Remember me
▼ Content

climate scientists are glasses wearing geeks who were dorks when they were kids and


climate scientists are glasses wearing geeks who were dorks when they were kids and29-12-2015 03:03
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1041)
they were bullied in school because they were geeky and anti social and never got layed. Is this why climate scientists want to take out their vengeance on society?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/thenational/is-shading-the-earth-from-the-sun-a-solution-to-climate-change-1.3382102


Edited on 29-12-2015 03:28
29-12-2015 11:36
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Appart from being a troll do you have a real point here?
Edited on 29-12-2015 11:36
29-12-2015 13:30
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4230)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
they were bullied in school because they were geeky and anti social and never got layed.

The problem with your assertion is that nerdy geeks actually exist whereas "climate" scientists do not.

There is no such thing as a scientist of a religious deity.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
29-12-2015 15:14
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1041)
IBdaMann wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
they were bullied in school because they were geeky and anti social and never got layed.

The problem with your assertion is that nerdy geeks actually exist whereas "climate" scientists do not.

There is no such thing as a scientist of a religious deity.


.


That's correct. Climate science is a fake science.
29-12-2015 16:34
Barts
★☆☆☆☆
(52)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
they were bullied in school because they were geeky and anti social and never got layed. Is this why climate scientists want to take out their vengeance on society?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/thenational/is-shading-the-earth-from-the-sun-a-solution-to-climate-change-1.3382102



That's either: a poor joke (it's not even funny, just poor)
simplistic thinking, if you're serious about it.
29-12-2015 21:39
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4230)
Barts wrote: That's either: a poor joke (it's not even funny, just poor) simplistic thinking, if you're serious about it.

Don't pout just because he's got you pegged. You don't have to be a loser forever. What has happened is in the past.

If you think that being a Global Warming worshipper will transform you into a somebody, you are mistaken. To get out of your rut, you're going to have to put in some cognitive effort and actually learn.

The first step in your journey involves you ditching your WACKY Global Warming religion and ceasing to be a gullible leftist dupe.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
29-12-2015 22:32
Barts
★☆☆☆☆
(52)
IBdaMann wrote:
Barts wrote: That's either: a poor joke (it's not even funny, just poor) simplistic thinking, if you're serious about it.

Don't pout just because he's got you pegged. You don't have to be a loser forever. What has happened is in the past.

If you think that being a Global Warming worshipper will transform you into a somebody, you are mistaken. To get out of your rut, you're going to have to put in some cognitive effort and actually learn.

The first step in your journey involves you ditching your WACKY Global Warming religion and ceasing to be a gullible leftist dupe.


You do know you're the one whose opinions are considered WACKY by the world don't you?

Just as an aside, tell me something, please: what do you think about 9/11? Who were the authors? How about the moon landing? Was it real or made up by leftist dupes to advance an agenda?
29-12-2015 22:59
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1041)
Personally, I do not respect climate scientists. They are political scientists. They are not natural scientists. They do not do experiments. They only do models, all of which are badly wrong.
29-12-2015 23:14
Barts
★☆☆☆☆
(52)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Personally, I do not respect climate scientists. They are political scientists. They are not natural scientists. They do not do experiments. They only do models, all of which are badly wrong.


You're so wrong that I begin to question myself if you're just throwing stuff into the air to see if it sticks. Climate Science has got nothing to do with political science, whatever that is. It's an Earth science, dude. Here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatology


Climatology (...) or climate science is the study of climate, scientifically defined as weather conditions averaged over a period of time.[1] This modern field of study is regarded as a branch of the atmospheric sciences and a subfield of physical geography, which is one of the Earth sciences.
30-12-2015 21:02
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4230)
Barts wrote: You do know you're the one whose opinions are considered WACKY by the world don't you?

The single most pronounced tell-tale sign of a WACKY, fanatical religious devotee is the delusion that s/he somehow speaks for countless unnamed others or for some higher deity. I notice that you believe you speak for "the world." I bet that belief affords you some comfort.

I cite science. I know you call it "wacky" but you consider it your greatest threat and you EVADE it at all costs. When you do, you rush to the comfort of your religion where your clergy tells you exactly what you want to hear.

Barts wrote:Just as an aside, tell me something, please: what do you think about 9/11? Who were the authors? How about the moon landing? Was it real or made up by leftist dupes to advance an agenda?

