Tipping point

Ceist wrote: I don't believe in imaginary deities, dude.

Ceist wrote: Learn some science and how to back up your claims with evidence from valid sources, dude.

IBdaMann wrote:

Ceist wrote: I don't believe in imaginary deities, dude.

You believe in a Holy Trinity: "Climate" The Father, Global Warming the Son, and the Holy Scientists, Amen.

...or don't you?

Does "climate" change in mysterious ways?

Ceist wrote: Learn some science and how to back up your claims with evidence from valid sources, dude.

I notice that cling fiercely to the standard religious position of insisting on supporting "evidence" from vetted clergy (i.e. valid sources) and don't want any of that threatening science stuff.


.

Into the Night wrote:Don't forget the Almighty Power of Google and the Links of Holy Scripture.

Surface Detail wrote:
It really does smack of desperation when the deniers are reduced to attempting to portray science and the use of evidence-based arguments as religion. What's up guys? Not managed to steal any emails to misrepresent in the run-up to this conference?

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
It really does smack of desperation when the deniers are reduced to attempting to portray science and the use of evidence-based arguments as religion. What's up guys? Not managed to steal any emails to misrepresent in the run-up to this conference?

What smacks of desperation is your need to try to discredit those who bring science to the discussion.

Why don't you review the OP of "The Top 4" thread and tell me where the science I presented is actually religion?

I notice you haven't presented a version of a "greenhosue effect" model that adheres to science and that has "greenhouse gases" increasing earth's temperature. Would you care to post one?

Surface Detail wrote:
I'm not trying to discredit anyone. You're the moron posting religious imagery in response to academic references.

Surface Detail wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
It really does smack of desperation when the deniers are reduced to attempting to portray science and the use of evidence-based arguments as religion. What's up guys? Not managed to steal any emails to misrepresent in the run-up to this conference?

What smacks of desperation is your need to try to discredit those who bring science to the discussion.

Why don't you review the OP of "The Top 4" thread and tell me where the science I presented is actually religion?

I notice you haven't presented a version of a "greenhosue effect" model that adheres to science and that has "greenhouse gases" increasing earth's temperature. Would you care to post one?

I'm not trying to discredit anyone. You're the moron posting religious imagery in response to academic references.

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
I'm not trying to discredit anyone. You're the moron posting religious imagery in response to academic references.

Yes, you deny science just to discredit those who threaten your religious sensitivities.

You're the blue-pill choosing moron who prefers the good feeling of never realizing that the world he thinks is based on science is nothing but unfalsifiable religious dogma.

Just keep praying that you never realize the harsh truth.

Surface Detail wrote:
The world that I consider to be based on science is the world of academic papers and journals; the world of academic organisations, research centres and university departments; the world of experimentation, observation and evidence.

Surface Detail wrote:The world that you consider to be based on science appears to be the world of conspiracy blogs, political theory and your own feverish imagination.

Just sayin'

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
The world that I consider to be based on science is the world of academic papers and journals; the world of academic organisations, research centres and university departments; the world of experimentation, observation and evidence.

I know. None of that is science. You profoundly believe all of it is. Nothing more needs to be said.

Surface Detail wrote:The world that you consider to be based on science appears to be the world of conspiracy blogs, political theory and your own feverish imagination.

Just sayin'

That's some imagination you have. Which one is the conspiracy blog? Planck's Law? 1st LoT? My coverage of falsifiability?

Jussayn.

Surface Detail wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
The world that I consider to be based on science is the world of academic papers and journals; the world of academic organisations, research centres and university departments; the world of experimentation, observation and evidence.

I know. None of that is science. You profoundly believe all of it is. Nothing more needs to be said.

Surface Detail wrote:The world that you consider to be based on science appears to be the world of conspiracy blogs, political theory and your own feverish imagination.

Just sayin'

That's some imagination you have. Which one is the conspiracy blog? Planck's Law? 1st LoT? My coverage of falsifiability?

