Remember me
▼ Content

2016 set to be hottest year on record



Page 2 of 4<1234>
05-08-2016 22:51
Leafsdude
★☆☆☆☆
(141)
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.


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.

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.

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


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

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.

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.

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".
06-08-2016 11:32
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
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.

I know what NOAA claims. I also know that NOAA claims a lot of stupid shit. I also know how the satellite system works and what it's capable of.

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

There is no lowering of all continents occurring.
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.

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

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

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

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


The Parrot Killer
06-08-2016 18:04
Leafsdude
★☆☆☆☆
(141)
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?

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

There is no lowering of all continents occurring.


Do you have any sources to defend the above claim?

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

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?

Already explained.


Where?

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


Why not?

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


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

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.
06-08-2016 19:43
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
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?

It is easier to measure sea level against sea level as the satellite travels than absolute sea level.
Leafsdude wrote:
You do know that the latter is the intent, not the former, right?

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.
Leafsdude wrote:
There is no lowering of all continents occurring.


Do you have any sources to defend the above claim?

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

We do.
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?

Coastline is too short.
Leafsdude wrote:
Already explained.


Where?

Not a good way to implement an argument of the Stone. Go back and read it.
Leafsdude wrote:
I'm talking about reference, not units of measure.


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

Measurement is meaningless without a reference, dude.
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.


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


The Parrot Killer
07-08-2016 16:14
Leafsdude
★☆☆☆☆
(141)
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.


[source]

Jason-1 and Jason-2 have increased that accuracy to within 2.5mm.

Tidal stations.


Can you be more specific?

We do.


Can you be more specific?

Coastline is too short.


And...?

Measurement is meaningless without a reference, dude.


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

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.
09-08-2016 04:19
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
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.


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.


The Parrot Killer
09-08-2016 04:21
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
Leafsdude wrote:
Tidal stations.


Can you be more specific?

We do.


Can you be more specific?


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


The Parrot Killer
09-08-2016 04:25
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
Leafsdude wrote:
Coastline is too short.


And...?


An insignificant area is covered. You could be seeing nothing more than the usual 'hills' and 'valleys' found in ocean levels over most stations at a time.

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.


The Parrot Killer
09-08-2016 04:34
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
Leafsdude wrote:
Measurement is meaningless without a reference, dude.


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


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.

They are useful for calculations, but they are not an indicator of sea level at 1979 or any other year. They are atmospheric standards. Actual conditions of the atmosphere vary widely at actual sea level.


The Parrot Killer
09-08-2016 04:37
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
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.


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.


The Parrot Killer
09-08-2016 12:20
spot
★★★★☆
(1077)
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.
09-08-2016 18:50
Leafsdude
★☆☆☆☆
(141)
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.

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


You mean the standardized one from 1979?

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.

That is what sea level topographical measurements are all about.


Yup. Pretty impressive, really.

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.

An insignificant area is covered.


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

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.

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.

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


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

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


"Truth of the Universe"?

What now?

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


Because you don't care about facts.

Edited on 09-08-2016 18:50
09-08-2016 20:43
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
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.


Fine. Hope you had fun.


The Parrot Killer
09-08-2016 20:47
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
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.

Non-sequitur.
Leafsdude wrote:
BOTH system utilize the same referencing system I've already described.


You mean the standardized one from 1979?

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

Then we agree.
Leafsdude wrote:
That is what sea level topographical measurements are all about.


Yup. Pretty impressive, really.

That it is.


The Parrot Killer
09-08-2016 21:01
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
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.

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.
Leafsdude wrote:
An insignificant area is covered.


What makes 1/1350km "an insignificant area"?
It's size.
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.
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.
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.

There is no standardized sea level height (or depth if you want to look it at way). The standard ONLY refers to atmospheric conditions.

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.
Already have. This too you can go look up through your previous posts if you wish. So can others.
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?
You are about to demonstrate.
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.


...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.


The Parrot Killer
09-08-2016 22:55
Leafsdude
★☆☆☆☆
(141)
Non-sequitur.


What makes it a non-sequitur?

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?

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

Then we agree.


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

That it is.


Cool.

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?

It's size.


What makes its size insignificant?

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...

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.

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?

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.

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.

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


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

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?

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


Define "proofs".

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.
Edited on 09-08-2016 22:56
09-08-2016 23:37
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
Leafsdude wrote:
Non-sequitur.


What makes it a non-sequitur?

Go look it up.
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?

