Remember me
▼ Content

Is GW religious?



Page 1 of 212>
Is GW religious?19-09-2016 23:30
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
The following have all been used to mean "religion".

the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods

a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.


: the belief in a god or in a group of gods

: an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods

a cultural system of behaviors and practices, world views, sacred texts, holy places, ethics, and societal organisation that relate humanity to what an anthropologist has called "an order of existence".

a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say things set apart and forbidden - beliefs and practises which unite into one single moral community called a church, all those who adhere to them.

Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power recognized as the creator and governor of the universe; A particular integrated system of this expression; The spiritual or emotional attitude of one who recognizes the existence of a superhuman power or powers

Latin religio originally meant 'obligation, bond.' It was probably derived from the verb religare 'tie back, tie tight'. It developed the specialized sense 'bond between human beings and the gods,' and from the 5th century it came to be used for 'monastic life' ... 'Religious practices' emerged from this, but the word's standard modern meaning did not develop until as recently as the 16th century.

a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden -- beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community called a Church all those who adhere to them

a comprehensive worldview or 'metaphysical moral vision' that is accepted as binding because it is held to be in initself basically true and just even if all dimensions of it cannot be either fully confirmed or refuted


It seems I was wrong: your use of the word religion is not entirely incorrect, although "dogmatic" would be much less ambiguous.

How do you claim global warming to be dogmatic?


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
20-09-2016 01:06
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8697)
jwoodward48 wrote:
The following have all been used to mean "religion".

the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods

a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.


: the belief in a god or in a group of gods

: an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods

a cultural system of behaviors and practices, world views, sacred texts, holy places, ethics, and societal organisation that relate humanity to what an anthropologist has called "an order of existence".

a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say things set apart and forbidden - beliefs and practises which unite into one single moral community called a church, all those who adhere to them.

Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power recognized as the creator and governor of the universe; A particular integrated system of this expression; The spiritual or emotional attitude of one who recognizes the existence of a superhuman power or powers

Latin religio originally meant 'obligation, bond.' It was probably derived from the verb religare 'tie back, tie tight'. It developed the specialized sense 'bond between human beings and the gods,' and from the 5th century it came to be used for 'monastic life' ... 'Religious practices' emerged from this, but the word's standard modern meaning did not develop until as recently as the 16th century.

a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden -- beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community called a Church all those who adhere to them

a comprehensive worldview or 'metaphysical moral vision' that is accepted as binding because it is held to be in initself basically true and just even if all dimensions of it cannot be either fully confirmed or refuted


It seems I was wrong: your use of the word religion is not entirely incorrect, although "dogmatic" would be much less ambiguous.

How do you claim global warming to be dogmatic?


These are not the only definitions of religions.

ALL religions have one thing in common: The circular argument (A is true because A is true).

The circular argument is also called Faith.

The Global Warming argument has not shown itself to be anything more than a circular argument. Since all theories start out initially as circular arguments, one must take a theory on faith until you can take beyond that point.

That point is the test for falsifiability, and for internal and external inconsistencies.

The Global Warming theory is not falsifiable. We have no way to determine a global temperature with any accuracy required, and we certainly have no history of it either. We know it varies, and that's about as far as we can really go with it. We have to have a closed, specific test for the null hypothesis that produces a specific result. There is no such test available for Global Warming.

It therefore remains a circular argument. It cannot enter the realm of science until it can clear this hurdle. Circular arguments cannot exist in the world of science.

Because it is a circular argument, it is the Faith argument.

Attempting to circumvent the circular argument by using observation, flawed reasoning to 'prove' the argument makes the argument a religion.

It is not just dogmatic statements. It is the Church of Global Warming. It has many believers, but it's membership is getting smaller.

That's the good news. People are starting to wake to the idea that something is wrong with the Global Warming argument. They can't quite their finger on what, but they suspect it.