Jussayn.

Planck's Law (Verhandl. Dtsch. phys. Ges., 2, 237) and the First Law of Thermodynamics (Annalen der Physick, March-April. LXXIX, 368, 500) were published in academic journals. Your "coverage of falsifiability" is the naive rambling of a scientifically illiterate bozo.

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
The world that I consider to be based on science is the world of academic papers and journals; the world of academic organisations, research centres and university departments; the world of experimentation, observation and evidence.

I know. None of that is science. You profoundly believe all of it is. Nothing more needs to be said.

Surface Detail wrote:The world that you consider to be based on science appears to be the world of conspiracy blogs, political theory and your own feverish imagination.

Just sayin'

That's some imagination you have. Which one is the conspiracy blog? Planck's Law? 1st LoT? My coverage of falsifiability?

Jussayn.

Planck's Law (Verhandl. Dtsch. phys. Ges., 2, 237) and the First Law of Thermodynamics (Annalen der Physick, March-April. LXXIX, 368, 500) were published in academic journals. Your "coverage of falsifiability" is the naive rambling of a scientifically illiterate bozo.

Argumentum ab auctoritate. Publication in a journal does not make anything true. Neither does it make anything false. It simply makes it what it is...a publication in a journal.

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
The world that I consider to be based on science is the world of academic papers and journals; the world of academic organisations, research centres and university departments; the world of experimentation, observation and evidence.

I know. None of that is science. You profoundly believe all of it is. Nothing more needs to be said.

Surface Detail wrote:The world that you consider to be based on science appears to be the world of conspiracy blogs, political theory and your own feverish imagination.

Just sayin'

That's some imagination you have. Which one is the conspiracy blog? Planck's Law? 1st LoT? My coverage of falsifiability?

Jussayn.

Planck's Law (Verhandl. Dtsch. phys. Ges., 2, 237) and the First Law of Thermodynamics (Annalen der Physick, March-April. LXXIX, 368, 500) were published in academic journals. Your "coverage of falsifiability" is the naive rambling of a scientifically illiterate bozo.

Argumentum ab auctoritate. Publication in a journal does not make anything true. Neither does it make anything false. It simply makes it what it is...a publication in a journal.

True, publication in a scientific journal doesn't make anything true. It does, however, show that it has passed a basic sniff test of scientific plausibility, unlike some posting on a random internet blog. Publication in a scientific journal is a necessary, though not necessarily sufficient, condition for acceptance into the body of scientific knowledge.

Surface Detail wrote:
Planck's Law (Verhandl. Dtsch. phys. Ges., 2, 237) and the First Law of Thermodynamics (Annalen der Physick, March-April. LXXIX, 368, 500) were published in academic journals.

Into the Night wrote:

Argumentum ab auctoritate. It doesn't show it passed anything but an editor's desk.
Publication in a scientific journal is not necessary to get accepted into the body of knowledge.

Any way of getting the word out will do quite nicely.

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
The world that I consider to be based on science is the world of academic papers and journals; the world of academic organisations, research centres and university departments; the world of experimentation, observation and evidence.

I know. None of that is science. You profoundly believe all of it is. Nothing more needs to be said.

Surface Detail wrote:The world that you consider to be based on science appears to be the world of conspiracy blogs, political theory and your own feverish imagination.

Just sayin'

That's some imagination you have. Which one is the conspiracy blog? Planck's Law? 1st LoT? My coverage of falsifiability?

Jussayn.

Planck's Law (Verhandl. Dtsch. phys. Ges., 2, 237) and the First Law of Thermodynamics (Annalen der Physick, March-April. LXXIX, 368, 500) were published in academic journals. Your "coverage of falsifiability" is the naive rambling of a scientifically illiterate bozo.

Argumentum ab auctoritate. Publication in a journal does not make anything true. Neither does it make anything false. It simply makes it what it is...a publication in a journal.