No.
Leafsdude wrote:
And you clearly don't know what a non-sequitur is...

I know exactly what a non-sequitur is.
Leafsdude wrote:
Then we agree.


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

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

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).
Leafsdude wrote:
It's size.


What makes its size insignificant?

It's size.
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...

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.
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.

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.
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?

I described it in the last post. This is an argument of the Stone.
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.

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

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

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


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

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.

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?

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.

Leafsdude wrote:

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


Define "proofs".

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.

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.

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.


The Parrot Killer
10-08-2016 05:42
Leafsdude
★☆☆☆☆
(141)
Go look it up.


I'm not gonna do your footwork for you.

No.


Why not?

I know exactly what a non-sequitur is.


I don't believe you.

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?

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.

It's size.


What about its size makes it insignificant?

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.

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


Why?

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 know why you make the argument: because you deny science.

There's no other reasonable explanation. You're free to try and prove me wrong by producing more than your assertions in response to my questions and comments contained within this post.

I described it in the last post.


No, you really didn't.

This is an argument of the Stone.


I have stated no absurdity, therefore your claim is faulty.

You clearly are most likely just randomly copying and pasting from a logical fallacy website to look smart. Anyone can tell you have no idea what an actual logical fallacy looks like, considering you've failed to accurately point any I've made out as of yet.

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.

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.

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


Not disclaiming it. Just clarifying.

There is no consensus in science either.


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

Consensus of scientists is not legitimate science, I'll accept that, but that's not what I'm talking about.

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.

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?

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"?

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.


Since the claims I've made are based on the data is about height differences caused by temperature, I'm glad to see you've finally agreed that's what it shows. So why are we arguing about it, exactly?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.
Edited on 10-08-2016 06:05
10-08-2016 21:23
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
Leafsdude wrote:
Go look it up.


I'm not gonna do your footwork for you.

No.


Why not?

Because I am not charitable to lazy asses like yourself.

Leafsdude wrote:
I know exactly what a non-sequitur is.


I don't believe you.

Too bad.


The Parrot Killer
10-08-2016 21:27
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
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?

It is a paradox to claim both, stupid.

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.


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'.


The Parrot Killer
10-08-2016 21:40
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
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.

NOAA is not a scientific body. It is a government organization. Consensus has no meaning in science.

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.


So...using Webster as a science and philosophy textbook now? No on 'owns' words either.

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.

None necessary.

Leafsdude wrote:
There is no consensus in science either.


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

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.

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

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?
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.


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"?

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

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


The Parrot Killer
10-08-2016 21:56
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
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.
Just did. Reread my paragraph quoted here.

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.

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.

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.

Science did not invent the lightbulb, nor was any prediction necessary. Microchips and cellphones are based on the mathematics behind them.


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.

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

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.

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, but they do not 'own' the word. 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?


The Parrot Killer
11-08-2016 01:02
spot
★★★★☆
(1077)
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.
11-08-2016 03:25
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
spot wrote:
Religion means something can be understood, Buddhism is a religion, germ theory is not.


Guess that means the amount in your checking account is a religion then, doesn't it? Unless you don't understand your checking account!


The Parrot Killer
11-08-2016 22:42
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
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.


I presume that you meant Religion is something that cannot be understood.

Just to check, what would it take for you to consider the threat from AGW to be gone?

I ask in the terms of any scientific hypothesis having to be able to fail or it's just not science. There has to be a result which says that the idea is wrong.
12-08-2016 00:31
spot
★★★★☆
(1077)
Actually I was to quick to make the post, what I ment was the english word religion has a meaning commonly understood by english speakers, what it means to ITN I have no idea.
12-08-2016 14:38
Leafsdude
★☆☆☆☆
(141)
Because I am not charitable to lazy asses like yourself.


The reason why you can't derive a mean sea level from inverse operations is because...you're not charitable?

What?!?

Sounds more like you don't have an answer and are dodging. HARD.

Too bad.


Yeah, for you.

It is a paradox to claim both, stupid.


The claim I'm making is that one can measure sea level rise and that all that is required for that is a differential measurement.

Sounds very paradoxical to me. /s

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


I still haven't made any appeals to absurdity, so still nope.

I see you found another fallacy on your list to copy and paste, too.

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


Who said otherwise?

Another strawman, perhaps?

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


It's both?

Consensus has no meaning in science.


Now you've got tourettes? I mentioned nothing about consensus there...

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


Nope, using it as a dictionary...

No on 'owns' words either.


Including you.


None necessary.


