers that claim that AGW is real were written by ONLY 37% of the SELF PROCLAIMED climate scientists. The OTHER 63% overwhelmingly said that there was insufficient data to express and opinion. And a small part of them said that the date plainly showed that there IS no AGW. THAT is an opinion whether you acknowledge it or not. TWO THIRDS of a group overrules the one third of the group as to the validity of the data. This doesn't mean that either side is wrong. It only means that you cannot strike one single position which the government has been doing for no other reason than to expand their power.
12-02-2017 20:16
Surface Detail ★★★★☆ (1673)	Wake wrote: The OTHER 63% overwhelmingly said that there was insufficient data to express and opinion. This is where you're going wrong. The 63% did not say that there was insufficient data to express an opinion; they simply didn't express an opinion. To take another example, the vast majority of papers on lunar geology do not express an opinion on whether the moon is made of green cheese or not. This is not the same as them saying that there is insufficient data to determine whether the moon is made of green cheese or not. See the difference?

Page 1 of 2

Join the debate Mr. Wake:

Threads	Replies	Last post
Have No Opinion, ITN or Wake ? It's whatever you say it is.	2	06-05-2018 03:02
For Wake	13	27-01-2018 13:41