Remember me
▼ Content

Climate


Climate28-12-2019 20:12
Harry CProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(140)
It has occurred to me that we are being conditioned to expect something that's unreasonable. Look at the word "climate". According to Merriam Webster, definitions include:

1 : a region of the earth having specified climatic conditions
2a : the average course or condition of the weather at a place usually over a period of years as exhibited by temperature, wind velocity, and precipitation
3 : the prevailing influence or environmental conditions characterizing a group or period


What Climate Scientist want us to believe is unrealistic because they have a variable description of climate. We, as the people that are being manipulated by this ambiguity in language, must demand more. They must define what climate has been with a higher degree of certainty and more specificity of location, weather and time. Since they haven't and can't, why should we be alarmed? We're just 'tilting at windmills'. What's worse, is they have set it up such that it can never ever be declared that anything has been corrected.

I'll leave open the discussion of the physical effect of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere on temperature. However if we can't define the problem any more precisely and the expected result, how do we know it's corrected? Let's say we achieve carbon neutrality and the climate still doesn't conform, which is likely due to the myriad of assumptions that have been "smoothed" to yield the answer they want. Do we get to tar and feather the proponents of the proven (at that time) hoax?

I join the calls that I have read herein to "define climate change". We can't fight what's undefined and nothing more than a colloquial phrase.


You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
28-12-2019 21:55
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7314)
Harry C wrote:I join the calls that I have read herein to "define climate change". We can't fight what's undefined and nothing more than a colloquial phrase.

We can't fight what's not real.

A "climate" involves local conditions. The Climate Change religion requires belief in a spiritual "global climate" of the earth. This can never be defined unambiguously such that physics can ever apply, just as the Christian God cannot be unambiguously defined such that physics can apply.

Ergo, you can join the calls for "Climate" to be defined unambiguously but it should be with no expectation that it ever will be so defined. The calls for such a definition are simply shorthand for "You're preaching your religious dogma, I am aware of it and I plan on making everyone else aware of it."

This truly ires warmizombies because their religious dogma requires them to believe that their religion is somehow not a religion and that it is actually "settled science." They view any calls for defining "Climate" as existential threats to their faith and will naturally arch their backs and hiss at anything that forces them to face the reality that their religion is a religion.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

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
28-12-2019 22:47
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
Harry C wrote:
It has occurred to me that we are being conditioned to expect something that's unreasonable. Look at the word "climate". According to Merriam Webster, definitions include:

1 : a region of the earth having specified climatic conditions
2a : the average course or condition of the weather at a place usually over a period of years as exhibited by temperature, wind velocity, and precipitation
3 : the prevailing influence or environmental conditions characterizing a group or period


What Climate Scientist want us to believe is unrealistic because they have a variable description of climate. We, as the people that are being manipulated by this ambiguity in language, must demand more. They must define what climate has been with a higher degree of certainty and more specificity of location, weather and time. Since they haven't and can't, why should we be alarmed? We're just 'tilting at windmills'. What's worse, is they have set it up such that it can never ever be declared that anything has been corrected.

I'll leave open the discussion of the physical effect of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere on temperature. However if we can't define the problem any more precisely and the expected result, how do we know it's corrected? Let's say we achieve carbon neutrality and the climate still doesn't conform, which is likely due to the myriad of assumptions that have been "smoothed" to yield the answer they want. Do we get to tar and feather the proponents of the proven (at that time) hoax?

I join the calls that I have read herein to "define climate change". We can't fight what's undefined and nothing more than a colloquial phrase.



climate change

noun

A change in global or regional climate patterns, in particular a change apparent from the mid to late 20th century onwards and attributed largely to the increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide produced by the use of fossil fuels.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
28-12-2019 22:58
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3324)
Harry C wrote:
I join the calls that I have read herein to "define climate change".
You are fond of Straw Manning Harry C. It's a habit that is intent on winning, not learning.

I call on you to get the heart of the question:
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote: No one can know the temperature of Denver.
He's absolutely correct....
GasGuzzler wrote:
Do we know a temperature in Denver? Yes.
Do we know the temperature OF Denver? No.

Do you believe the temperature of Denver can be known in any useful way? Simple and direct question for you.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them
29-12-2019 01:03
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7314)
tmiddles wrote:I call on you to get the heart of the question:
Do you believe the temperature of Denver can be known in any useful way? Simple and direct question for you.

@ Harry C,

Keep in mind that this is a trap. tmiddles fully intends this question to mean Denver as an unspecified volume of unspecified altitude. If you say "yes" then he's going to pounce on you with a bajillion "GOTCHA"s.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

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
29-12-2019 03:47
Harry CProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(140)
I read a good book today. WHY SCIENTISTS DISAGREE ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING


Here's one of most alarming things to me.

In order to conduct an investigation, scientists must first formulate a falsifiable hypothesis to test. The hypothesis implicit in all IPCC writings, though rarely explicitly stated, is that dangerous global warming is resulting, or will result, from human-related greenhouse gas emissions.

In considering any such hypothesis, an alternative and null hypothesis must be entertained, which is the simplest hypothesis consistent with the known facts. Regarding global warming, the null hypothesis is that currently observed changes in global climate indices and the physical environment are the result of natural variability. To invalidate this null hypothesis requires, at a minimum, direct evidence of human causation of specified changes that lie outside usual, natural variability. Unless and until such evidence is adduced, the null hypothesis is assumed to be correct.