Considering your interest, or lack thereof, in actually defending claims, I'm not surprised.

Your entire argument here can be simplified into "because I said so".

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.


Theories are not formed "by a wide number of reasons". They're formed by consensus, more commonly called a concordance, of evidence. You even state as much when you say "the more tests for the null hypothesis of a theory get passed, the more the theory is trusted", as in, the more evidence that supports the theory, the more accepted it is.

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


No, I'm certainly not.

Keep up with your strawmen, though.

And what, exactly, is "the essence of consensus in science"? Cause scientific consensus is definitely not based on ownership...

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.


The "evidence against [falsifiability]" is supporting evidence... *shrug*

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


I'm not asking for a source for the data, I'm asking a for a source claiming data was manufactured.

You seriously need to pay attention better. You're falling behind the rest of the class.

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


And I've explained exactly why your description is faulty.

Just did. Reread my paragraph quoted here.


So a closed system is an unchanging, absolute idea? Like religion, for example? While an open system is the opposite?

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


Huh?

How was it a circular argument?

Einstein used mathematics for his predictions.


Not entirely. He used observations and evidence as well.

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


That's not a circular argument...

A circular argument would be "radiation proves the big bang because the big bang proves radiation". Anyone with any level of knowledge knows no one claims the big bang proves radiation.

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


You don't even know what a circular argument is. *laugh*

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


Edison used science to invent the lightbulb. The prediction was that filaments could produce light via electricity.

Microchips and cellphones are based on the mathematics behind them.


And the scientific theories that they work on, such as electromagnetism theory and relativity.

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


How is consensus a "God"?

Good luck.

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.


Yes. People. Not person.

The dictionary is an authority on the subject. It isn't necessarily right always, but it is based on more than just one person's opinion, therefore it carries more weight.

You can claim the words you use mean whatever you want it to mean, but you can't honestly expect a coherent discussion with anyone if you do so. Hell, I can change the word "you" to mean something completely different if I want to right now and that whole sentence could mean something entirely different than what it means when you read it with definitions given based on dictionaries.

Dictionaries are useful for standardizing spelling and pronunciation


And meaning.

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.


Again, people. Not person.

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.


More strawmen arguments. You need to go to the Wizard of Oz and get yourself a brain...

Let us entertain a concept here.

Do you consider the Pythagorean Theorem a fact?


As far as anything can be called a fact, yes.
12-08-2016 16:48
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
Leafsdude wrote: I can and have. I've produced sources saying your claim is wrong in this thread.

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

Yet you think it is. Just out of curiosity, how MANY "agreeing" sources do you believe you need to make you correct?

Just out of curiosity, who do you believe owns science?


Leafsdude wrote: I base my opinion on verifiable sources.

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!"


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.

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 are a profound worshiper who obeys his clergy.


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.

Great rationalization for having an organization do your thinking for you.

I hate to burst your completely naïve bubble *BUT* NOAA is not a science body. I'll give you a moment to let that sink in.

NOAA is a US government agency that is run by a POLITCAL APPOINTEE whose sole job is to ensure the agency adheres to the Administration's political agenda. NOAA neither announces nor publishes anything without it being word-smithed and even modified/doctored for said political appointee's approval.

You have been accepting blatant political propaganda as "science." I'll give you a moment to let that sink in as well.

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

...says the guy who thinks political propaganda is science. Of course he "denies" political propaganda. He questions and he doubts. He thinks for himself.

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.

Leafsdude wrote:Epic fail.

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

There is no such thing as a "scientific" fact. There are only facts. 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.

Good luck with that.

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

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


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

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?

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

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

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

The political appointee in charge of NOAA.

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

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?

Leafsdude wrote: Darwin predicted ring species.

...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.


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.

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.

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

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.

Religion.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
13-08-2016 10:57
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
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.


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?

If this is not the case, how can you treat anything in mathematics as a fact?


The Parrot Killer
15-08-2016 05:31
Leafsdude
★☆☆☆☆
(141)
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.

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!"


Nope. No translations necessary. What I say is what I mean.

But keep up with those strawmen.

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.


No one is thinking for me. *shrug*

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.


What "thinking" leads you to that conclusion? The fact that Into The Night says so?

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

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


Thankfully, they don't just say "they just can". They've provide methodology in scientific papers available for anyone to read. I've read many such papers and understand why. More to the point, I have questioned, to myself, whether such explanations make sense. They do.

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.