The Parrot Killer
20-09-2016 01:10
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Ah, falsifiability! Now you're making sense. But why would you say that observation is unimportant in the other thread?
20-09-2016 17:56
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4328)
jwoodward48 wrote:Ah, falsifiability! Now you're making sense. But why would you say that observation is unimportant in the other thread?

Religion is theism, whether it is a deism or not.

Falsifying observations are the backbone of the scientific method.

No observations are captured in any science 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
20-09-2016 18:19
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
a cultural system of behaviors and practices, world views, sacred texts, holy places, ethics, and societal organisation that relate humanity to what an anthropologist has called "an order of existence".


Communism and Nazism are often called nonthiestic religions.

Surely any belief without supporting evidence is religious when maintained in the face of clear explaination that the belief is unjustifyable.

Edited on 20-09-2016 18:19
20-09-2016 18:58
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
no its trolling when people claim that,
20-09-2016 19:01
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
How do you falsify, except through observation?
20-09-2016 19:05
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
I'm probably on the autistic spectrum myself so I let that comment pass but the English word religious obviously does not apply to belief or non-belief in climate change, clowns on this forum use it as a pejorative in order to get a rise out of people.
20-09-2016 19:31
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
If that was directed toward me, I'm arguing against IB.
20-09-2016 19:50
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
Arguing with a brick would be more productive, of course when I refer to clowns I'm talking about ITN and IBmann.
20-09-2016 19:53
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
But "letting that comment pass" could refer to the Plumber's statement or mine, as I could be pointing out that you "have no data" and thus "cannot falsify your theory". I was making sure there weren't any misunderstanding of who I was talking to.
20-09-2016 20:07
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4328)
spot wrote: ...but the English word religious obviously does not apply to belief or non-belief in climate change,

Only warmizombies and climate lemmings in heavy denial (I know, redundant) insist the word "religion" cannot apply to their own "Climate" religion because their WACKY religious dogma mandates that the dogma itself is "science." In fact, their name for their WACKY religious dogma is "The Science."

spot wrote: clowns on this forum use it as a pejorative in order to get a rise out of people.

Not at all. That's your WACKY religion-induced cognitive dissonance filtering your perception. There's nothing pejorative intended, e.g. Christianity is a religion, Zoroastrianism is a religion, Global Warming is a religion, etc...

People correctly use the term "religion" as applied to your WACKY "Climate" religion because it is a religion, isomorphic to Christianity.

It's when people like myself use the word "cult" that disrespect is intended, but not when using the neutral term "religion."


.


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
20-09-2016 20:09
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4328)
spot wrote: Arguing with a brick would be more productive, of course when I refer to clowns I'm talking about ITN and IBmann.

...and any other non-worshiper who never got sucked into the scam that ended up bending you over and reaming you.

I'll pass on that, thank you. I can see what it has done to you to know that it's not a good thing.


.


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
20-09-2016 20:13
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
You're a WACKY religious clown if you think that you aren't using "religious" as an insult.

Go on. How exactly is climate science like Christianity? Make sure to compare similar things.

Christianity says how the universe was made. Climate science.... doesn't.

In Christianity, there are weekly masses in which rituals are performed. In climate science... there are no rituals.

Christianity says that there is a divine, omnipotent being. Climate science... doesn't.

Christianity has a holy book. Climate science... doesn't.

Christianity is a religion. Climate science... is?
20-09-2016 22:09
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8697)
jwoodward48 wrote:
You're a WACKY religious clown if you think that you aren't using "religious" as an insult.

Go on. How exactly is climate science like Christianity? Make sure to compare similar things.

Christianity says how the universe was made. Climate science.... doesn't.

In Christianity, there are weekly masses in which rituals are performed. In climate science... there are no rituals.

Christianity says that there is a divine, omnipotent being. Climate science... doesn't.

Christianity has a holy book. Climate science... doesn't.

Christianity is a religion. Climate science... is?


The Church of Global Warming worships the Great God Consensus. An omnipotent being capable of changing physical laws. This God can cause seas to rise, storms and hurricanes, noxious smokes and vapors, all with a single word.

They worship the Son Al Gore, crucified by the people but who rises from the dead from time to time to say something stupid.

And the Holy Gas, which reveals all the sins of Man. Shapeless, everywhere, filled with light and bringing warmth over all the Earth.

Their Bible is the holy writings of the IPCC, including the books of NOAA, EPA, and NASA; which make up the part of the New Testament, and including the books of MARX, LENNON, and STALIN; which make up part of the Old Testament.

The evil ones are known as ASUTAS, who are out to destroy The God of Consensus and all of his teachings. They are the Outsiders. They are those that are Any Schmuck Using Thermodynamics And Science.

Its rituals consist mostly of chanting mantras which prophecy the End of the World, bless the power of God and all God does for them, and blessings to those who Believe, that they shall overcome all opposition from the evil of the Outsiders, and thereby live in peace and harmony. This chanting is not weekly, but continuously, that the Message of God may never be forgotten for even a moment.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 20-09-2016 22:12
20-09-2016 22:49
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4328)
jwoodward48 wrote: You're a WACKY religious clown if you think that you aren't using "religious" as an insult.

I speak for me. You do not speak for me.

I mean absolutely no disrespect with the word "religion."

I extend disrespect with the word "WACKY"...which is why I write it in all upper case. I would not insult other religions by not specifying that Global Warming is WACKY.


.


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
21-09-2016 00:13
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
You are using it to disparage people as basing their science on faith. That's an insult to me.
21-09-2016 00:21
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4328)
jwoodward48 wrote:You are using it to disparage people as basing their science on faith. That's an insult to me.

Then you should stop adopting religious beliefs.

Either that or adopt a religion in which you are not ashamed.


.


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
21-09-2016 00:49
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
IBdaMann wrote:
spot wrote: Arguing with a brick would be more productive, of course when I refer to clowns I'm talking about ITN and IBmann.

...and any other non-worshiper who never got sucked into the scam that ended up bending you over and reaming you.

I'll pass on that, thank you. I can see what it has done to you to know that it's not a good thing.


.
what exactly does "reaming" mean in this context?
21-09-2016 00:56
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
l only ask because a kid I'm my school was always going on about paedophilia and how all the teachers were paedophiles, guess what He's in prison for now.
21-09-2016 01:59
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Their Bible is the holy writings of the IPCC, including the books of NOAA, EPA, and NASA; which make up the part of the New Testament, and including the books of MARX, LENNON, and STALIN; which make up part of the Old Testament.

LENNON?

Do you mean John LENNON, late Beatle and druggy hippy, or Aaron LENNON, winger for Premier League club Everton and the England national team?
21-09-2016 02:02
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:You are using it to disparage people as basing their science on faith. That's an insult to me.

Then you should stop adopting religious beliefs.

Either that or adopt a religion in which you are not ashamed.


Why do you think that climate science is religious? We have observations to support us, we are logically consistent, and we don't disobey any laws. We use the scientific method. What is religious about this?


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
21-09-2016 02:06
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
SD: I believe he meant "lemon", a term for a junky car. They are sold be evil Marxists to take down capitalism!
21-09-2016 02:30
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4328)
jwoodward48 wrote:Why do you think that climate science is religious?

Because the "Climate" family of faiths is a religion isomorphic to Christianity.

You and I both know that there is no science involved in "climate." Watch. The following two absurd questions make it obvious to anyone not suffering from delusion disorder that Global Warming is a WACKY religion:

1. What is the Global Warming equation?
2. What is the numeric value of the "climate" constant?

What's too funny is that I know that as you read those questions your brain is processing some funky rationalization to dismiss what they make abundantly clear, i.e. you are unable to be honest with yourself and that someone else is doing your thinking for you.


jwoodward48 wrote:We have observations to support us, we are logically consistent, and we don't disobey any laws. We use the scientific method. What is religious about this?

You have no falsifiable Global Warming model that predicts nature. There is no science that you have reviewed and understand on which your beliefs are based. You do not ever apply the scientific method. You never doubt, question or challenge any WACKY aspect of your dogma. You are the antithesis of the scientific method, as are all religions.


.


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
21-09-2016 02:57
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:Why do you think that climate science is religious?

Because the "Climate" family of faiths is a religion isomorphic to Christianity.

You and I both know that there is no science involved in "climate." Watch. The following two absurd questions make it obvious to anyone not suffering from delusion disorder that Global Warming is a WACKY religion:

1. What is the Global Warming equation?
2. What is the numeric value of the "climate" constant?

What's too funny is that I know that as you read those questions your brain is processing some funky rationalization to dismiss what they make abundantly clear, i.e. you are unable to be honest with yourself and that someone else is doing your thinking for you.


What is the "liquid" equation? What is the numerical value of the "solid" constant? See? None! Phases are an illusion!


jwoodward48 wrote:We have observations to support us, we are logically consistent, and we don't disobey any laws. We use the scientific method. What is religious about this?

You have no falsifiable Global Warming model that predicts nature. There is no science that you have reviewed and understand on which your beliefs are based. You do not ever apply the scientific method. You never doubt, question or challenge any WACKY aspect of your dogma. You are the antithesis of the scientific method, as are all religions.


We have observation of global warming. We have edge-of-scientific-knowledge models that I don't understand any more than I understand edge-of-knowledge quantum mechanics. If we didn't use the scientific method, we'd never get anything through peer review. We do doubt or question our statements - there is nobody questioning whether GW is happening because it has already been observed beyond a sliver of a doubt. (Only those with conspiracy theories of the Evil Liberal Scientific Lies claim that all of the data was fudged/made up.) You are the antithesis of truth.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
21-09-2016 03:25
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8697)
jwoodward48 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:Why do you think that climate science is religious?

Because the "Climate" family of faiths is a religion isomorphic to Christianity.

You and I both know that there is no science involved in "climate." Watch. The following two absurd questions make it obvious to anyone not suffering from delusion disorder that Global Warming is a WACKY religion:

1. What is the Global Warming equation?
2. What is the numeric value of the "climate" constant?

What's too funny is that I know that as you read those questions your brain is processing some funky rationalization to dismiss what they make abundantly clear, i.e. you are unable to be honest with yourself and that someone else is doing your thinking for you.


What is the "liquid" equation? What is the numerical value of the "solid" constant? See? None! Phases are an illusion!


You called to a tee IBDaMann! Nice shot!

jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:We have observations to support us, we are logically consistent, and we don't disobey any laws. We use the scientific method. What is religious about this?

You have no falsifiable Global Warming model that predicts nature. There is no science that you have reviewed and understand on which your beliefs are based. You do not ever apply the scientific method. You never doubt, question or challenge any WACKY aspect of your dogma. You are the antithesis of the scientific method, as are all religions.


We have observation of global warming. We have edge-of-scientific-knowledge models that I don't understand any more than I understand edge-of-knowledge quantum mechanics. If we didn't use the scientific method, we'd never get anything through peer review. We do doubt or question our statements - there is nobody questioning whether GW is happening because it has already been observed beyond a sliver of a doubt. (Only those with conspiracy theories of the Evil Liberal Scientific Lies claim that all of the data was fudged/made up.) You are the antithesis of truth.


You are chanting the mantra of the Church of Global Warming. There is no consensus in science.


The Parrot Killer
21-09-2016 03:48
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
And you accuse me of bulverism.

Consensus means that people have failed to disprove something. There is a consensus of data in that the vast majority of studies have shown a global warming effect. The chances of GW not being a real phenomenon despite the data are smaller than the chances of !GW given no data.

But since you believe that data is unimportant, only how well my ideas jive with yours, I doubt you'll hear this.
21-09-2016 09:30
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8697)
jwoodward48 wrote:
And you accuse me of bulverism.

Consensus means that people have failed to disprove something. There is a consensus of data in that the vast majority of studies have shown a global warming effect. The chances of GW not being a real phenomenon despite the data are smaller than the chances of !GW given no data.

But since you believe that data is unimportant, only how well my ideas jive with yours, I doubt you'll hear this.


You can't have a consensus of nothing. There is no data. Data needs no consensus anyhow.


The Parrot Killer
21-09-2016 14:24
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Now you're just being stupid. No matter how large the margins of error, we have data.
21-09-2016 14:35
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4328)
jwoodward48 wrote: And you accuse me of bulverism.

Yes, absolutely.

jwoodward48 wrote: Consensus means that people have failed to disprove something.

It means that only when you hijack the word "consensus" to mean that.

Otherwise "consensus" means that a particular unspecified group has a majority OPINION.

jwoodward48 wrote: There is a consensus of data in that the vast majority of studies have shown a global warming effect.

Studies are not science. Any WACKY gibberish can be called a "study." Any scientifically illiterate warmizombie can publish a "study" of WACKY gibberish for political purposes. Any warmizombie can fabricate data for inclusion in a "study."

Let's focus on the Global Warming equation. Post that and let's discuss.

jwoodward48 wrote: The chances of GW not being a real phenomenon despite the data are smaller than the chances of !GW given no data.

That's what Christians say about their "intelligent designer." Religions like to do that sort of thing.

jwoodward48 wrote:But since you believe that data is unimportant, only how well my ideas jive with yours, I doubt you'll hear this.

Since you seem required to misrepresent and mischaracterize my position, I doubt it would do any good to try to clarify.


.


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
21-09-2016 14:46
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
1. Words mean what most people mean by them. Consensus also involves peer review. Stop being a prescriptivist.
2. Somebody doesn't understand what peer review is, and how it keeps published papers from being nonsense.
3. There is no geology equation, so geology is a made-up science!
4. False analogy.
5. Right back at you, strawmanner.
21-09-2016 15:10
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4328)
jwoodward48 wrote: 1. Words mean what most people mean by them.

Yes, and you routinely try to hijack the meanings of words to fit your religious dogma.

jwoodward48 wrote: Consensus also involves peer review.

"Consensus" means majority opinion. It does not imply "peer review."

jwoodward48 wrote:Stop being a prescriptivist.

Stop being a hijacker.

jwoodward48 wrote: 2. Somebody doesn't understand what peer review is, and how it keeps published papers from being nonsense.

Somebody has no clue that "peer review" has nothing to do with science, only with publishing.

jwoodward48 wrote: 3. There is no geology equation, so geology is a made-up science!

Geology has plenty of falsifiable models. Global Warming has no falsifiable Global Warming model. We understand this because geology is science while Global Warming is a religion.


.


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
21-09-2016 16:04
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote: 1. Words mean what most people mean by them.

Yes, and you routinely try to hijack the meanings of words to fit your religious dogma.


I am using the common meaning!

jwoodward48 wrote: Consensus also involves peer review.

"Consensus" means majority opinion. It does not imply "peer review."


Got anything besides assertions for me? Put up or shut up. Some kind of source, anything...

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.[1]

Consensus is normally achieved through communication at conferences, the publication process, replication (reproducible results by others), and peer review. These lead to a situation in which those within the discipline can often recognize such a consensus where it exists, but communicating to outsiders that consensus has been reached can be difficult, because the 'normal' debates through which science progresses may seem to outsiders as contestation.[2] On occasion, scientific institutes issue position statements intended to communicate a summary of the science from the "inside" to the "outside" of the scientific community. In cases where there is little controversy regarding the subject under study, establishing what the consensus is can be quite straightforward.


Yep, Wikipedia agrees with me. You got anything at all? Wikipedia > 0.

jwoodward48 wrote:Stop being a prescriptivist.

Stop being a hijacker.


I'm not the hijacker. The world is using them this way, and so am I. You are standing within a river, yelling at it to "go the other way". That doesn't work. I'm sorry. I used to be a prescriptivist too, I know how it feels to realize that nobody realizes what words are supposed to be, dammit!

jwoodward48 wrote: 2. Somebody doesn't understand what peer review is, and how it keeps published papers from being nonsense.

Somebody has no clue that "peer review" has nothing to do with science, only with publishing.


For a definition of science as "a bunch of models," sure. For a broader, more accepted definition of science, peer review is crucial to the extended scientific method.

jwoodward48 wrote: 3. There is no geology equation, so geology is a made-up science!

Geology has plenty of falsifiable models. Global Warming has no falsifiable Global Warming model. We understand this because geology is science while Global Warming is a religion.


Bulverism, assertion. We have models that either do or do not match up with data. The data agrees with them. Thus, they have been supported by the data, and not falsified.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
21-09-2016 19:16
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4328)
jwoodward48 wrote: Yep, Wikipedia agrees with me. You got anything at all? Wikipedia > 0.

This is the triumphant proclamation of the man who needs someone else doing his thinking for him. This is about as sad as it gets.

jwoodward48 wrote: The world is using them this way, and so am I.

Aaaah, the delusion that you are the world, and that you speak for it. That fantasy must be very comforting. It's certainly more pleasant than the cold, harsh reality.

jwoodward48 wrote: For a broader, more accepted definition of science, peer review is crucial to the extended scientific method.

Sure, when you adopt "The Science" as your religion, you have to take the dogma along with the faith. The dogma says that "peer review" is among the most sacred of institutions in "The Science" and that "consensus" is the holiest of virtues.

In actual science, however, no peer review is required and no one's opinion matters. Science is not subjective or determined by democratic vote.


.


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
21-09-2016 20:17
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
I have sources for my claims. You have none. Science is a process, not solely a body of knowledge.

So how do we tell what is supported by science? We can't expect every farmer, every politician to do meta-analysis.
21-09-2016 20:25
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4328)
jwoodward48 wrote: I have sources for my claims. You have none.

I don't have others doing my thinking for me. I have learned the science that I need to discuss. I don't need to beg anyone to tell me what my opinion must be.

Let me know how that works out for you.


jwoodward48 wrote: Science is a process, not solely a body of knowledge.

Is it your process to get to "Climate" heaven? Is it your process to force non-believers to your line of thinking?

In the real world, science is just a bunch of falsifiable models that predict nature. Sorry.

jwoodward48 wrote: So how do we tell what is supported by science?

The first step is to find out what you mean by "supported by science."


.


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
21-09-2016 20:29
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
More importantly what did you mean by reamed? what was on your mind when you typed that? Is this the right forum for you?
21-09-2016 21:35
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
You evidently haven't learned enough. If you think that neither science or engineering is based on observation, you need to learn more and become scientifically literate.
21-09-2016 23:56
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8697)
jwoodward48 wrote:
You evidently haven't learned enough. If you think that neither science or engineering is based on observation, you need to learn more and become scientifically literate.


I do not need to observe anything to design a power supply, an oscillator, a cooling fan, or a robot.

I do not need to observe anything to design a bridge, a car, a locomotive, a ship, or an aircraft.

I do not need to observe anything to write computer code or the algorithms that are used.

I do not need to observe anything to design a theory, test it, or incorporate it into that body of theories we call science.


The Parrot Killer
21-09-2016 23:58
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
You evidently haven't learned enough. If you think that neither science or engineering is based on observation, you need to learn more and become scientifically literate.


I do not need to observe anything to design a power supply, an oscillator, a cooling fan, or a robot.

I do not need to observe anything to design a bridge, a car, a locomotive, a ship, or an aircraft.

I do not need to observe anything to write computer code or the algorithms that are used.

I do not need to observe anything to design a theory, test it, or incorporate it into that body of theories we call science.

How can you possibly test a theory without observing anything?
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate Is GW religious?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Preferred word in lieu of "GW Denier"4020-09-2016 00:48
Why Climate Change Will Lead To Religious Laws508-08-2016 21:23
Has the IPCC underestimated GW?4222-10-2015 20:52
▲ 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