True, publication in a scientific journal doesn't make anything true. It does, however, show that it has passed a basic sniff test of scientific plausibility, unlike some posting on a random internet blog. Publication in a scientific journal is a necessary, though not necessarily sufficient, condition for acceptance into the body of scientific knowledge.

Argumentum ab auctoritate. It doesn't show it passed anything but an editor's desk.
Publication in a scientific journal is not necessary to get accepted into the body of knowledge.

Any way of getting the word out will do quite nicely.

Surface Detail wrote:Publication in a scientific journal shows that a paper has passed peer review, i.e. that it meets the minimum standards for acceptance as a contribution to scientific knowledge.

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:Publication in a scientific journal shows that a paper has passed peer review, i.e. that it meets the minimum standards for acceptance as a contribution to scientific knowledge.

Only for those who cannot discern religion from science and who mistakenly believe that their own religious clergy owns science and somehow approves material to become science.

The minimum requirement for science is a falsifiable model that predicts nature. No "peer review" counts for anything. The body of science doesn't track bonus points awarded for anyone's approval.


.

Surface Detail wrote:That is precisely what the purpose of peer review is: to weed out material that lacks original scientific content.

Surface Detail wrote: Quality control through peer review is a fundamental component of the scientific process.

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:That is precisely what the purpose of peer review is: to weed out material that lacks original scientific content.

The purpose of peer review is twofold:

1. Have a second set of eyes review one's work, which is not necessarily particular to science, and

2. Secure an endorsement of consensus, which is not of any value to science.

Surface Detail wrote: Quality control through peer review is a fundamental component of the scientific process.

No one owns science. No one gets to determine "quality" of science. No one gets to establish a "minimum quality" level for material to become science. No one has the authority to veto science on the basis of "poor quality."

"Quality" has no role in science.

The only requirement for science is a falsifiable model that predicts nature. There is no "quality" standard for science and there are no other requirements.

Surface Detail wrote:

Definition
The peer review process is integral to scholarly research. It is a process of subjecting research methods and findings to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field. The process is considered essential, but has also been criticized as slow, ineffective and misunderstood.

Surface Detail wrote:
Purpose
The process is designed to prevent dissemination of irrelevant findings, unwarranted claims, unacceptable interpretations, and personal views. It relies on colleagues that review one another's work and make an informed decision about whether it is legitimate, and adds to the large dialogue or findings in the field.

Ceist wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Argumentum ab auctoritate. It doesn't show it passed anything but an editor's desk.
Publication in a scientific journal is not necessary to get accepted into the body of knowledge.

Any way of getting the word out will do quite nicely.

Said by someone whose pseudoscience nutty claims that even the natural 'greenhouse' effect doesn't exist, wouldn't pass the sniff test of a comic let alone an academic science Journal.

Not sure what you think you are accomplishing by 'getting the word out' on internet forums about your crazy Sky Dragon Slayer claims.

Stormy wrote:
Why hasn't IBdaMann been permabanned from this community? I have been lurking this forum for days and he rocks up in almost every thread, derails the discussion with ad hominems and buffoonery and contributes nothing to the conversation. He is a cancer on an otherwise productive forum and is ruining this site for me and others who are looking for facts, not constant contrarianism. Please get rid of this poster.

Stormy wrote:
Why hasn't IBdaMann been permabanned from this community? I have been lurking this forum for days and he rocks up in almost every thread, derails the discussion with ad hominems and buffoonery and contributes nothing to the conversation. He is a cancer on an otherwise productive forum and is ruining this site for me and others who are looking for facts, not constant contrarianism. Please get rid of this poster.

Stormy wrote:
Why hasn't IBdaMann been permabanned from this community? I have been lurking this forum for days and he rocks up in almost every thread, derails the discussion with ad hominems and buffoonery and contributes nothing to the conversation. He is a cancer on an otherwise productive forum and is ruining this site for me and others who are looking for facts, not constant contrarianism. Please get rid of this poster.