Of course I can doubt. I doubt everything. I just understand there's a point where reasonable doubt becomes unreasonable.

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


Mmmm, nope. Never said that.

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


Yup, there is. It's not the same as what a layman calls a fact.

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


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

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.


What is "material", in this context? And what reason do you have that your answer is correct?

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


Talking to yourself again, I see.

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


Which words?

If they do, then that's a linguistic problem on my part, not any reflection on my true views.

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.

The fact is, you've said everything you've said to me solely because I accept climate change, not because of anything I've said, which can be shown simply by your misconstruing of my statements as saying things I absolutely did not say.

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


No one.

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

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!


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.

Yet again, you have to pretend to know what I believe, even though you clearly don't have the first clue, in order to argue against me. Or, as it's known in logic, you need to use strawmen fallacies.

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.


Agreed.

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


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

The political appointee in charge of NOAA.


What data did this "political appointee" manufacture?

And "all of it" is a cop-out answer.

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?


My answer would be "no", but I would not "look up the correct answer" because, based on context, there would have been no way for me to reasonably find an answer for it. Instead, I would have told him his sentence made no sense and was completely unrelated to anything we were talking about even if it did.

It's cute that you keep trying to think for me, though. I do appreciate the effort, even if it's completely unnecessary.

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


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.

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


Actually, that's exactly what Darwin used. The fact is, the model was the source of falsifiability of evolution. If ring species didn't exist, then that would have falsified evolution, 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.

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


"Fasifiable" means a statement that has a possible result or results with which it can be shown to be false. *shrug*

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.


Well, considering all can be described by the word "science", it's not really that hard to "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.


Mmm, nope. If it was "complete faith" (or "COMPLETE FAITH", as you repeated for one can only imagine your own emotional catharsis), 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.

But, of course, you ignore such statements because it would go against your (wrong) characterization of me that you have to in order to keep your own actual "faith" (projecting again, I should note) unshaken.

Arguing against my actual statement, after all, would make you have to consider your own viewpoints, something which clearly scares you, as you cannot stand any consideration of whether you might be wrong. Which is, yes, you guessed it, a very religious attribute.

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.
Edited on 15-08-2016 05:38
15-08-2016 17:41
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
Leafsdude wrote:Nope, I do not.

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.

Leafsdude wrote: Nope. No translations necessary.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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"?

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

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

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

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.

Just go ahead and give us the concrete specifics, here in this thread, in your own words, how you would measure the mean seal level to great precision.


Leafsdude wrote: Mmmm, nope. Never said that.

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.

Leafsdude wrote:Well, that's a false analogy if I ever heard one...
It's an appropriate analogy and an absolutely true statement. But then again, you think the dictionary is an authoritative science reference.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

* Scientific Method is the systematic battery of direct tests (along with tests of internal and external consistency) intended to prove a falsifiable model false.

* Scientific Process is the process of which you speak, that involves asking questions, making observations, and has nothing to do with any science until the very end when a falsifiable model that predicts nature is produced. Before the model is finalized, there is no science, i.e. there are no "scientific" facts, no "scientific" observations, no "scientific" papers, no "scientific" research, etc... There are just facts, observations, papers, research, etc...

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.

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.

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?

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

You state that you believe in "climate change." I now have enough information to write tomes on YOUR faith.

Leafsdude wrote: Agreed.
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.

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

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

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.

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

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

You don't understand falsifiability.

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

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.

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.

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?)

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.

Would you consider/accept existing science?

Leafsdude wrote: Mathematics cannot only be "imagined".

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?

Leafsdude wrote: I can provide you a right triangle,

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

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

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.

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


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
15-08-2016 20:49
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
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.


You are now in paradox. Which statement is true?

You deny that you think science is consensus. Then IN THE SAME POST you argue that it is.

You are a liar. You are lying to yourself, probably to cover up the gaping hole you just fell into.


The Parrot Killer
15-08-2016 21:00
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
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.


Mathematics is a real object???

What color is it?

How heavy is it?

Does it have a smooth or a hard surface?

Can you collect them?

How much does a mathematics cost?

You are in another paradox.

Hilarious.


The Parrot Killer
15-08-2016 21:08
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
IBdaMann wrote:
While we're at it, do you know of any discount stores selling cheap limits?


I'm been on the lookout for some expensive statistics. I hear they're having a sale on them down in Las Vegas.

Shall I pick up some cheap limits for you next time I'm there? I can't guarantee color or size. They may not fit, but hey...they're limits! They should be close enough!