In contradiction of the scientific method, IPCC assumes its implicit hypothesis is correct and that its only duty is to collect evidence and make plausible arguments in the hypothesis's favor. One probable reason for this behavior is that the United Nations protocol under which IPCC operates defines climate change as "a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods" (United Nations, 1994, Article 1.2).


I don't see how anybody with a sense of self respect about making critical decisions cannot be bothered by this.
29-12-2019 04:00
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1731)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:I call on you to get the heart of the question:
Do you believe the temperature of Denver can be known in any useful way? Simple and direct question for you.

@ Harry C,

Keep in mind that this is a trap. tmiddles fully intends this question to mean Denver as an unspecified volume of unspecified altitude. If you say "yes" then he's going to pounce on you with a bajillion "GOTCHA"s.


.


"Useful way" is also quite unspecified. Useful to who what when where and why?


gasguzzler, calling the jet stream the "Norwegian jet stream" is a bigoted statement. -James-
RE: And then there was this...29-12-2019 04:02
Harry CProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(140)
Money probably isn't what motivates Mike Hulme, now professor of climate and culture in the Department of Geography at King's College London. He was professor of climate change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia and a contributor to IPCC reports, and he is author of Why We Disagree About Climate Change (Hulme, 2009). Hulme was cited in Chapter 1 admitting to great uncertainties in climate science, yet he eagerly endorses and proomotes IPCC's claims. Why does he do that?
In his book, Hulme calls climate change "a classic example of ... 'post-normal science,'" which he defines (quoting Silvio Funtowicz and Jerry Ravetz) as "the application of science to public issues where 'facts are uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high and decisions urgent.'" Issues that fall into this category, he says, are no longer subject to the cardinal requirements of true science: skepticism, universalism, communalism, and disinterestedness. Instead of experimentation and open debate, post-normal science says "consensus" brought about by deliberation among experts determines what is true, or at least true enough for the time being to direct public policy decisions.
The merits and demerits of post-normal science can be debated, but it undoubtedly has one consequence of significance in the climate change debate: Scientists are no longer responsible for actually doing science themselves, such as testing hypotheses, studying data, and confronting data or theories that contradict the "consensus" position. Scientists simply "sign onto" IPCC's latest report and are free to indulge their political biases. Hulme is quite open about his. He wrote, "The idea of climate change should be seen as an intellectual resource around which our collective and personal identities and projects can form and take shape. We need to ask not what we can do for climate change, but to ask what climate change can do for us" (p. 326).
In his book, Hulme says "because the idea of climate change is so plastic, it can be deployed across many of our human projects and can serve many of our psychological, ethical, and spiritual needs." Hulme describes himself as a social-democrat so his needs include sustainable development, income redistribution, population control, and social justice. By focusing on these "needs," how can Hulme objectively evaluate the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis?

This is unusual behavior for a scientist and disturbing for one working at high levels in IPCC. When Hulme talks about climate science, is he telling us the truth or one of his "myths"?


I would be embarrassed if Hulme was a representative for side of the debate.


You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
29-12-2019 04:37
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1731)
Money probably isn't what motivates Mike Hulme, now professor of climate and culture in the Department of Geography at King's College London.

What??!!???

On his own website he lists his sources of income. It's only around 45 million dollars in research grants in the last 20 years. No money motivation there. WTF!!!




://mikehulme.org/financial-interests-and-funding/#
29-12-2019 04:55
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3324)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:I call on you to get the heart of the question:
Do you believe the temperature of Denver can be known in any useful way? Simple and direct question for you.

Keep in mind that this is a trap.
No it's some hilariously stupid BS we should always put behind us first on this board in order to have a sane discussion of temperature. You said it IBD, not me.

Harry C wrote:
I read a good book today. WHY SCIENTISTS DISAGREE ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING
...at a minimum, direct evidence of human causation of specified changes that lie outside usual, natural variability. Unless and until such evidence is adduced, the null hypothesis is assumed to be correct....IPCC assumes its implicit hypothesis is correct....

I don't see how anybody with a sense of self respect about making critical decisions cannot be bothered by this.

I would of course agree with you that for the IPCC to assume they have all the answers is absurd.
But you do recognize it's no ones fault this is a tough issue to analyze right?
Cancer is proving very tough to cure but I don't think we should give up because it's hard to make definitive statements about treatment option.

We are not prisoners of the IPCC here. Did you want to stop questioning your own faith that there is nothing to this Global Warming crap because you see their overconfidence as permission to do so?

GasGuzzler wrote:
"Useful way" is also quite unspecified. Useful to who what when where and why?
You tell me. CAN IT BE KNOWN!!??

Harry C wrote:
Money probably isn't ...
Just to clarify is any of the quoted text your own? It sounds like someone talking about the book. What is being quoted?

Also if you don't want to talk to me Harry C just say so. I notice you're ignoring my posts. I can write them with that in mind going forward if that's your intention.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them
29-12-2019 05:16
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1731)
tmiddles wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
"Useful way" is also quite unspecified. Useful to who what when where and why?
You tell me. CAN IT BE KNOWN!!??


To what margin of error? You tell me.


gasguzzler, calling the jet stream the "Norwegian jet stream" is a bigoted statement. -James-
29-12-2019 05:25
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3324)
GasGuzzler wrote:You tell me.
No
29-12-2019 05:37
James___
★★★★★
(2994)
Harry C wrote:
I read a good book today. WHY SCIENTISTS DISAGREE ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING


Here's one of most alarming things to me.

In order to conduct an investigation, scientists must first formulate a falsifiable hypothesis to test. The hypothesis implicit in all IPCC writings, though rarely explicitly stated, is that dangerous global warming is resulting, or will result, from human-related greenhouse gas emissions.

In considering any such hypothesis, an alternative and null hypothesis must be entertained, which is the simplest hypothesis consistent with the known facts. Regarding global warming, the null hypothesis is that currently observed changes in global climate indices and the physical environment are the result of natural variability. To invalidate this null hypothesis requires, at a minimum, direct evidence of human causation of specified changes that lie outside usual, natural variability. Unless and until such evidence is adduced, the null hypothesis is assumed to be correct.

In contradiction of the scientific method, IPCC assumes its implicit hypothesis is correct and that its only duty is to collect evidence and make plausible arguments in the hypothesis's favor. One probable reason for this behavior is that the United Nations protocol under which IPCC operates defines climate change as "a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods" (United Nations, 1994, Article 1.2).


I don't see how anybody with a sense of self respect about making critical decisions cannot be bothered by this.


I brought up the need for a null hypothesis once. This is because 2 certain individuals claim that logic is not falsifiable. And I mentioned that if an understanding in science is derived from a null hypothesis then said realization is based on logic.
One concern associated with the IPCC is that the peer review process is none existant. Findings/conclusions are not verified but are simply accepted.
The debate on climate change has one major failure. Many believe that if CO2 is not causing it then it is not happening. Also because of the debate, many other important issues are being ignored.
29-12-2019 05:37
Harry CProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(140)
tmiddles wrote:
Harry C wrote:
I join the calls that I have read herein to "define climate change".
You are fond of Straw Manning Harry C. It's a habit that is intent on winning, not learning.

Nope, totally sincere.
tmiddles wrote:
I call on you to get the heart of the question:
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote: No one can know the temperature of Denver.
He's absolutely correct....
GasGuzzler wrote:
Do we know a temperature in Denver? Yes.
Do we know the temperature OF Denver? No.

Do you believe the temperature of Denver can be known in any useful way? Simple and direct question for you.


The way your question reads is that there is a universally accepted temperature that everyone understands. If I'm not living Denver and watch the national news weather report they will give one temperature for Denver. The significance of that temperature is that it's taken at a monitoring station that is used regularly to aid in comparison to other days. Yes, I believe we can know that number.

However it will be insignificant for use in further comparison to other temperatures at the same station dependent upon the time of day and other weather inputs such as precipitation, relative humidity and barometric pressure. But it doesn't begin to be useful as an absolute reference to the temperature of Denver. I suspect, but don't know, that this is the problem that ITN has with the premise of the oversimplification of the temperature of Denver. If you want to be obtuse about it, you can make it a point of disagreement. However it's disingenuous to make an argument about it if you're a thinking person.


You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
29-12-2019 05:45
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3324)
Harry C wrote:
The way your question reads is that there is a universally accepted temperature that everyone understands. ....Yes, I believe we can know that number. ...it will be insignificant for use in further comparison to other temperatures at the same station ....If you want to be obtuse about it, you can make it a point of disagreement. However it's disingenuous to make an argument about it if you're a thinking person.
ITN/IBD and now GG have said repeatedly as THE definitive shut down of everything on this board that the temperature of Earth cannot be know.

Do you think I am the one making this a point of disagreement? How is that?

It sounds like you concur that the temperature of Denver cannot be known.

What I have said is that EVERYTHING IN THE UNIVERSE has a temperature and that is is ALWAYS a range, never a precise single value. It's not possible for temperature to have one single precise value quantifiable out to an infinite decimal place.

We cannot talk about anything without settling basic facts and that is one.

Thoughts?

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them
Edited on 29-12-2019 05:47
29-12-2019 06:25
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7314)
tmiddles wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:You tell me.
No

This is probably why Harry C is ignoring you.

Harry C is smart where I have been silly, i.e. ignoring your preaching

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

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
29-12-2019 06:26
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7314)
tmiddles wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:You tell me.
No

This is probably why Harry C is ignoring you.

Harry C is smart where I have been silly, i.e. ignoring your preaching

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

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
29-12-2019 06:26
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7314)
tmiddles wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:You tell me.
No

This is probably why Harry C is ignoring you.

Harry C is smart where I have been silly, i.e. ignoring your preaching

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

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
29-12-2019 06:26
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7314)
tmiddles wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:You tell me.
No

This is probably why Harry C is ignoring you.

Harry C is smart where I have been silly, i.e. ignoring your preaching

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

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
29-12-2019 06:27
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1731)
tmiddles wrote:
Harry C wrote:
The way your question reads is that there is a universally accepted temperature that everyone understands. ....Yes, I believe we can know that number. ...it will be insignificant for use in further comparison to other temperatures at the same station ....If you want to be obtuse about it, you can make it a point of disagreement. However it's disingenuous to make an argument about it if you're a thinking person.
ITN/IBD and now GG have said repeatedly as THE definitive shut down of everything on this board that the temperature of Earth cannot be know.

Do you think I am the one making this a point of disagreement? How is that?

It sounds like you concur that the temperature of Denver cannot be known.

What I have said is that EVERYTHING IN THE UNIVERSE has a temperature and that is is ALWAYS a range, never a precise single value. It's not possible for temperature to have one single precise value quantifiable out to an infinite decimal place.

We cannot talk about anything without settling basic facts and that is one.

Thoughts?

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them


What is the "range" (margin of error) for the temperature of Denver?


gasguzzler, calling the jet stream the "Norwegian jet stream" is a bigoted statement. -James-
29-12-2019 06:30
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7314)
GasGuzzler wrote:What is the "range" (margin of error) for the temperature of Denver?

Great question. It probably is too large to make any "temperature" value unusable.

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

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
29-12-2019 07:06
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3324)
GasGuzzler wrote:
What is the "range" (margin of error) for the temperature of Denver?
Range and Margin of Error are not equivalent concepts.

My bank account has a range over the course of a year. I could calculate the average balance, state the lowest balance I had as well as the highest. That's a range.

Your human body has a temperature but it's a range. Your finger tip is cooler than your heart. A doctor, being concerned with the temperature of you internal organs, will use the underside of your tongue to get a good idea of the temperature of you internal organs. But your body does not have one single temperature whether you compare location to location or moment to moment.

Margin of Error is the accuracy with which a measurement matches the reality. So if I eyeball the length of nail with a ruler I might be off by +/- 2.0 mms. A digital caliper is going to give me the length to 1/100th of a mm, or +/- 0.01 mms. So I might think, from my measurement with the caliper that the length is 45.32 MMs, but in truth it's 45.325 MMs, so thats an error of 0.005. That's a margin of error.
Edited on 29-12-2019 07:27
29-12-2019 08:02
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13030)
tmiddles wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
What is the "range" (margin of error) for the temperature of Denver?
Range and Margin of Error are not equivalent concepts.

My bank account has a range over the course of a year. I could calculate the average balance, state the lowest balance I had as well as the highest. That's a range.

Your human body has a temperature but it's a range. Your finger tip is cooler than your heart. A doctor, being concerned with the temperature of you internal organs, will use the underside of your tongue to get a good idea of the temperature of you internal organs. But your body does not have one single temperature whether you compare location to location or moment to moment.

Margin of Error is the accuracy with which a measurement matches the reality.

WRONG. Margin of error is the result of a calculation in statistics.
tmiddles wrote:
So if I eyeball the length of nail with a ruler I might be off by +/- 2.0 mms.

Not the margin of error.
tmiddles wrote:
A digital caliper is going to give me the length to 1/100th of a mm, or +/- 0.01 mms.

Not the margin of error.
tmiddles wrote:
So I might think, from my measurement with the caliper that the length is 45.32 MMs, but in truth it's 45.325 MMs, so thats an error of 0.005. That's a margin of error.


Not the margin of error.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
29-12-2019 10:11
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7314)
tmiddles wrote: Range and Margin of Error are not equivalent concepts.

There is no difference between those terms per any definition of "Range" that you have offered.

tmiddles wrote: Margin of Error is the accuracy with which a measurement matches the reality.

Nope, but this is where you need to couch your total ignorance as somehow being my fault.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

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
29-12-2019 14:22
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3324)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: Range and Margin of Error are not equivalent concepts.

There is no difference between those terms
If you made a pie chart of what ITN/IBD debate it would be almost entirely the dictionary:

Definition: RANGE : the space or extent included, covered, or used

Definition: MARGIN OF ERROR ; an amount you allow because there might be a mistake in your calculations:

A "mean" value is determined within a range. The concept of having an "average" or "mean" value is due to the fact that the information for a lot of things has a range of values. That has nothing to do with mistakes, lack of fidelity in instrumentation, or other factors that will cause inaccuracy. The inaccuracy of any measurement or calculation is the margin of error.

They are not the same thing.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them
29-12-2019 18:13
James___
★★★★★
(2994)
Harry C wrote:
It has occurred to me that we are being conditioned to expect something that's unreasonable. Look at the word "climate". According to Merriam Webster, definitions include:

1 : a region of the earth having specified climatic conditions
2a : the average course or condition of the weather at a place usually over a period of years as exhibited by temperature, wind velocity, and precipitation
3 : the prevailing influence or environmental conditions characterizing a group or period


What Climate Scientist want us to believe is unrealistic because they have a variable description of climate. We, as the people that are being manipulated by this ambiguity in language, must demand more. They must define what climate has been with a higher degree of certainty and more specificity of location, weather and time. Since they haven't and can't, why should we be alarmed? We're just 'tilting at windmills'. What's worse, is they have set it up such that it can never ever be declared that anything has been corrected.

I'll leave open the discussion of the physical effect of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere on temperature. However if we can't define the problem any more precisely and the expected result, how do we know it's corrected? Let's say we achieve carbon neutrality and the climate still doesn't conform, which is likely due to the myriad of assumptions that have been "smoothed" to yield the answer they want. Do we get to tar and feather the proponents of the proven (at that time) hoax?

I join the calls that I have read herein to "define climate change". We can't fight what's undefined and nothing more than a colloquial phrase.



And yet you probably can't define life. Some say like is created when a seed is germinated. It is a thing that grows from a seed.
29-12-2019 20:46
Harry CProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(140)
tmiddles wrote:
Harry C wrote:
The way your question reads is that there is a universally accepted temperature that everyone understands. ....Yes, I believe we can know that number. ...it will be insignificant for use in further comparison to other temperatures at the same station ....If you want to be obtuse about it, you can make it a point of disagreement. However it's disingenuous to make an argument about it if you're a thinking person.
ITN/IBD and now GG have said repeatedly as THE definitive shut down of everything on this board that the temperature of Earth cannot be know.

Do you think I am the one making this a point of disagreement? How is that?

It sounds like you concur that the temperature of Denver cannot be known.

What I have said is that EVERYTHING IN THE UNIVERSE has a temperature and that is is ALWAYS a range, never a precise single value. It's not possible for temperature to have one single precise value quantifiable out to an infinite decimal place.

We cannot talk about anything without settling basic facts and that is one.

Thoughts?

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them


Yeah, my thought is that we are being sold a bill of goods where a group of corrupt people are trying to convince is of something they don't know.

Of course everything has a temperature. What's debatable is that the records are accurate and representative enough to rely on as the source of the observations to support the alarm for an increase in global average temperatures.

I don't believe it. And I don't think the IPCC has any integrity as a scientific body.


You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
29-12-2019 20:51
Harry CProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(140)
James___ wrote:
Harry C wrote:
It has occurred to me that we are being conditioned to expect something that's unreasonable. Look at the word "climate". According to Merriam Webster, definitions include:

1 : a region of the earth having specified climatic conditions
2a : the average course or condition of the weather at a place usually over a period of years as exhibited by temperature, wind velocity, and precipitation
3 : the prevailing influence or environmental conditions characterizing a group or period


What Climate Scientist want us to believe is unrealistic because they have a variable description of climate. We, as the people that are being manipulated by this ambiguity in language, must demand more. They must define what climate has been with a higher degree of certainty and more specificity of location, weather and time. Since they haven't and can't, why should we be alarmed? We're just 'tilting at windmills'. What's worse, is they have set it up such that it can never ever be declared that anything has been corrected.

I'll leave open the discussion of the physical effect of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere on temperature. However if we can't define the problem any more precisely and the expected result, how do we know it's corrected? Let's say we achieve carbon neutrality and the climate still doesn't conform, which is likely due to the myriad of assumptions that have been "smoothed" to yield the answer they want. Do we get to tar and feather the proponents of the proven (at that time) hoax?

I join the calls that I have read herein to "define climate change". We can't fight what's undefined and nothing more than a colloquial phrase.



And yet you probably can't define life. Some say like is created when a seed is germinated. It is a thing that grows from a seed.


I live life and make judgments about it every day. I don't need to define it. I am seriously leery of what is supposed to be global warming. So naturally, I'm trying to understand it fully rather than accept something that hasn't earned my trust.


You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
29-12-2019 21:36
Harry CProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(140)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:I call on you to get the heart of the question:
Do you believe the temperature of Denver can be known in any useful way? Simple and direct question for you.

Keep in mind that this is a trap.
No it's some hilariously stupid BS we should always put behind us first on this board in order to have a sane discussion of temperature. You said it IBD, not me.

Harry C wrote:
I read a good book today. WHY SCIENTISTS DISAGREE ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING
...at a minimum, direct evidence of human causation of specified changes that lie outside usual, natural variability. Unless and until such evidence is adduced, the null hypothesis is assumed to be correct....IPCC assumes its implicit hypothesis is correct....

I don't see how anybody with a sense of self respect about making critical decisions cannot be bothered by this.

I would of course agree with you that for the IPCC to assume they have all the answers is absurd.
But you do recognize it's no ones fault this is a tough issue to analyze right?
Cancer is proving very tough to cure but I don't think we should give up because it's hard to make definitive statements about treatment option.

We are not prisoners of the IPCC here. Did you want to stop questioning your own faith that there is nothing to this Global Warming crap because you see their overconfidence as permission to do so?

GasGuzzler wrote:
"Useful way" is also quite unspecified. Useful to who what when where and why?
You tell me. CAN IT BE KNOWN!!??

Harry C wrote:
Money probably isn't ...
Just to clarify is any of the quoted text your own? It sounds like someone talking about the book. What is being quoted?

Also if you don't want to talk to me Harry C just say so. I notice you're ignoring my posts. I can write them with that in mind going forward if that's your intention.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them


No ignore. Was driving all morning. Quoted text was directly out of the book.


You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
29-12-2019 21:58
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13030)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: Range and Margin of Error are not equivalent concepts.

There is no difference between those terms
If you made a pie chart of what ITN/IBD debate it would be almost entirely the dictionary:

Nah. This is YOUR problem. You somehow think that dictionaries define words. They don't.
tmiddles wrote:
...deleted Holy Links...
A "mean" value is determined within a range.

Nope. There is no mean value in any range. A range is simply a range.
tmiddles wrote:
The concept of having an "average" or "mean" value is due to the fact that the information for a lot of things has a range of values.

Nope. A range is simply a range. There is no average or mean value in a range.
tmiddles wrote:
That has nothing to do with mistakes, lack of fidelity in instrumentation, or other factors that will cause inaccuracy.

Correct. There is no average or mean in any of of them.
tmiddles wrote:
The inaccuracy of any measurement or calculation is the margin of error.

WRONG. Not the definition of 'margin of error'. It has already been defined for you. RDCF. RQAA. You are AGAIN confusing 'tolerance' and 'margin of error'. Margin of error is not the inaccuracy of any instrument or inaccuracy of any calculation (calculations don't have inaccuracies other than math errors).


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
Edited on 29-12-2019 21:59
29-12-2019 22:08
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13030)
Harry C wrote:
Yeah, my thought is that we are being sold a bill of goods where a group of corrupt people are trying to convince is of something they don't know.
A very good summation.
Harry C wrote:
Of course everything has a temperature.
Uh...no. Light has no temperature. A perfect vacuum has no temperature. Potential energy has no temperature. Ordered kinetic energy has no temperature. It is more correct to say all mass has a temperature.
Harry C wrote:
What's debatable is that the records are accurate and representative enough to rely on as the source of the observations

Actually, data is the result of an observation. It is what you get when you make an observation. All observations (and the data produced by them) is subject to the problems of phenomenology. They are not a proof, but evidence only.

Science itself does not use supporting evidence. It only uses conflicting evidence. Only religions use supporting evidence.

Harry C wrote:
to support the alarm for an increase in global average temperatures.

I don't believe it. And I don't think the IPCC has any integrity as a scientific body.

A solid conclusion. You could even say it's mathematically based. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. The rules of statistical math describe why. The IPCC has not created or used any theory of science. They deny science AND they deny mathematics. I have also seen them deny history as well.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
29-12-2019 22:13
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13030)
Harry C wrote:
James___ wrote:
Harry C wrote:
It has occurred to me that we are being conditioned to expect something that's unreasonable. Look at the word "climate". According to Merriam Webster, definitions include:

1 : a region of the earth having specified climatic conditions
2a : the average course or condition of the weather at a place usually over a period of years as exhibited by temperature, wind velocity, and precipitation
3 : the prevailing influence or environmental conditions characterizing a group or period


What Climate Scientist want us to believe is unrealistic because they have a variable description of climate. We, as the people that are being manipulated by this ambiguity in language, must demand more. They must define what climate has been with a higher degree of certainty and more specificity of location, weather and time. Since they haven't and can't, why should we be alarmed? We're just 'tilting at windmills'. What's worse, is they have set it up such that it can never ever be declared that anything has been corrected.

I'll leave open the discussion of the physical effect of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere on temperature. However if we can't define the problem any more precisely and the expected result, how do we know it's corrected? Let's say we achieve carbon neutrality and the climate still doesn't conform, which is likely due to the myriad of assumptions that have been "smoothed" to yield the answer they want. Do we get to tar and feather the proponents of the proven (at that time) hoax?

I join the calls that I have read herein to "define climate change". We can't fight what's undefined and nothing more than a colloquial phrase.



And yet you probably can't define life. Some say like is created when a seed is germinated. It is a thing that grows from a seed.


I live life and make judgments about it every day. I don't need to define it. I am seriously leery of what is supposed to be global warming. So naturally, I'm trying to understand it fully rather than accept something that hasn't earned my trust.


One of the big problems with 'global warming' is simply defining it.

To describe anything that is 'warming', one must have at least two observations of a temperature of the same object, taken at different times.

The times are not defined. The time interval is not defined. There is nothing to declare these values, why they are significant, and why any other two points in time are NOT significant.

This is on top of the problem of even trying to measure the temperature of the Earth, which is not possible. We simply don't have anywhere near enough thermometers, what we DO have is not uniformly distributed, and much of the data from these thermometers is cooked in some way (not allowed in statistical math).

Anyone telling you they know the temperature of the Earth is feeding you a bunch of hooey.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
29-12-2019 22:25
James___
★★★★★
(2994)
Harry C wrote:
James___ wrote:
Harry C wrote:
It has occurred to me that we are being conditioned to expect something that's unreasonable. Look at the word "climate". According to Merriam Webster, definitions include:

1 : a region of the earth having specified climatic conditions
2a : the average course or condition of the weather at a place usually over a period of years as exhibited by temperature, wind velocity, and precipitation
3 : the prevailing influence or environmental conditions characterizing a group or period


What Climate Scientist want us to believe is unrealistic because they have a variable description of climate. We, as the people that are being manipulated by this ambiguity in language, must demand more. They must define what climate has been with a higher degree of certainty and more specificity of location, weather and time. Since they haven't and can't, why should we be alarmed? We're just 'tilting at windmills'. What's worse, is they have set it up such that it can never ever be declared that anything has been corrected.

I'll leave open the discussion of the physical effect of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere on temperature. However if we can't define the problem any more precisely and the expected result, how do we know it's corrected? Let's say we achieve carbon neutrality and the climate still doesn't conform, which is likely due to the myriad of assumptions that have been "smoothed" to yield the answer they want. Do we get to tar and feather the proponents of the proven (at that time) hoax?

I join the calls that I have read herein to "define climate change". We can't fight what's undefined and nothing more than a colloquial phrase.



And yet you probably can't define life. Some say like is created when a seed is germinated. It is a thing that grows from a seed.


I live life and make judgments about it every day. I don't need to define it. I am seriously leery of what is supposed to be global warming. So naturally, I'm trying to understand it fully rather than accept something that hasn't earned my trust.


Climate change or global warming is about the same thing definition wise. Question for you. Why did no one find it odd that the IPCC changed the way it collects ocean temperatures only going back to the start of the global warming pause?
Is there a reason why ocean temperatures were taken wrong only during the pause and not before?
That's the difference between the 2013 and 2014 reports.
Brings up another isn't that odd question. How many times has the IPCC issued reports in consecutive years?
29-12-2019 22:42
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13030)
James___ wrote:
Harry C wrote:
James___ wrote:
Harry C wrote:
It has occurred to me that we are being conditioned to expect something that's unreasonable. Look at the word "climate". According to Merriam Webster, definitions include:

1 : a region of the earth having specified climatic conditions
2a : the average course or condition of the weather at a place usually over a period of years as exhibited by temperature, wind velocity, and precipitation
3 : the prevailing influence or environmental conditions characterizing a group or period


What Climate Scientist want us to believe is unrealistic because they have a variable description of climate. We, as the people that are being manipulated by this ambiguity in language, must demand more. They must define what climate has been with a higher degree of certainty and more specificity of location, weather and time. Since they haven't and can't, why should we be alarmed? We're just 'tilting at windmills'. What's worse, is they have set it up such that it can never ever be declared that anything has been corrected.

I'll leave open the discussion of the physical effect of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere on temperature. However if we can't define the problem any more precisely and the expected result, how do we know it's corrected? Let's say we achieve carbon neutrality and the climate still doesn't conform, which is likely due to the myriad of assumptions that have been "smoothed" to yield the answer they want. Do we get to tar and feather the proponents of the proven (at that time) hoax?

I join the calls that I have read herein to "define climate change". We can't fight what's undefined and nothing more than a colloquial phrase.



And yet you probably can't define life. Some say like is created when a seed is germinated. It is a thing that grows from a seed.


I live life and make judgments about it every day. I don't need to define it. I am seriously leery of what is supposed to be global warming. So naturally, I'm trying to understand it fully rather than accept something that hasn't earned my trust.


Climate change or global warming is about the same thing definition wise.

Correct. They are both meaningless buzzwords.
James___ wrote:
Question for you. Why did no one find it odd that the IPCC changed the way it collects ocean temperatures only going back to the start of the global warming pause?

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the ocean. Sampling a spot in the ocean tells you nothing about the rest of the ocean.
James___ wrote:
Is there a reason why ocean temperatures were taken wrong only during the pause and not before?
That's the difference between the 2013 and 2014 reports.
Brings up another isn't that odd question. How many times has the IPCC issued reports in consecutive years?

Meh. Who cares?


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
30-12-2019 04:49
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7314)
James___ wrote: Is there a reason why ocean temperatures were taken wrong only during the pause and not before?

James__, you were a Navy guy, right? You should know that the US Navy has been taking very accurate ocean temperatures, at the surface and at all depths for the last eight decades. The US Navy has analyzed temperature, pressure, salinity, pH, and everything about the ocean in order to make better and better weapon systems to fight in it. The US Navy has performed very high resolution mapping of the ocean floor so the US government can provide Safety of Navigation products to the US allies.

The question is: "Why doesn't the IPCC consider any of this data?"

Oh, the US Air Force provides the same but for atmospherics. The IPCC hasn't shown any interest in any of that non-fabricated data either. Hmmmm.

Oh, the US Army, and the Army Corps of Engineers has environmental data beyond imagination. Would you be surprised to learn that the IPCC never expressed any interest in any of that data either?


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

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
30-12-2019 08:08
James___
★★★★★
(2994)
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote: Is there a reason why ocean temperatures were taken wrong only during the pause and not before?

James__, you were a Navy guy, right? You should know that the US Navy has been taking very accurate ocean temperatures, at the surface and at all depths for the last eight decades. The US Navy has analyzed temperature, pressure, salinity, pH, and everything about the ocean in order to make better and better weapon systems to fight in it. The US Navy has performed very high resolution mapping of the ocean floor so the US government can provide Safety of Navigation products to the US allies.

The question is: "Why doesn't the IPCC consider any of this data?"

Oh, the US Air Force provides the same but for atmospherics. The IPCC hasn't shown any interest in any of that non-fabricated data either. Hmmmm.

Oh, the US Army, and the Army Corps of Engineers has environmental data beyond imagination. Would you be surprised to learn that the IPCC never expressed any interest in any of that data either?


.



It's kind of like the warm water off the west coast. I think they say shifting wind patterns rather than sending in a submarine to see if there's an underwater soutce. They limit the scope of the information they use to support their opinions.
30-12-2019 12:22
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3324)
Harry C wrote:
...my thought is that we are being sold a bill of goods where a group of corrupt people are trying to convince is of something they don't know....
so wouldn't you agree the strongest arguments should be made and not this stupid sh#t about nothing can be known.

Check out Pat Franks argument: Link

Harry C wrote:
I don't think the IPCC has any integrity as a scientific body.
Great lets prove it. You can absolutely debunk BS as I have with ITN/IBD.

Harry C wrote:
Quoted text was directly out of the book.
ok cool thanks for clarifying
So the book states:
The merits and demerits of post-normal science can be debated, but it undoubtedly has one consequence of significance in the climate change debate: Scientists are no longer responsible for actually doing science themselves, such as testing hypotheses, studying data, and confronting data or theories that contradict the "consensus" position.
it seems they depart pretty liberally from quoting those they are assigning positions to here. I love doing this to IBD just to annoy him but he's a joke so no matter. They should do better and I don't see any real substance in what you've quoted. They are essentially saying a scientific crime is or will be committed without showing us what it was. Again I'd encourage you to check out Pat Franks above. He's a well qualified Stanford professor with no finacial motive and he shows things going sideways with journals refusing to publish his skeptical work. He describes in his video how editors of journals on climate change didnt even understand the basics of the margin of error in work that had been published.

If the books are being cooked is it the first time and the first issue/cause? Has it happened before? I'm asking sincerely. It would be useful to look at a past hysteria for reference.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them
Edited on 30-12-2019 12:42
30-12-2019 20:48
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13030)
tmiddles wrote:
Harry C wrote:
...my thought is that we are being sold a bill of goods where a group of corrupt people are trying to convince is of something they don't know....
so wouldn't you agree the strongest arguments should be made and not this stupid sh#t about nothing can be known.

Check out Pat Franks argument: Link

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. False authority fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
Harry C wrote:
I don't think the IPCC has any integrity as a scientific body.
Great lets prove it.

Attempted force of negative proof fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
You can absolutely debunk BS as I have with ITN/IBD.

Lie.
tmiddles wrote:
Harry C wrote:
Quoted text was directly out of the book.
ok cool thanks for clarifying
So the book states:
The merits and demerits of post-normal science can be debated,

There is no such thing as 'post-normal science'. Buzzword fallacy. Void argument fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
but it undoubtedly has one consequence of significance in the climate change debate:

Define 'climate change'. Buzzword fallacy. Void argument fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
Scientists are no longer responsible for actually doing science themselves,

Science isn't a verb. Redefinition fallacy. Try English. It works better.
tmiddles wrote:
such as testing hypotheses, studying data, and confronting data or theories that contradict the "consensus" position.

Science does not use consensus. Science isn't data.
tmiddles wrote:
it seems they depart pretty liberally from quoting those they are assigning positions to here. I love doing this to IBD just to annoy him but he's a joke so no matter.

YALIF.
tmiddles wrote:
They should do better and I don't see any real substance in what you've quoted.

There doesn't seem to be any. Void arguments are of no substance whatsoever.
tmiddles wrote:
They are essentially saying a scientific crime is or will be committed without showing us what it was.

There is no such thing as a 'scientific crime'. Science isn't a law or a crime.
tmiddles wrote:
Again I'd encourage you to check out Pat Franks above.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
tmiddles wrote:
He's a well qualified Stanford professor

He can't measure the temperature of the Earth either. Science is not a university, license, degree, or any other credential.
tmiddles wrote:
with no finacial motive

Government grants.
tmiddles wrote:
and he shows things going sideways with journals refusing to publish his skeptical work.

Science isn't journals or a magazine of any kind.
tmiddles wrote:
He describes in his video how editors of journals on climate change

Define 'climate change'.
tmiddles wrote:
didnt even understand the basics of the margin of error in work that had been published.

You don't understand what a margin of error is either.
tmiddles wrote:
If the books are being cooked is it the first time and the first issue/cause?

Are the rare or well done?
tmiddles wrote:
Has it happened before? I'm asking sincerely. It would be useful to look at a past hysteria for reference.

Hysteria isn't a reference. False authority fallacy.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
30-12-2019 21:04
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7314)
James___ wrote: It's kind of like the warm water off the west coast. I think they say shifting wind patterns rather than sending in a submarine to see if there's an underwater soutce. They limit the scope of the information they use to support their opinions.

Exactly. Valid datasets exist for those who want it. The IPCC simply doesn't want any.

This is why you should be a little more vocal about tmiddles' attempt to portray the IPCC as a credible, science organization.


Godt nytt år

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

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
30-12-2019 21:27
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2204)
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote: Is there a reason why ocean temperatures were taken wrong only during the pause and not before?

James__, you were a Navy guy, right? You should know that the US Navy has been taking very accurate ocean temperatures, at the surface and at all depths for the last eight decades. The US Navy has analyzed temperature, pressure, salinity, pH, and everything about the ocean in order to make better and better weapon systems to fight in it. The US Navy has performed very high resolution mapping of the ocean floor so the US government can provide Safety of Navigation products to the US allies.

The question is: "Why doesn't the IPCC consider any of this data?"

Oh, the US Air Force provides the same but for atmospherics. The IPCC hasn't shown any interest in any of that non-fabricated data either. Hmmmm.

Oh, the US Army, and the Army Corps of Engineers has environmental data beyond imagination. Would you be surprised to learn that the IPCC never expressed any interest in any of that data either?


.


Can the Navy tell us how much the sea levels have risen over the past twenty years. It scares me to death, living Florida. I want to know how long I have to sell my home, and move further inland... Oh, wait... I already live pretty much in the middle of the state. Why doesn't the Navy tell Al Gore he's full of BS on the sea level issue. Navy produces a considerable quantity of planet killing CO2, and proud of it, too.




Join the debate Climate:

Remember me

▲ 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 © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact