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

Tai Hai Chen wrote:
they were bullied in school because they were geeky and anti social and never got layed.

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.


.

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

Barts wrote: That's either: a poor joke (it's not even funny, just poor) simplistic thinking, if you're serious about it.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

Barts wrote:Climate Science has got nothing to do with political science, whatever that is.

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

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.

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.

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?


.

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".

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.

.

Barts wrote: That's your belief. It's not based on reality from what I can tell,

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.

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

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.

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.

.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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,

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Barts wrote: haven't said otherwise

Barts wrote: It does care for evidence, because

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

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

Barts wrote: It is required nowadays, dude.

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

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

Barts wrote: And I dismiss your dismissal,

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

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.

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

It was your description of what you believe.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

.