The Parrot Killer
22-08-2016 01:25
Leafsdude
★☆☆☆☆
(141)
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.


Sources <> opinion.

But, again, science is, well, not a product, per se, but is definitely reliant and supported by consensus. That consensus is required within strictly scrutinized research and experimentation, however, not from opinion, hence where your misinterpretation of my viewpoints fails.

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.


Nope, it was only required to make a strawman argument because you need to use dishonest arguing tactics to even begin to counter any of my statements.

And again, verifiable sources don't "think" for me, they provide evidence with which to consider viewpoints and claims. The reason I accept them is because they make sense when I do think about what they say.

Which makes your argument quite ironic, I'd say.

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


Just as it's done: measuring coastal tides and comparing them to historical records.

As for how to create a system to do so, obviously you set a controlled environment, measure known values and test various methods until you get one that consistently matches those known values.

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


I disagree. YMMV.

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.


I've been explaining them since I got here.

I'll try and collect all of them when I finish replying to everyone.

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


1) Methodological experimentation and observation.

2) Concordance with other papers that use similar experimentation and observation.

3) Peer-review.

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


What will convince you?

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.


Uh...

Yeah, try explaining that train of thought, please? I'd like to see where you completely messed up in reading what I said.

Yes but you THINK that.


Mmm, nope, I do not.

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.


Uh, nope.

The meaning of the term "scientific fact" (and the fact that the term exists) is a linguistic matter, not a scientific one. Just because the word refers to something related to science doesn't mean the word is scientific. I mean, would you look through a scientific paper to try to find the meaning of the word "science", or would you consult a dictionary?

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


Nope, just an authoritative linguistic reference.

I mean, really, do you think science defines words? Really?

No. I'm just reading your words.


I don't believe that's all you're doing. You're reading my words and then translating them for yourself so you can keep believing what you believe without fearing what I'm saying.

Again, that sounds suspiciously religious. The fact you call me religious for accepting scientific consensus also is suspiciously religious. Which is quite ironic.

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


Mmm, nope, I welcome it. I just know what is reliable and what is not, and you definitely aren't reliable.

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


"Suddenly"? I've been arguing about climate change for over 10 years. I've learned things in that time that I didn't have any clue about back when I started. I've heard nearly every argument in the book, including some that are way more insane than the ones I've seen here.

More to the point, as I've stated, I will accept that I'm wrong if the evidence (eg: not assertions) provided refutes it satisfactorily. As of yet, that hasn't happened.

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.


Based on what I've seen so far, all that I could "stand to learn" from those posting here opposed to my acceptance of strongly-supported scientific theories is how to argue fallaciously and dishonestly, and I'd prefer to remain honest rather than learn skills such as those.

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.


Which isn't at all a clear indicator of cognitive bias. /s

If you've decided I'm religious simply because I believe in climate change, then you can't legitimately consider whether climate change is true or not. You've already decided that climate change is false, 100%, and cannot ever be shown as true. Which, again, interestingly, seems religious in nature rather than scientific.

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.


Alright, if you want to use the word "science" in this way, that's your choice. Just realize that science in regular parlance doesn't refer to "body of science".

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.


How does any of that run again my "dogma"?

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."


Hmm, no, it absolutely does not. All it means is "reviewed by those with credentials within the field of study". Converting that into what you translate it as is nonsensical, especially considering the fact that peer-review is conducted by innumerable, independent individuals who are members of individual scientific journals, not some wide-ranging, conspiratory "board".

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


How would you suggest bias and errors be weeded out of the published literature, then?

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.


You clearly misunderstand what peer-review is. Peer-review isn't a "veto", it's a check on methods. It's designed to keep poorly (or fallaciously) written/designed/tested papers out of reputable journals.

More to the point, many scientific papers critical of climate change have passed through peer-reviewed. They're just not accepted because their results have not been reliably replicated.

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?


I'll try to say this as slowly as possible.

1) Hypothesis gets tested. The test doesn't refute the hypothesis. Hypothesis assumed confirmed until it is refuted.

2) Multiple hypothesis and observations related to hypothesis in 1) are tested and confirmed to align with the same conclusion: ie: concordance or consensus.

3) Enough tested hypotheses and laws are gathered to make predictive models and become theories when these models are proven true through further experimentation.

So, the objective consensus is created in 2 and confirmed in 3.

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


Uh, no.

The "group/organization/institution" is scientific journals and the scientific literature themselves. There's no ordaining. No scientific paper is ever absolutely true. Criticism is always allowed and refuted with reasoned responses or accepted if no refutation is possible.

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.


Uh, nope.

Only the scientific literature can identify with theories are "best". There's no "group" involved.

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


What "higher governing body" is that, exactly? Maybe the illuminati? Or is it the reptile people?


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.


No people? How do you figure you do that?

Again, "peer-review" weeds out basic errors from the literature. That's all. Without peer-review, you'd have Creation "scientists" publishing nonsensical papers in scientific journals.

And there's no "personality" involved. Models and falsifiability remains the main requirements of acceptance in scientific literature.

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


And how was that official position accepted?

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


Uh, science is not exact. You're always going to lose the bet sometimes. Once cannot reason absolutely with inductive reasoning.

The important thing is whether you win the bet a significant amount of times. If you do, then you can accept you've got a reasonably well-working view of reality. Just because you lose a bet once or twice out of a hundred doesn't mean it's "just a guess".

You don't understand falsifiability.


I'm pretty sure I got a good grasp of it, but please, try and educate me.

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


Life, through random mutations, natural selection and environmental pressure, changes, both physically and biologically, due to separation of populations.

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


Species A lives in location 1. Within thousands of generations, the population of Species A expands into locations 2-5 systematically. These populations make a geographical circle where individuals in location 1 do not interact with individuals in locations 3 or 4, but do interact with individuals in location 2 and 5 (2 and 3, 3 and 4 and 4 and 5 do interact). Through genetic drift and a lack of breeding, the populations in 3 and 4 drift from those in 1 to where they cannot breed, but they continue breeding enough with their neighbouring populations to remain within those breeding pools. With this being the case, when populations in 1 and 5 meet, they are no longer able to breed together.

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?)


Everything contained within biology and genetics can be expressed within evolution, yes. That doesn't exactly mean they're "one and the same", but they are strongly related.

Would you consider/accept existing science?


I do 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?


Depends on the type of math. You can't exactly get infinity or pi on your hands, but you can get 1+1=2 on your hands.

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


What's the functional difference?

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


Good thing I don't, then. *shrug*

Mathematics is a real object???


Nope. Never said that.
Edited on 22-08-2016 01:26
22-08-2016 02:49
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Blimey, Leafsdude, you have the patience of a saint!
22-08-2016 03:24
Leafsdude
★☆☆☆☆
(141)
The sad thing is, if I gave up, even now, I'm sure they would all claim their views are right because of it. *laugh*

ETA: A couple quick corrections on my last post, as I'm sure they'll be jumped on and used as red herrings otherwise:

1) In my response to the question of "objective consensus", I said that theories are created when predictions based on concording experiments and observations are proven true. While using "true" in a general sense can mean "reasonably true", the word I should have used was "accurate".

2) In the response to peer-review and the nature of scientific literature following 1), I stated that refutations are either rebutted through scientific arguments or accepted if not refutable. Again, although the inference of my statements I'd expect would usually result in the understanding that I was using non-absolute terms, few people arguing against the science of climate change seem to be able to interpret terms used as such. As such, when I said criticism is accepted "if no refutation is possible", I should have said it is accepted "if no one has refuted it".

3) More of a clarification/extension than a correction, in the response to ring species, I should have noted that, in the example, species A in location 1 can breed with 2, 2 with 3, 3 with 4 and 4 with 5, but 1 cannot breed with 5.
Edited on 22-08-2016 03:54
24-08-2016 23:43
Hank
★☆☆☆☆
(77)
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.
25-08-2016 00:48
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
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.


We do not have the ability to measure or calculate anything like a global temperature. We simply do not have the instrumentation for it.

Anyone who claims a global temperature is manufacturing data.


The Parrot Killer
25-08-2016 01:03
Hank
★☆☆☆☆
(77)
You are mistaken about not being able to measure or calculate global temperature. The use of statistical analysis gives very good results. I use it on at least a monthly basis when designing satellite antennas and the accuracy is validated when the antenna works.
Page 2 of 4<1234>





Join the debate 2016 set to be hottest year on record:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Revealing the 160 year systematic error behind greenhouse theory with Raman Spectroscopy2422-09-2019 22:20
Year Long, Arctic Climate Change Study... How 'Green'?121-09-2019 03:46
Alaska, July, hottest month every recorded...119-08-2019 07:13
Hottest day on record (going back to 1880s) in Paris6730-07-2019 00:02
record high temp in france7808-07-2019 06:18
▲ 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 © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact