| 13-02-2017 08:49 |
Into the Night ★★★★★
(21597) |
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
And 66.4% of the papers expressed no opinion on AGW, which means they aren't relevant to the survey. They can't be taken as evidence either way; that's why they are discounted. Good grief, this is really basic stuff. Obviously statistical analysis is another area that is outside your area of expertise.
This isn't even statistics. It is random numbers. There is no raw data for the population, the selection process is not visible so it can't be verified that it conforms to the demands of statistical math, and the summary average is quoted like it was some Holy Universal Truth.
Your comment makes no sense whatsoever. The raw data is simply the abstracts of papers that refer to AGW, as stated in the methodology description. What population are you talking about?
Are you sure you're commenting on the right thread?
Nope. No raw data there. You are talking about a claimed dataset. No raw data is available on this subject. This clown never provided any.
How can the raw data not be available? You're making no sense at all. The raw data is simply the abstracts of papers about AGW that have been published in scientific journals. It could hardly be more available!
Nope. No raw data there. Only claimed raw data.
You are now making the same vacuous claim???
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 13-02-2017 19:30 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
The OTHER 63% overwhelmingly said that there was insufficient data to express and opinion.
This is where you're going wrong. The 63% did not say that there was insufficient data to express an opinion; they simply didn't express an opinion.
To take another example, the vast majority of papers on lunar geology do not express an opinion on whether the moon is made of green cheese or not. This is not the same as them saying that there is insufficient data to determine whether the moon is made of green cheese or not. See the difference?
The invention of opinions is just that. At what point are you going to admit your entire world revolves around arguing about this without having any clue about science.
Do you know that there is an effect called the "Mpemba Effect" in which Mpemba noticed that hot water froze faster than cold water?
About HALF of the chemists trying to reproduce this did. And the other half could not.
So after more than 50 years they cannot make ANY clear statements about something this simple and yet YOU believe that Al Gore could about face from "the coming ice age" to "the coming hell on earth" without a single reproducible model that could be proven true is 100% true.
Now I have asked you before what YOU personally were willing to give up to reduce CO2 emissions and you have not given one single answer.
Exactly what would lead you to argue the veracity of this hypothesis every day all day as if it were fact where there isn't one fact in it?
Do you know that some person on Facebook just argued that there had to be global warming because last summer there was a 100 degree day and the last time that happened was 40 years ago? This appears to be your position as well.
Edited on 13-02-2017 19:31 |
| 13-02-2017 22:32 |
Surface Detail★★★★☆
(1673) |
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
And 66.4% of the papers expressed no opinion on AGW, which means they aren't relevant to the survey. They can't be taken as evidence either way; that's why they are discounted. Good grief, this is really basic stuff. Obviously statistical analysis is another area that is outside your area of expertise.
This isn't even statistics. It is random numbers. There is no raw data for the population, the selection process is not visible so it can't be verified that it conforms to the demands of statistical math, and the summary average is quoted like it was some Holy Universal Truth.
Your comment makes no sense whatsoever. The raw data is simply the abstracts of papers that refer to AGW, as stated in the methodology description. What population are you talking about?
Are you sure you're commenting on the right thread?
Nope. No raw data there. You are talking about a claimed dataset. No raw data is available on this subject. This clown never provided any.
How can the raw data not be available? You're making no sense at all. The raw data is simply the abstracts of papers about AGW that have been published in scientific journals. It could hardly be more available!
Nope. No raw data there. Only claimed raw data.
You are now making the same vacuous claim???
The paper is a meta study - a study of studies. Its raw data comprises the abstracts of the studies in question. The abstracts themselves - not the data they reference - are the raw data for this meta study, and these abstracts are all publicly available. |
| 13-02-2017 22:36 |
Surface Detail★★★★☆
(1673) |
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
The OTHER 63% overwhelmingly said that there was insufficient data to express and opinion.
This is where you're going wrong. The 63% did not say that there was insufficient data to express an opinion; they simply didn't express an opinion.
To take another example, the vast majority of papers on lunar geology do not express an opinion on whether the moon is made of green cheese or not. This is not the same as them saying that there is insufficient data to determine whether the moon is made of green cheese or not. See the difference?
The invention of opinions is just that. At what point are you going to admit your entire world revolves around arguing about this without having any clue about science.
Do you know that there is an effect called the "Mpemba Effect" in which Mpemba noticed that hot water froze faster than cold water?
About HALF of the chemists trying to reproduce this did. And the other half could not.
So after more than 50 years they cannot make ANY clear statements about something this simple and yet YOU believe that Al Gore could about face from "the coming ice age" to "the coming hell on earth" without a single reproducible model that could be proven true is 100% true.
Now I have asked you before what YOU personally were willing to give up to reduce CO2 emissions and you have not given one single answer.
Exactly what would lead you to argue the veracity of this hypothesis every day all day as if it were fact where there isn't one fact in it?
Do you know that some person on Facebook just argued that there had to be global warming because last summer there was a 100 degree day and the last time that happened was 40 years ago? This appears to be your position as well.
So classy, the way you finally concede a basic point by spouting another set of lies, irrelevant nonsense and abuse. You're a joke. |
| 14-02-2017 18:33 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
The OTHER 63% overwhelmingly said that there was insufficient data to express and opinion.
This is where you're going wrong. The 63% did not say that there was insufficient data to express an opinion; they simply didn't express an opinion.
To take another example, the vast majority of papers on lunar geology do not express an opinion on whether the moon is made of green cheese or not. This is not the same as them saying that there is insufficient data to determine whether the moon is made of green cheese or not. See the difference?
The invention of opinions is just that. At what point are you going to admit your entire world revolves around arguing about this without having any clue about science.
Do you know that there is an effect called the "Mpemba Effect" in which Mpemba noticed that hot water froze faster than cold water?
About HALF of the chemists trying to reproduce this did. And the other half could not.
So after more than 50 years they cannot make ANY clear statements about something this simple and yet YOU believe that Al Gore could about face from "the coming ice age" to "the coming hell on earth" without a single reproducible model that could be proven true is 100% true.
Now I have asked you before what YOU personally were willing to give up to reduce CO2 emissions and you have not given one single answer.
Exactly what would lead you to argue the veracity of this hypothesis every day all day as if it were fact where there isn't one fact in it?
Do you know that some person on Facebook just argued that there had to be global warming because last summer there was a 100 degree day and the last time that happened was 40 years ago? This appears to be your position as well.
So classy, the way you finally concede a basic point by spouting another set of lies, irrelevant nonsense and abuse. You're a joke.
Conceded WHAT point? Let me tell you again, these people were questioned DIRECTLY about their belief in AGW and 67% said that there was not sufficient data to make any statement one way or the other.
Exactly HOW do you see that as not being relevant? Because a lie on your part would support your position? |
|
| 14-02-2017 18:44 |
Surface Detail★★★★☆
(1673) |
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
The OTHER 63% overwhelmingly said that there was insufficient data to express and opinion.
This is where you're going wrong. The 63% did not say that there was insufficient data to express an opinion; they simply didn't express an opinion.
To take another example, the vast majority of papers on lunar geology do not express an opinion on whether the moon is made of green cheese or not. This is not the same as them saying that there is insufficient data to determine whether the moon is made of green cheese or not. See the difference?
The invention of opinions is just that. At what point are you going to admit your entire world revolves around arguing about this without having any clue about science.
Do you know that there is an effect called the "Mpemba Effect" in which Mpemba noticed that hot water froze faster than cold water?
About HALF of the chemists trying to reproduce this did. And the other half could not.
So after more than 50 years they cannot make ANY clear statements about something this simple and yet YOU believe that Al Gore could about face from "the coming ice age" to "the coming hell on earth" without a single reproducible model that could be proven true is 100% true.
Now I have asked you before what YOU personally were willing to give up to reduce CO2 emissions and you have not given one single answer.
Exactly what would lead you to argue the veracity of this hypothesis every day all day as if it were fact where there isn't one fact in it?
Do you know that some person on Facebook just argued that there had to be global warming because last summer there was a 100 degree day and the last time that happened was 40 years ago? This appears to be your position as well.
So classy, the way you finally concede a basic point by spouting another set of lies, irrelevant nonsense and abuse. You're a joke.
Let me tell you again, these people were questioned DIRECTLY about their belief in AGW...
No, they weren't. Where did you get that idea from? Nobody was questioned. This was a survey of published abstracts. Read the damn paper and stop making stuff up. |
| 14-02-2017 20:43 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21597) |
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
The OTHER 63% overwhelmingly said that there was insufficient data to express and opinion.
This is where you're going wrong. The 63% did not say that there was insufficient data to express an opinion; they simply didn't express an opinion.
To take another example, the vast majority of papers on lunar geology do not express an opinion on whether the moon is made of green cheese or not. This is not the same as them saying that there is insufficient data to determine whether the moon is made of green cheese or not. See the difference?
The invention of opinions is just that. At what point are you going to admit your entire world revolves around arguing about this without having any clue about science.
Do you know that there is an effect called the "Mpemba Effect" in which Mpemba noticed that hot water froze faster than cold water?
About HALF of the chemists trying to reproduce this did. And the other half could not.
So after more than 50 years they cannot make ANY clear statements about something this simple and yet YOU believe that Al Gore could about face from "the coming ice age" to "the coming hell on earth" without a single reproducible model that could be proven true is 100% true.
Now I have asked you before what YOU personally were willing to give up to reduce CO2 emissions and you have not given one single answer.
Exactly what would lead you to argue the veracity of this hypothesis every day all day as if it were fact where there isn't one fact in it?
Do you know that some person on Facebook just argued that there had to be global warming because last summer there was a 100 degree day and the last time that happened was 40 years ago? This appears to be your position as well.
So classy, the way you finally concede a basic point by spouting another set of lies, irrelevant nonsense and abuse. You're a joke.
Let me tell you again, these people were questioned DIRECTLY about their belief in AGW...
No, they weren't. Where did you get that idea from? Nobody was questioned. This was a survey of published abstracts. Read the damn paper and stop making stuff up.
A survey is asking questions. I think you're making stuff up to cover that there is no data. It was all made up. All to push 'consensus' as science.
Consensus is not part of science.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 14-02-2017 21:56 |
Surface Detail★★★★☆
(1673) |
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Let me tell you again, these people were questioned DIRECTLY about their belief in AGW...
No, they weren't. Where did you get that idea from? Nobody was questioned. This was a survey of published abstracts. Read the damn paper and stop making stuff up.
A survey is asking questions. I think you're making stuff up to cover that there is no data. It was all made up. All to push 'consensus' as science.
Consensus is not part of science.
Neither of you seems to have a clue about the paper that you're criticising. Have either of you actually read it?
Here it is again for reference:
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature
Let me quote from the abstract:
We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.
Note that it was a survey of papers, not of scientists. Wake, note that it did not involve direct questioning; it was simply a survey of published papers. ITN, note that the data for this paper is the 11,944 abstracts matching the search criteria. How can you claim that there is no data? That simply doesn't make sense. |
| 14-02-2017 23:34 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Let me tell you again, these people were questioned DIRECTLY about their belief in AGW...
No, they weren't. Where did you get that idea from? Nobody was questioned. This was a survey of published abstracts. Read the damn paper and stop making stuff up.
A survey is asking questions. I think you're making stuff up to cover that there is no data. It was all made up. All to push 'consensus' as science.
Consensus is not part of science.
Neither of you seems to have a clue about the paper that you're criticising. Have either of you actually read it?
Here it is again for reference:
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature
Let me quote from the abstract:
We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.
Note that it was a survey of papers, not of scientists. Wake, note that it did not involve direct questioning; it was simply a survey of published papers. ITN, note that the data for this paper is the 11,944 abstracts matching the search criteria. How can you claim that there is no data? That simply doesn't make sense.
We have argued TWO different points - the one you are presently arguing is even MORE preposterous. You're saying that if papers on AGW reached no conclusion that they don't count. YOU are an ass if you will forgive my wording.
I have ALSO noted that of those 37% papers that there were only HALF peer reviewed. Also the people writing them were SELF IDENTIFIED "climate scientists". Don't look now but YOU are self identifying yourself as a "climate scientist".
Previously we were talking about a questionnaire filled out by 11,000 scientist where only 39 were counted - or don't you remember that?
If you have the time you ought to read this: This is the Cato Institute and takes no sides but concerns people like you. |
| 14-02-2017 23:52 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Here is a perfect example of the level of these arguments.
"The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper. Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al (Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming. A survey of authors of those papers (N = 2412 papers) also supported a 97% consensus. Tol (2016 Environ. Res. Lett. 11 048001) comes to a different conclusion using results from surveys of non-experts such as economic geologists and a self-selected group of those who reject the consensus. We demonstrate that this outcome is not unexpected because the level of consensus correlates with expertise in climate science."
This author shows that of the "pro-AGW" that only 33% to a positive view. What's more of those 4014 papers only 60% agreed with that 97% number.
And then to top things off this author dares to question the knowledge and professional abilities of anyone that doesn't agree with him.
This is the AGW crowd in a nutshell. Or should I say nutcase? |
| 15-02-2017 00:03 |
Surface Detail★★★★☆
(1673) |
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Neither of you seems to have a clue about the paper that you're criticising. Have either of you actually read it?
Here it is again for reference:
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature
Let me quote from the abstract:
We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.
Note that it was a survey of papers, not of scientists. Wake, note that it did not involve direct questioning; it was simply a survey of published papers. ITN, note that the data for this paper is the 11,944 abstracts matching the search criteria. How can you claim that there is no data? That simply doesn't make sense.
You're saying that if papers on AGW reached no conclusion that they don't count.
No, I've not said anything of the sort. Stop lying.
I have ALSO noted that of those 37% papers that there were only HALF peer reviewed.
Nonsense. All the papers under consideration were published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, as the survey states.
Also the people writing them were SELF IDENTIFIED "climate scientists".
Completely irrelevant, whether true or not. The papers under consideration had all been published in peer-reviewed academic journals and were therefore regarded as scientifically rigorous.
Don't look now but YOU are self identifying yourself as a "climate scientist".
No, I'm not. Where did I say "I'm a climate scientist"? Liar.
Previously we were talking about a questionnaire filled out by 11,000 scientist where only 39 were counted - or don't you remember that?
No, we weren't. We've been talking about this paper for most of the thread. You even referenced it yourself!
Edited on 15-02-2017 00:50 |
| 15-02-2017 01:02 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Surface Detail wrote:
[quote]Wake wrote:
No, I've not said anything of the sort. Stop lying.
Nonsense. All the papers under consideration were published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, as the survey states.
Completely irrelevant, whether true or not.
I wonder if you ever read yourself; only 30% of the papers concerning AGW are positive. And you never said that those that don't agree with them count but not as long as you count them against being positive AGW. If that isn't confusing enough you blather on even more.
The fact that climate science isn't really a science but a compilation of statistics really doesn't matter to you or that anyone can claim to be a climate scientist and publish as such. And that this article is claiming that only "climate scientists" are capable of making any contributions. And that of the positive papers they have all been published by an average of two per positive vote.
But you don't consider any of this relevant. |
| 15-02-2017 01:55 |
Surface Detail★★★★☆
(1673) |
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
[quote]Wake wrote:
No, I've not said anything of the sort. Stop lying.
Nonsense. All the papers under consideration were published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, as the survey states.
Completely irrelevant, whether true or not.
I wonder if you ever read yourself; only 30% of the papers concerning AGW are positive. And you never said that those that don't agree with them count but not as long as you count them against being positive AGW. If that isn't confusing enough you blather on even more.
The fact that climate science isn't really a science but a compilation of statistics really doesn't matter to you or that anyone can claim to be a climate scientist and publish as such. And that this article is claiming that only "climate scientists" are capable of making any contributions. And that of the positive papers they have all been published by an average of two per positive vote.
But you don't consider any of this relevant.
Rather more accurately: 32.6% of the surveyed papers surveyed specifically endorsed AGW in their abstract, 0.7% specifically rejected AGW in their abstract, and 0.3% expressed uncertainty about the cause of global warming in their abstract. The remaining 66.4% expressed no opinion in their abstract as to the reality of AGW.
Expressing no opinion in the abstract does not imply uncertainty; it simply indicates that the paper is not specifically concerned with the cause of warming. That's why it makes no sense to include these papers in a survey on the acceptance of AGW.
Edited on 15-02-2017 01:55 |
| 15-02-2017 19:54 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
[quote]Wake wrote:
No, I've not said anything of the sort. Stop lying.
Nonsense. All the papers under consideration were published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, as the survey states.
Completely irrelevant, whether true or not.
I wonder if you ever read yourself; only 30% of the papers concerning AGW are positive. And you never said that those that don't agree with them count but not as long as you count them against being positive AGW. If that isn't confusing enough you blather on even more.
The fact that climate science isn't really a science but a compilation of statistics really doesn't matter to you or that anyone can claim to be a climate scientist and publish as such. And that this article is claiming that only "climate scientists" are capable of making any contributions. And that of the positive papers they have all been published by an average of two per positive vote.
But you don't consider any of this relevant.
Rather more accurately: 32.6% of the surveyed papers surveyed specifically endorsed AGW in their abstract, 0.7% specifically rejected AGW in their abstract, and 0.3% expressed uncertainty about the cause of global warming in their abstract. The remaining 66.4% expressed no opinion in their abstract as to the reality of AGW.
Expressing no opinion in the abstract does not imply uncertainty; it simply indicates that the paper is not specifically concerned with the cause of warming. That's why it makes no sense to include these papers in a survey on the acceptance of AGW.
Let me repeat this - ALL of these papers concerned climate change. Those that gave NO opinion count just as much as those that do. Most especially since of those 33% of papers they were written by only 16% or so of the "climate scientists" hence that should be considered 15% and not 33%. |
| 15-02-2017 20:05 |
Surface Detail★★★★☆
(1673) |
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
[quote]Wake wrote:
No, I've not said anything of the sort. Stop lying.
Nonsense. All the papers under consideration were published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, as the survey states.
Completely irrelevant, whether true or not.
I wonder if you ever read yourself; only 30% of the papers concerning AGW are positive. And you never said that those that don't agree with them count but not as long as you count them against being positive AGW. If that isn't confusing enough you blather on even more.
The fact that climate science isn't really a science but a compilation of statistics really doesn't matter to you or that anyone can claim to be a climate scientist and publish as such. And that this article is claiming that only "climate scientists" are capable of making any contributions. And that of the positive papers they have all been published by an average of two per positive vote.
But you don't consider any of this relevant.
Rather more accurately: 32.6% of the surveyed papers surveyed specifically endorsed AGW in their abstract, 0.7% specifically rejected AGW in their abstract, and 0.3% expressed uncertainty about the cause of global warming in their abstract. The remaining 66.4% expressed no opinion in their abstract as to the reality of AGW.
Expressing no opinion in the abstract does not imply uncertainty; it simply indicates that the paper is not specifically concerned with the cause of warming. That's why it makes no sense to include these papers in a survey on the acceptance of AGW.
Let me repeat this - ALL of these papers concerned climate change. Those that gave NO opinion count just as much as those that do. Most especially since of those 33% of papers they were written by only 16% or so of the "climate scientists" hence that should be considered 15% and not 33%.
Are you being deliberately obtuse? If an abstract gives no opinion regarding the cause of climate change, then it can't be counted in a survey of opinions on the cause of climate change!
There are lots of papers concerned with various aspects of climate change; they don't all necessarily include a statement in the abstract of the cause of climate change. Indeed, you'd expect that such papers probably all support the consensus that AGW is real since any paper that doesn't would surely be making a big deal of this in its abstract. This would make 97% a conservative estimate; closer inspection of the papers themselves would probably give more like 99%. |
|
| 15-02-2017 20:30 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21597) |
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Let me tell you again, these people were questioned DIRECTLY about their belief in AGW...
No, they weren't. Where did you get that idea from? Nobody was questioned. This was a survey of published abstracts. Read the damn paper and stop making stuff up.
A survey is asking questions. I think you're making stuff up to cover that there is no data. It was all made up. All to push 'consensus' as science.
Consensus is not part of science.
Neither of you seems to have a clue about the paper that you're criticising. Have either of you actually read it?
Here it is again for reference:
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature
Let me quote from the abstract:
We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.
Note that it was a survey of papers, not of scientists. Wake, note that it did not involve direct questioning; it was simply a survey of published papers. ITN, note that the data for this paper is the 11,944 abstracts matching the search criteria. How can you claim that there is no data? That simply doesn't make sense.
Hey twit...did you know that consensus is not part of science?
Your Link War doesn't change that.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 15-02-2017 21:20 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
[b]Into the Night wrote: Hey twit...did you know that consensus is not part of science?
Your Link War doesn't change that.
I'm afraid that they don't understand that the vast majority of scientists and mathematicians did NOT believe Einstein's special theory of relativity and with each addition advance he make fewer and fewer scientists backed him.
It wasn't until observation after observation over a 30 year period proved him correct again and again did science SLOWLY come around. I think that it was in the 70's that we bounced a laser off of the moon in order to actually prove Einstein's speed of light. As late as that we STILL had questions.
Now the only questions generally revolve around quantum mechanics which to my mind isn't applicable to this reality. |
| 16-02-2017 04:20 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21597) |
Wake wrote:
[b]Into the Night wrote: Hey twit...did you know that consensus is not part of science?
Your Link War doesn't change that.
I'm afraid that they don't understand that the vast majority of scientists and mathematicians did NOT believe Einstein's special theory of relativity and with each addition advance he make fewer and fewer scientists backed him.
It wasn't until observation after observation over a 30 year period proved him correct again and again did science SLOWLY come around. I think that it was in the 70's that we bounced a laser off of the moon in order to actually prove Einstein's speed of light. As late as that we STILL had questions.
Now the only questions generally revolve around quantum mechanics which to my mind isn't applicable to this reality.
To go down the road to quantum mechanics, examine the work of Bohr, Schrodinger, Heisenberg, Planck, and others that followed after Einstein as they tried to determine better models for the atom and its component parts and gain a better understanding of light. Some interesting side trips involve excursions to fractions of a degree of absolute zero, and trips along the event horizon of a black hole.
Among the result is why the periodic table takes the form that it does today. It also produced a new kind of 'periodic' table, not of elements, but of quarks.
All good stuff.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 26-02-2017 01:07 |
litesong★★★★★
(2297) |
[b]Into the Night wrote:...To go down the road to....
.....means:
http://iwantsomeproof.com/extimg/siv_annual_polar_graph.png |