Just as an aside, tell me something please: do you believe that "climate" is punishing humanity with extreme weather for its sins of homosexuality? Do you believe that Global Warming will bring about the end of the world? Does "climate" change in mysterious ways?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
30-12-2015 21:09
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4230)
Barts wrote:Climate Science has got nothing to do with political science, whatever that is.

"climate" science is a religious (political) interest group. It has nothing to do with actual science. A direct parallel would be Jerry Fallwell's "Megachurch".

Barts wrote: It's an Earth science, dude. Here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatology

You cited Wikipedia. Your argument is summarily dismissed.

Hint: you need to cite authoritative sources.

Hint: maybe your problem all along is that you get your (mis)information from Wikipedia.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
30-12-2015 21:13
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4230)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Personally, I do not respect climate scientists. They are political scientists. They are not natural scientists. They do not do experiments. They only do models, all of which are badly wrong.

Tai Hai chen, you are once again completely correct.

"climate models" are shams. Those who program the computers infuse violations of physics into the relationships and formulae of their programs to ensure the programs render the desired, predetermined results.

"climate models" are shining examples of proving what is already assumed, and they assume Global Warming to be true, and they assume "greenhouse effect" to be true, and the computer programs tell them exactly what they are programmed to say.

How likely is it that you will ever be shown the "science" that is behind the model?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
30-12-2015 21:30
Barts
★☆☆☆☆
(52)
IBdaMann wrote:
Barts wrote: You do know you're the one whose opinions are considered WACKY by the world don't you?

The single most pronounced tell-tale sign of a WACKY, fanatical religious devotee is the delusion that s/he somehow speaks for countless unnamed others or for some higher deity. I notice that you believe you speak for "the world." I bet that belief affords you some comfort.


It's not really a delusion, it's the reality. I don't claim to speak for countless unnamed others, but to replicate what the World says, or in other words, the people that are heard by the world: for some reason I'm able to quote from Wikipedia, scientific papers or renowned scientists to support my case. You can't make a proper quote, and if by chance you make some, I'm betting you'll quote from a "blog" or people whose opinions are meaningless for the World scientific bodies, encyclopedias, knowledge-gatherers, policy-makers, renowned journalists, etc, etc..

I cite science.

Where? I haven't seen you cite anything so far. I have seen your pall link to "youtube videos" (hehehe), but I wouldn't go so far to say youtuber = scientist.


I know you call it "wacky" but you consider it your greatest threat and you EVADE it at all costs. When you do, you rush to the comfort of your religion where your clergy tells you exactly what you want to hear.

I don't call it "wacky science", because I don't call it science at all. I'd say it's an opinion by someone that is not currently connected with reality: the some way some people think the moon landings were hoaxes, the earth is flat, etc, etc: opinions by people that for some reason need outlandish explanations for the stuff they can't understand.


Barts wrote:Just as an aside, tell me something, please: what do you think about 9/11? Who were the authors? How about the moon landing? Was it real or made up by leftist dupes to advance an agenda?

Just as an aside, tell me something please: do you believe that "climate" is punishing humanity with extreme weather for its sins of homosexuality? Do you believe that Global Warming will bring about the end of the world? Does "climate" change in mysterious ways?


.

No.
Not really.
At this time and age, don't think so.

Duly noted you failed to answer my curiosity, pall.
30-12-2015 21:39
Barts
★☆☆☆☆
(52)
IBdaMann wrote:
Barts wrote:Climate Science has got nothing to do with political science, whatever that is.

"climate" science is a religious (political) interest group. It has nothing to do with actual science. A direct parallel would be Jerry Fallwell's "Megachurch".

That's your belief. It's not based on reality from what I can tell, it seems engraved with conspiratorial thinking, what I imagine is the point of view you take to interpret the world.

From what I can see, it's made by scientists, published in scientific journals, reviewed by peers, based on evidence, applying the scientific method, according to the scientific paradigms: all the hallmarks of proper science.

Barts wrote: It's an Earth science, dude. Here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatology

You cited Wikipedia. Your argument is summarily dismissed.

Lol, that easy?
I think it's ok to quote from an encyclopedia to quote definitions.


Hint: you need to cite authoritative sources.

The way I see it, it's authoritative enough, for the purposes of this conversation and establishing a definition, climatology and what kind of science it is. Please quote from somewhere else. I'm betting you can't even find a nutty blog saying climate science is not an Earth science.


Holding pattern..


Hint: maybe your problem all along is that you get your (mis)information from Wikipedia.

.

It's appropriate enough. Based on proper sources, easy to access and easy to link.
30-12-2015 23:49
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4230)
Barts wrote: That's your belief. It's not based on reality from what I can tell,

We have established that you cannot "tell" reality from religious dogma.

Please explain how your religion claims that "greenhouse gas" causes a "greenhouse effect" that increases temperature.

Barts wrote: From what I can see, it's made by scientists, published in scientific journals, reviewed by peers, based on evidence, applying the scientific method, according to the scientific paradigms: all the hallmarks of proper science.

So you think that if a political leftist writes an article for a magazine, that was proofread by another wacko leftist, ...that the world now has science?

Do you believe that the scientific method painstakingly collects supporting evidence of given hypotheses?

Who is the final approval authority for science? When does research get the green light to become "science"?

Barts wrote: I think it's ok to quote from an encyclopedia to quote definitions.

Didn't your teachers ever tell you to not do that? There's a reason for it.

Wikipedia is not an authoritative source. In fact, it is a completely biased radical leftist propaganda source. Everything you read on Wikipedia about Global Warming, for example, is going to be wrong. You can certainly use Wikipedia to point you to citable authoritative sources, but you can't cite Wikipedia itself. Anything you read in Wikipedia could have been written moments prior by some confused wacko leftist, and everything is "quality checked" by some other confused wacko leftist. Yes, it's entirely political.

However, since you consider Wikipedia to be akin to a church hymnal, telling you to quote other sources will be like telling a Christian to not quote the Bible.

I'm just telling you up front that if you quote the Bible or if you quote Wikipedia, it doesn't matter, it will be summarily dismissed.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
31-12-2015 00:47
Barts
★☆☆☆☆
(52)
IBdaMann wrote:
Barts wrote: That's your belief. It's not based on reality from what I can tell,

We have established that you cannot "tell" reality from religious dogma.

No, we haven't

Please explain how your religion claims that "greenhouse gas" causes a "greenhouse effect" that increases temperature.

Already done that. The wikipedia explanation seems to be the easiest way to put it in order to be understand. Can't do more than that, sorry.

Barts wrote: From what I can see, it's made by scientists, published in scientific journals, reviewed by peers, based on evidence, applying the scientific method, according to the scientific paradigms: all the hallmarks of proper science.

So you think that if a political leftist writes an article for a magazine, that was proofread by another wacko leftist, ...that the world now has science?

Not "political leftists", that's your prejudice talking.
Not magazines, scientific journals. There's an important distinction
Not "proofread", peer-reviewed.

Yep, that's the scientific process, as we know it today

Do you believe that the scientific method painstakingly collects supporting evidence of given hypotheses?

I wouldn't use that language. It puts hypotheses to the painstaking test, collecting evidence in the process, forming consensus between peers, finally turning them into fact, that's how I would put it.

Who is the final approval authority for science? When does research get the green light to become "science"?

I don't think there's a "final approval": you see, this denounces your prejudice, the confusion you make between science and religion; no wonder you have difficulties in distinguishing them.

If the research obeys to the process exposed above, it's always "science".

Barts wrote: I think it's ok to quote from an encyclopedia to quote definitions.

Didn't your teachers ever tell you to not do that? There's a reason for it.

Wikipedia is not an authoritative source. In fact, it is a completely biased radical leftist propaganda source.

I don't agree. It follows editorial policies of sourcing its material in authoritative sources

Everything you read on Wikipedia about Global Warming, for example, is going to be wrong.

Again, you're making baseless claims without justification. You might as well have written we never went to the moon, it's the same kind of nonsense.

You can certainly use Wikipedia to point you to citable authoritative sources, but you can't cite Wikipedia itself.

That's nonsense. If you ackowledge they use authoritative sources, why would you question its content? What follows is that its content is also authoritative since its sources are. You need to improve your logical capabilities.

Anything you read in Wikipedia could have been written moments prior by some confused wacko leftist, and everything is "quality checked" by some other confused wacko leftist. Yes, it's entirely political.

Again, conspiratorial thinking. Would you please answer my questions from before? I'm genuinely curious to know your views about the moon landing and 9/11.
In my view, Wikipedia is good enough for the purposes of a forum discussion

Not political, it follows rules and adequate policies:

Search for "Wikipedia Policies and guidelines", all the nonsense prejudices you have will dissipate, friend.

You could argue that those policies, the same kind serious newspapers follow are leftish and I would agree, but only because that's the left values: truth and justice above all


However, since you consider Wikipedia to be akin to a church hymnal

Nope.

, telling you to quote other sources will be like telling a Christian to not quote the Bible.

I just did. You just ignored them, maybe because... you wouldn't be able to reply with your pre-formatted mode of thinking, I guess


I'm just telling you up front that if you quote the Bible or if you quote Wikipedia, it doesn't matter, it will be summarily dismissed.

That's your problem, not mine. I can't force you to be truthful, honest or just. That's a moral choice you'll have to do on your own.


.

!
31-12-2015 01:57
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4230)
Barts wrote:Already done that. The wikipedia explanation seems to be the easiest way to put it in order to be understand. Can't do more than that, sorry.

Then your best is not good enough. I am well aware of what is in Wikipedia and it's wrong.

Barts wrote: Not magazines, scientific journals. There's an important distinction

You dodged the question. If a leftist wacko writes an article for a magazine, you think that's science.

Barts wrote: Not "proofread", peer-reviewed.

As far as you are concerned, that's all it needs to be. I'll give you a hint, your understanding of what science and the scientific method are is laughable. the reason I asked you the questions below was to get you to provide the predictable answers of a scientifically illiterate religious devotee.

Look, I'm not interested in taking away your faith. It's just that you have this ridiculous penchant for trying to tell others that your cooky religion is "science" while admitting, and demonstrating, that you don't even understand the most fundamental basics.

How many people are you going to call "confused" for refusing to fall for the same scam that sucked you in? Others are happy to leave you and your science denial in peace.

Barts wrote: I wouldn't use that language. [The scientific method] puts hypotheses to the painstaking test, collecting evidence in the process, forming consensus between peers, finally turning them into fact, that's how I would put it.

I thought as much. You're so confused you really should just be quietly observing, listening (reading) and trying to learn. All you're doing is preaching a dying religion that has little time remaining.

First, the scientific method does nothing to collect evidence to support any theory or hypothesis. Evidence is that which indicates something might be true. The scientific method simply takes falsifiable models and tries to prove them false, and it does so by cherry-picking those measurements/data/values/observations that are most likely to effectively falsify and build experiments around them. The scientific method cares nothing for "supporting evidence" that indicates a model might be true.

Religions, on the other hand, are all about finding "supporting evidence" to keep the faithful believing...which is why "supporting evidence" is always so important to Global Warming believers. Hey, the Shroud of Turin is all the evidence you need to know that Jesus is your savior, and last week's mild heat wave is more evidence that Global Warming is real and active in our lives, yes?

Secondly, science is based on the inherent truth of falsifiable models and not on any quantity of subjective opinion. Consensus never plays any role in science whatsoever. Consensus, however, is the bread and butter of religion and politics, which is why it is so crucial to the Global Warming religion. It is why warmizombies all feel the need to pretend to speak for countless unnamed others (and to claim to speak for science when they admit to not knowing a laboratory from a labrador retriever) and why the best their retorts ever get is to claim that an army of unnamed invisible scientists disagree (none of whom ever seem to be present to be cross-examined).

Thirdly, no peer review is required for science. If the pizza boy has an epiphany on his way to a delivery and scribbles the falsifiable model right on the lid of a pizza box, takes a pic with his iPhone and posts it on Facebook without getting anyone's input, the rest of the world is free scrutinize it, test it, discuss it and most importantly the rest of the world is free to use it to predict nature. No one owns science. No one's permission is required for science to be published. No peer review is required. No publishing in any journal is needed. No one gets any sort of veto.

Fourthly, no falsifiable model ever becomes a fact. Ever. At best we accept the current body of science as true only because we haven't been able to show any of it false, but any part of it could potentially be falsifisfied tomorrow. As Einstein said no amount of experiments could prove any of his theories true but just one could render any one of them false.

In short, your brief description of your perception of the scientific method encapsulated so many egregious errors in your underlying understanding of science that there isn't any way anything that is based on that misunderstanding could really have a chance at being correct. But you know this and admit as much. You just believe what your clergy tells you to believe. What gets me is why you can be so easily convinced that WACKY religious dogma is somehow science. I realize that no one likes to think of him/herself as gullible but you apparently are.

Barts wrote: If the research obeys to the process exposed above, it's always "science".

Thank you. Like I said, if a leftist wacko publishes a proof-read article in a magazine then he has followed the "process" and is always "science." I got it. That's a beautiful belief that you have. Mystical. Wonderful. Oh, would such an article be called a "text" in your denomination?

Barts wrote: I don't agree. It follows editorial policies of sourcing its material in authoritative sources

Sometimes, but not always, and never when it comes to contentiously political topics like Global Warming. I'm not going to repeat my story here but I used to be a Wikipedia contributor and Wikipedia will not tolerate adherence to their own stated policies if it means altering one word of the radical leftist party line.

So, no. If you cite Wikipedia, expect summary dismissal. I'm not saying you can't cite Wikipedia. I'm just advising you of what to expect when you do.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
31-12-2015 04:11
Barts
★☆☆☆☆
(52)
IBdaMann wrote:
Barts wrote:Already done that. The wikipedia explanation seems to be the easiest way to put it in order to be understand. Can't do more than that, sorry.

Then your best is not good enough. I am well aware of what is in Wikipedia and it's wrong.

Then just provide better sources, dude.. I've been waiting all night and you haven't provided a single source..



Barts wrote: Not magazines, scientific journals. There's an important distinction

You dodged the question. If a leftist wacko writes an article for a magazine, you think that's science.

No I don't. What gave you that idea? You're again making stuff up about what other posters say, you shouldn't do that if you have interest your posts gaining respect.

Barts wrote: Not "proofread", peer-reviewed.

As far as you are concerned, that's all it needs to be. I'll give you a hint, your understanding of what science and the scientific method are is laughable.

yet you can't point out where my understanding fails..

the reason I asked you the questions below was to get you to provide the predictable answers of a scientifically illiterate religious devotee.

hmmmm

Look, I'm not interested in taking away your faith. It's just that you have this ridiculous penchant for trying to tell others that your cooky religion is "science" while admitting, and demonstrating, that you don't even understand the most fundamental basics.

Nope, haven't admitted that, I've explained the basics more than once: the blanket theory is very straightfoward and easy to grasp.

How many people are you going to call "confused" for refusing to fall for the same scam that sucked you in? Others are happy to leave you and your science denial in peace.

I'm not sure I called you confused for accepting or not accepting whatever. I called you confused because you confused religion with science. Again, you're talking nonsense (and you're confused again)


Barts wrote: I wouldn't use that language. [The scientific method] puts hypotheses to the painstaking test, collecting evidence in the process, forming consensus between peers, finally turning them into fact, that's how I would put it.

I thought as much. You're so confused you really should just be quietly observing, listening (reading) and trying to learn. All you're doing is preaching a dying religion that has little time remaining.

I can't seem to point out anything you wrote that made sense, worthy of reading. Sorry about that..


First, the scientific method does nothing to collect evidence to support any theory or hypothesis.

You're talking nonsense again, friend:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method


The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry is commonly based on empirical or measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning



Evidence is that which indicates something might be true. The scientific method simply takes falsifiable models and tries to prove them false,

haven't said otherwise

and it does so by cherry-picking those measurements/data/values/observations that are most likely to effectively falsify and build experiments around them. The scientific method cares nothing for "supporting evidence" that indicates a model might be true.

It does care for evidence, because the goal is to refine hypothesis until they are deemed consensual among the scientists. It needs evidence for that because scientists are ethically bound to require evidence to believe in something. It's kinda the idea and what distinguishes science from other knowledge-gathering processes



Religions, on the other hand, are all about finding "supporting evidence" to keep the faithful believing...which is why "supporting evidence" is always so important to Global Warming believers.

I disagree. Religion doesn't care about evidence, it's only about explaining the world so people can cope with it. I've characterized your thinking as conspiratorial before, I'd also add it's also religious in some way, because it doesn't seem to require evidence (you've been asked before for it, and haven't replied)


Hey, the Shroud of Turin is all the evidence you need to know that Jesus is your savior, and last week's mild heat wave is more evidence that Global Warming is real and active in our lives, yes?

Not sure what you're talking about. It seems nonsense, once again.

Secondly, science is based on the inherent truth of falsifiable models and not on any quantity of subjective opinion. Consensus never plays any role in science whatsoever.

Wrong again! Boy, you're weak:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus


Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity.



Consensus, however, is the bread and butter of religion and politics, which is why it is so crucial to the Global Warming religion. It is why warmizombies all feel the need to pretend to speak for countless unnamed others (and to claim to speak for science when they admit to not knowing a laboratory from a labrador retriever) and why the best their retorts ever get is to claim that an army of unnamed invisible scientists disagree (none of whom ever seem to be present to be cross-examined).

I can't possibly imagine who are you refering. Again, you seem to be inventing stuff about "others" and what "others" say. Why not providing a quotation saying that, quote me, please, since I'm the one arguing?


Thirdly, no peer review is required for science. If the pizza boy has an epiphany on his way to a delivery and scribbles the falsifiable model right on the lid of a pizza box, takes a pic with his iPhone and posts it on Facebook without getting anyone's input, the rest of the world is free scrutinize it, test it, discuss it and most importantly the rest of the world is free to use it to predict nature. No one owns science. No one's permission is required for science to be published. No peer review is required. No publishing in any journal is needed. No one gets any sort of veto.

It is required nowadays, dude. No other method has been devised so far that's able to keep nonsense outside of science, which is kinda the goal. It's a shame that the pizza boy can't create science these days, but I'm fairly confident we've advanced enough in science to be sure new scientific knowledge requires some study of previous knowledge that delivering pizza for a living just is not enough.. In other words, science doesn't lose much by requiring publication and peer reviewing as the pizza boy's opinion on something is likely not to be new or to be wrong if it's something "new".


Fourthly, no falsifiable model ever becomes a fact.

It's a fact until it's disproven by science, that's what's generally accepted.

Ever. At best we accept the current body of science as true only because we haven't been able to show any of it false, but any part of it could potentially be falsifisfied tomorrow. As Einstein said no amount of experiments could prove any of his theories true but just one could render any one of them false.

Right. So, what's your problem of my usage of fact?

In short, your brief description of your perception of the scientific method encapsulated so many egregious errors in your underlying understanding of science that there isn't any way anything that is based on that misunderstanding could really have a chance at being correct.

None that you could point out in a sensable matter. All your "objections" or attempts at objecting have been properly addressed.

But you know this and admit as much. You just believe what your clergy tells you to believe. What gets me is why you can be so easily convinced that WACKY religious dogma is somehow science. I realize that no one likes to think of him/herself as gullible but you apparently are.

Again, you're the one bringing religion into the discussion: I haven't mention religion or dogmatic methodologies once in my approach to the discussion.. You seem obsessed, for some reason, with religion..


Barts wrote: If the research obeys to the process exposed above, it's always "science".

Thank you. Like I said, if a leftist wacko publishes a proof-read article in a magazine then he has followed the "process" and is always "science."

Nope, that's not what is meant by research. You'd be correct to ackowledge the context of "research" is scientific, not "articles" nor "magazines". You're projecting, I think-


I got it. That's a beautiful belief that you have. Mystical. Wonderful. Oh, would such an article be called a "text" in your denomination?

Again, you're the one mentioning articles, whatever that means.

Barts wrote: I don't agree. It follows editorial policies of sourcing its material in authoritative sources

Sometimes, but not always, and never when it comes to contentiously political topics like Global Warming.

From my understanding, the editorial policies are strictly enforced particularly in contentious matters, or other matters that ideologues might have an interest in perverting, like Global Warming. If you had read what I suggested you'd realised that. Global Warming topics are semi-protected in wiki:


Semi-protection prevents edits from unregistered users (IP addresses), as well as edits from any account that is not autoconfirmed (is at least four days old and has at least ten edits to Wikipedia) or confirmed. This level of protection is useful when there is a significant amount of disruption or vandalism from new or unregistered users, and/or to prevent sock puppets of blocked or banned users from editing, especially when it occurs on biographies of living persons who have had a recent high level of media interest. An alternative to semi-protection is pending changes, which is sometimes favoured when an article is being vandalised regularly, but otherwise receives a low amount of editing.


which defeats your objection that topics might be vandalised from unknown users.

I'm not going to repeat my story here but I used to be a Wikipedia contributor and Wikipedia will not tolerate adherence to their own stated policies if it means altering one word of the radical leftist party line.

Ohh, poor IB.. Do repeat your story, please. Were you expeled from Wikipedia? Are you upset about it? Do you still cry yourself to sleep because of it?

I'm here for you. Open yourself.


So, no. If you cite Wikipedia, expect summary dismissal. I'm not saying you can't cite Wikipedia. I'm just advising you of what to expect when you do.

And I dismiss your dismissal, basically because you don't provide anything stronger (you don't provide anything, only your "word", really), and you ignored scientific papers when you were presented with them in the context of the discussion.



.

!
31-12-2015 07:02
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Personally, I do not respect climate scientists. They are political scientists. They are not natural scientists. They do not do experiments. They only do models, all of which are badly wrong.


Personally, I don't respect scientifically illiterate turkeys who don't have a clue what they are talking about yet think they are 'experts' and try to trash science and scientists on anonymous internet forums.

This is Professor Richard B. Alley's Curriculum Vitae:

http://www.geosc.psu.edu/sites/default/files/alley_vita_long_nov15.pdf

What's yours?

This is Prof Alley presenting on the history of the earth's climate at the National Academy of Sciences 2015 Symposium:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujkcTZZlikg

You've probably even seen ice-core graphs based on his research and didn't even know it.

What research have you done? Surfing the net looking for tabloid press articles and blogs and youtube videos by laypeople mindlessly parroting whatever you see? Even if its total junk science and totally contradicts a previous 'expert' claim you made?

You earned a place in my signature for incredibly stupid statements.



Edited on 31-12-2015 07:21
31-12-2015 08:33
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4230)
Barts wrote:
Then just provide better sources, dude.. I've been waiting all night and you haven't provided a single source..

I provided science. Your scientific illiteracy does not obligate me to search the internet for basic tutorials that can bring you up to speed.

Barts wrote: No I don't. What gave you that idea?

It was your description of what you believe.

Barts wrote:yet you can't point out where my understanding fails..

Your understanding fails where science begins. You cannot express in your own words the concepts supposedly behind the words you use. It's absurd for you to demand I be more specific in critiquing your vague nonsense.

Barts wrote:I'm not sure I called you confused for accepting or not accepting whatever.

the only thing about which you are sure is what your clergy tells you to believe.

Barts wrote: You're talking nonsense again, friend:

Your denial is noted.

Barts wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Dismissed.

Barts wrote: haven't said otherwise

Well, not clearly at least.

Barts wrote: It does care for evidence, because

No it doesn't. Go back to underlining passages in your Wikipedia.

Barts wrote: the goal is to refine hypothesis until they are deemed consensual among the scientists.

Your erroneous belief that subjective opinion and "consensus" somehow play roles in science is noted. Your confusion about terms relating to science is also noted.

Barts wrote: Not sure what you're talking about. It seems nonsense, once again.

Over your head? I'll try to sufficiently dumb it down for you next time.

Barts wrote: It is required nowadays, dude.

Your egregious misunderstanding of science is noted.

Barts wrote: Again, you're the one bringing religion into the discussion:

No, you are. You are bringing your WACKY religious beliefs that you accept purely on faith without questioning or doubting.

I bring only science that I cite and explain but which you deny because it contradicts the gibberish you claim based on your WACKY religious faith.

Ditch the religion and stop denying science and maybe you'll make progress. You and I both know, however, that that is highly unlikely.

Again, just get your Global Warming prayer rug and go back to reading Wikipedia.

Barts wrote:From my understanding, the editorial policies are strictly enforced particularly in contentious matters,

Your understanding is 180-degrees out of sync with reality. People who are very leftist politically ensure party line claims are not reworded. They lock it down, even if the statements do not align with the stated policy.

So I stopped trying and now I don't contribute.

Barts wrote: And I dismiss your dismissal,

No doubt.

Barts wrote: basically because you don't provide anything stronger (you don't provide anything, only your "word", really),

I haven't provided my word and I haven't asked anyone to believe anything. I simply cite science. I can always count on the scientifically illiterate like yourself to demand that I prove science is correct.

I prefer to just let you worship Global Warming in peace. Pray away.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
31-12-2015 14:55
Barts
★☆☆☆☆
(52)
IBdaMann wrote:
Barts wrote:
Then just provide better sources, dude.. I've been waiting all night and you haven't provided a single source..

I provided science. Your scientific illiteracy does not obligate me to search the internet for basic tutorials that can bring you up to speed.

You haven't provided anything. And you keep refusing to do so when asked to. That tells me the obvious: no rational defense to your nonsense is possible.

Barts wrote: No I don't. What gave you that idea?

It was your description of what you believe.

Nope. I specifically said "scientific journals", not "magazines". You're the one that inserted that. You're confused again. I'd never say that "what's written in magazines is science". Look, this is what I said:

Me wrote:
From what I can see, it's made by scientists, published in scientific journals, reviewed by peers, based on evidence, applying the scientific method, according to the scientific paradigms: all the hallmarks of proper science.


to which you replied:

You wrote:
So you think that if a political leftist writes an article for a magazine, that was proofread by another wacko leftist, ...that the world now has science?


You're a lunatic.


Barts wrote:yet you can't point out where my understanding fails..

Your understanding fails where science begins. You cannot express in your own words the concepts supposedly behind the words you use. It's absurd for you to demand I be more specific in critiquing your vague nonsense.


It's not absurd. It stands to reason that if you have an objection to proper science you'd be able to express it words, be specific about it. You can't because it's nonsense, unexpressable by logical speech.


Barts wrote:I'm not sure I called you confused for accepting or not accepting whatever.

the only thing about which you are sure is what your clergy tells you to believe.

That's irrelevant, dude. You had said I was calling you confused over you accepting or not science. That's untrue: I called you confused because you confused religion with science. And then again because you confused the reason I had called you confused


Barts wrote: You're talking nonsense again, friend:

Your denial is noted.

What denial??

Barts wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Dismissed.

"Dismissal" dismissed.

Barts wrote: haven't said otherwise

Well, not clearly at least.

Well, you implied I had said otherwise, or else you hadn't written on it. Again, you're confused.

Barts wrote: It does care for evidence, because

No it doesn't. Go back to underlining passages in your Wikipedia.

I just quoted you the definition of scientific method, where evidence is specifically mentioned as important. Here, again:


To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry is commonly based on empirical or measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning


Nothing to say about this, hein?

Barts wrote: the goal is to refine hypothesis until they are deemed consensual among the scientists.

Your erroneous belief that subjective opinion and "consensus" somehow play roles in science is noted. Your confusion about terms relating to science is also noted.

Didn't mentioned "subjective opinion", that's you inserting stuff, again. Consensus does play a role in science as confirmed by my link on "Scientific Consensus"

Barts wrote: Not sure what you're talking about. It seems nonsense, once again.

Over your head? I'll try to sufficiently dumb it down for you next time.

Why not do it now?

Barts wrote: It is required nowadays, dude.

Your egregious misunderstanding of science is noted.

No replies nor arguments, just "noting". Noted, then.


Barts wrote: Again, you're the one bringing religion into the discussion:

No, you are. You are bringing your WACKY religious beliefs that you accept purely on faith without questioning or doubting.

No, I haven't. Just quote me mentioning religion that's not a direct reply to you bringing it up


I bring only science that I cite and explain but which you deny because it contradicts the gibberish you claim based on your WACKY religious faith.

No science you brought up yet. Zero links and quotations from you.

Ditch the religion and stop denying science and maybe you'll make progress. You and I both know, however, that that is highly unlikely.

Again, just get your Global Warming prayer rug and go back to reading Wikipedia.

You seem to be repeating yourself. It's enough that your answers are senseless, do you have to repeat them every time?

Barts wrote:From my understanding, the editorial policies are strictly enforced particularly in contentious matters,

Your understanding is 180-degrees out of sync with reality. People who are very leftist politically ensure party line claims are not reworded. They lock it down, even if the statements do not align with the stated policy.

"People who are very leftist politically ensure party line claims are not reworded. They lock it down, even if the statements do not align with the stated policy."

Can you be a bit more vague over those People, please?"Leftist polically" is too specific.


So I stopped trying and now I don't contribute.


Oh, please, tell us more on that episode. Did you cry? Are you still upset over those evil Wikipedia bastard-editors?

Barts wrote: And I dismiss your dismissal,

No doubt.

Right.

Barts wrote: basically because you don't provide anything stronger (you don't provide anything, only your "word", really),

I haven't provided my word and I haven't asked anyone to believe anything. I simply cite science.

False

I can always count on the scientifically illiterate like yourself to demand that I prove science is correct.

You can always count rational people to demand to defend your nonsense claims, specifically if you claim they are scientific: those "science" results are going to be demanded, that's true.


I prefer to just let you worship Global Warming in peace. Pray away.

Hmmmm

.

!




Join the debate climate scientists are glasses wearing geeks who were dorks when they were kids and:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
You work hard, to get your kids in college...1324-06-2019 23:01
What makes IPCC scientists sure warmer air hundreds of millions of years ago due to7106-06-2019 23:39
If it's so important why don't some climate scientists kill themselves?028-03-2019 02:21
Climate change is creating toxic crops and poisoning some of world's poorest people, scientists warn022-03-2019 17:30
Thousands of scientists are backing the kids striking for climate change417-03-2019 19:03
▲ 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