Remember me
▼ Content

Setting the record straight on the climate debate



Page 1 of 212>
Setting the record straight on the climate debate15-03-2020 00:07
markmendlovitz
☆☆☆☆☆
(1)
https://the-pipeline.org/setting-the-record-straight-on-the-climate-debate/
15-03-2020 06:20
duncan61
★☆☆☆☆
(97)
Brilliant article and well presented.
15-03-2020 07:25
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2520)
markmendlovitz wrote:
https://the-pipeline.org/setting-the-record-straight-on-the-climate-debate/

The article has a few factual foundations it relies on.

First- That there is "not 97.1% but 0.3 %""consensus among scientists," with Legates, et. al.(2013) disproving the assertion by Cook et al. (2013)

Here is the article citing the 97%:
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

"...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..."

What this article "setting-the-record-straight..." implies is that there is not a 97% consensus because Legates proved it somehow. But what Legates did was say the definition of "Consensus" is to restrictive to make that claim about a "Consensus", it's only a semantic quibble (the chart below is from the Legates paper):


So this is a blatant misrepresentation by "setting-the-record-straight...". They call it a "trick" but have skipped over what I've shown above. A more honest headline by them would be "There is not a 97% consensus it's only a 97% general agreement!" but they willfully imply there is some dissent among scientists that is being covered up. Ironically they are the one's being deceptive.

The run down on stupid reporters attributing every weather phenomenon to global warming is outstanding! As is the rest of the paper. Thank you for posting it.
Edited on 15-03-2020 07:31
15-03-2020 16:25
James___
★★★★★
(2420)
tmiddles wrote:


So this is a blatant misrepresentation by "setting-the-record-straight...". They call it a "trick" but have skipped over what I've shown above. A more honest headline by them would be "There is not a 97% consensus it's only a 97% general agreement!" but they willfully imply there is some dissent among scientists that is being covered up. Ironically they are the one's being deceptive.

The run down on stupid reporters attributing every weather phenomenon to global warming is outstanding! As is the rest of the paper. Thank you for posting it.



There are scientists who disagree with AGW being responsible for climate change.
Here is one;
https://www.nbi.ku.dk/english/sciencexplorer/earth_and_climate/golden_spike/video/spoergsmaal_svar1/

he notes that climate ripples during the last ice age were not explained by CO2 and that the ice age ended because of the Earth's favorable position to the Sun.
There are also many scientists who say hydrothermal vents and deep faults in the seafloor. An example of this is when about 2 years ago California was ravaged by wildfires caused by the Pacific Ocean off of its coast being unusually warm.
With that warming of the Pacific, it was found out that hydrothermal vents in the Gulf of California was responsible. Yet they never allowed for a story saying that the fires in California were caused by hydrothermal vents in Mexico.




This article is an example of misinformation.
https://weather.com/news/news/2018-08-14-southern-california-san-diego-warmth-pacific-ocean-water-temperatures
Hot temperatures in July helped warm sea-surface temperatures much above average in coastal Southern California.A record sea-surface temperature was recorded at near San Diego.Coastal cities are seeing high humidity and record-breaking temperatures.

Oceanic warm-water events in the Gulf of California have increased in frequency during the last three decades, passing from a historic mean of one or two warm anomalies per decade to five events in the 2007-2016 period. This can lead to massive failures in seabird nesting, as anomalously warm waters accumulate in the ocean's surface, preventing the upwelling of colder, nutrient-rich waters from the ocean bottom, which in turn deprives seabirds of their food.
https://phys.org/news/2018-04-warm-water-events-gulf-california-seabird.html


Over the past couple of years, the mapping AUV has generated several new discoveries, including a recent underwater lava flow. Also, since 2006, it has discovered previously unknown chimneys at three locations along the Juan de Fuca Ridge off the Washington-Oregon coast.
https://www.iceagenow.info/hydrothermal-vents-pumping-super-heated-water-gulf-california/


And in 2019;
"I am surprised to see something like this develop again so soon after what looked like the end of the marine heat wave in 2016," says Nate Mantua of the NOAA's Southwest Fisheries Science Center in Santa Cruz, speaking to the Chronicle. "If this persists and it spreads to the coast, then I think it would be bad news for marine life and many fisheries along the West Coast."
https://sfist.com/2019/09/11/return-of-warm-water-blob-in-the-pacific-prompts-fears-of-algae-blooms-another-drought/


And then there is this;

A panel of experts said Wednesday that California's devastating wildfires were caused primarily by "the way we manage lands and develop our landscape" rather than climate change.
Speaking at the annual conference of the National Council for Science and the Environment in Washington D.C., Scott Stephens, a professor of fire science at the University of California, Berkeley, said that perhaps 20 to 25 percent of the wildfire damage resulted from climate change, whereas "75 percent is the way we manage lands and develop our landscape."
https://www.breitbart.com/environment/2020/01/10/experts-say-california-wildfires-not-caused-by-climate-change/



And tmiddles, please remember that both ITN and Amanbir Grewal know that I am ignorant and know nothing. So they cannot comment in a favorable manner on my post. I know it's stupdi and they should save their keyboards the abuse it would take to ridicule my hopelessly ignorant opinion. I know I am wrong and there is no need for them to point out the obvious.


Au Revoir Mon Ami
Edited on 15-03-2020 16:32
15-03-2020 17:25
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6253)
tmiddles wrote:So this is a blatant misrepresentation by "setting-the-record-straight...". They call it a "trick" but have skipped over what I've shown above. A more honest headline by them would be "There is not a 97% consensus it's only a 97% general agreement!" but they willfully imply there is some dissent among scientists that is being covered up. Ironically they are the one's being deceptive.

What is important about establishing the extent of "agreement" on Climate Change?

I don't recall Catholics or Muslims, for example, conducting any such polls amongst their clergy.


.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

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

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

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

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
15-03-2020 19:51
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11753)
tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 25c...25g...25g...20k...

No arguments presented.


The Parrot Killer
15-03-2020 20:29
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2520)
James___ wrote:
There are scientists who disagree...
Yes and the study shows that. 24 having an explicit rejection.

IBdaMann wrote:
What is important about establishing the extent of "agreement" on Climate Change?
The article linked to in this thread claims, falsely, that there was deception by NASA and others in claiming 97% agreement. That lie should be exposed. It's conspiracy theory BS that should not be given a pass.

Aside from the agreement issue being used by the article to prove some fraud the general public, myself included, weigh the credibility of those given expert opinions. So agreement matters. If you have a revolutionary, contrarian opinion we expect a solid case.

It can make BS easier to spot. You and ITN claiming that what you present as settled science, the exotic theory that radiance from coolet objects is not absorbed by warmet ones, contradicting all published texts on thermodynamics, is a good example.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
Edited on 15-03-2020 20:37
15-03-2020 21:20
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11753)
tmiddles wrote:
The article linked to in this thread claims, falsely, that there was deception by NASA and others in claiming 97% agreement. That lie should be exposed. It's conspiracy theory BS that should not be given a pass. ...deleted Mantras 32...37a...20e1...20a2...25k...4c...4b...7...


There was deception by NASA and others.
Mantra 21.


The Parrot Killer
15-03-2020 21:41
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2520)
Into the Night wrote:
There was deception by NASA and others..


OK that's a really good first half of a sentence ITN.

Let's keep going:

There was deception by NASA and others they ______________.

What?

What did they do?
15-03-2020 21:50
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11753)
tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 16b...29...


No argument presented. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer
15-03-2020 23:08
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2520)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 16b...29...


No argument presented. RQAA.
No you never said what you allege the deception was ITN. There is exactly one post from you there so there is no RQAA. There sin't a Mantra that spells out NASA deception so I don't need to look at your list.

Into the Night wrote:
There was deception by NASA and others.
Mantra 21.


That's it. That's all you wrote.

So WHAT? deception do you allege? Is it off topic for this thread or were you responding to the article?
Edited on 15-03-2020 23:09
15-03-2020 23:19
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6253)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
What is important about establishing the extent of "agreement" on Climate Change?
The article linked to in this thread claims, falsely, that there was deception by NASA and others in claiming 97% agreement. That lie should be exposed. It's conspiracy theory BS that should not be given a pass.

Aside from the agreement issue being used by the article to prove some fraud the general public, myself included, weigh the credibility of those given expert opinions. So agreement matters. If you have a revolutionary, contrarian opinion we expect a solid case.


I suppose I can always try again, right?

What is important about establishing the extent of "agreement" on Climate Change?


.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

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

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

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

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
16-03-2020 02:25
James___
★★★★★
(2420)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
There was deception by NASA and others..


OK that's a really good first half of a sentence ITN.

Let's keep going:

There was deception by NASA and others they ______________.

What?

What did they do?



Can you explain why the IPCC discredited their 2013 report when they released it?
16-03-2020 02:34
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2520)
IBdaMann wrote:t?
What is important about establishing the extent of "agreement" on Climate Change?

I said:
tmiddles wrote:...the general public, myself included, weigh the credibility of those given expert opinions. So agreement matters. If you have a revolutionary, contrarian opinion we expect a solid case.

It can make BS easier to spot. You and ITN claiming that what you present as settled science, the exotic theory that radiance from coolet objects is not absorbed by warmet ones, contradicting all published texts on thermodynamics, is a good example.

I'll elaborate. While you're welcome to challenge everything as requiring independent verification that is not a view shared by many and is by no means a universal law of some kind. Most people, myself included, accept what is handed to us as honest, accurate and legitimate most of the time. We use our own judgement in deciding what fraction of the information we are presented with we choose to actively doubt and give further investigation to.

NASA is answering a question here (this is the link from the article):
https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/

The question is: "do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change"?

The answer is: "97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change."

Now you might not be asking that question but I certainly was.

So IBD, the short answer to your question is because people wanted to know. If the answer were that only 50% of scientists agreed many would doubt and investigate further a lot of "socially settled" science.

The reason we are talking about it in the thread is because the article in question makes a really big deal about this being a "Trick" by NASA.
Edited on 16-03-2020 02:35
16-03-2020 03:28
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6253)
tmiddles wrote:So IBD, the short answer to your question is because people wanted to know.

That can't be the case.

Those who want to know demand science, they doubt/question just about everything and dismiss speculation/opinion.

Those who merely want to appear smart latch onto the most popular gossip so that they can contribute to the conversation at the water cooler.

tmiddles wrote:..the general public, myself included, weigh the credibility of those given expert opinions.

How do you know when tmiddles is pulling chit out of his azz?
Answer 1: He is posting.
Answer 2: He brazenly pretends to be speaking for virtually everyone.

The general public, including you, use the word "expert" as a euphamism for politically like-minded advocates or activists.


... so the correct answer is that you crave reading about others who also believe in Global Warming as you do because it gives you a fix, not because you ever had any desire to learn anything.



.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

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

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

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

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
16-03-2020 03:44
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2520)
IBdaMann wrote:
Those who want to know demand science, They doubt/question just about everything and dismiss speculation/opinion.
No they don't IBD. Lunatics do that.

You know who doubt/question just about everything? Flat Earthers.

Most people, myself included, keep our powder dry and selectively attack things that seem suspect. NOT everything.

Please consider this: Flat Earthers vs Scientists: Can We Trust Science? 27:10 "IN THE MODERN WORLD YOU HAVE TO BELIEVE IN SCIENCE IMPLICITLY...I met a flat Earther who said I don't trust anything that science does... human beings can't replicate the whole body of science every generation... at a certain point you have to trust what's already been discovered and proven and move on to the next thing or else we're not going to make any progress at all"
Edited on 16-03-2020 03:45
16-03-2020 04:01
James___
★★★★★
(2420)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Those who want to know demand science, They doubt/question just about everything and dismiss speculation/opinion.
No they don't IBD. Lunatics do that.

You know who doubt/question just about everything? Flat Earthers.

Most people, myself included, keep our powder dry and selectively attack things that seem suspect. NOT everything.

Please consider this: Flat Earthers vs Scientists: Can We Trust Science? 27:10 "IN THE MODERN WORLD YOU HAVE TO BELIEVE IN SCIENCE IMPLICITLY...I met a flat Earther who said I don't trust anything that science does... human beings can't replicate the whole body of science every generation... at a certain point you have to trust what's already been discovered and proven and move on to the next thing or else we're not going to make any progress at all"



What's being ignored is history. Ask scientists that you support why there was a Medieval Warm Period and that was followed by a Little Ice Age. They don't know.
This is also their graph. Between 1880 and 1978, the global annual temperature warmed by 0.1° C. The average temperature was below the years before 1880 and after 1978.
And this coincides with ODSs being banned or limited by the Montreal Protocol in 1987. If you notice, not until 1978 nothing really happens.
The link is incase the image doesn't attach.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/Y6mvNzRdVARxTcEaA
Attached image:


Edited on 16-03-2020 04:03
16-03-2020 04:07
James___
★★★★★
(2420)
I added some lines to show what I mean about the temperature for almost 100 years didn't have much really happen.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/rKE6jr2S8ir6Px7S9
Attached image:


Edited on 16-03-2020 04:09
16-03-2020 05:43
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6253)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Those who want to know demand science, They doubt/question just about everything and dismiss speculation/opinion.
No they don't IBD. Lunatics do that.

The pursuit of science involves doubting, challenging and questioning.

The pursuit of religion involves not doubting, not challenging and not questioning.

Your pursuit ... is of your daily Global Warming fix ... and incidentally your daily bogus position assignment. This is why you desperately want for those who doubt, challenge and question to stop doubting, challenging and questioning ... and instead believe, accept and simply take on faith.

You think those who do not accept your religion on faith without question ... are lunatics. You think those who pursue a science approach ... are lunatics.

tmiddles wrote:You know who doubt/question just about everything?

Scientists. The scientific method requires EVERYTHING be scrutinized without exception. Religion, on the other hand, requires the bullying and the shaming of those who scrutinize any aspect of the dogma.

tmiddles, your WACKY religious dogma does not stand up to scrutiny. I can see why you try to bully me into not questioning and not doubting. Your religion stands no chance otherwise.



.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

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

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

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

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
16-03-2020 06:16
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2520)
IBdaMann wrote:
The pursuit of science involves doubting, challenging and questioning.
Well said. A practical approach to anything involves having a feasible, workable strategy. You don't question everything at once. That is a map to nowhere.

IBdaMann wrote:The scientific method requires EVERYTHING be scrutinized without exception.
No it does not. It's a tool for scrutinizing ANYTHING. Again it is a map to nowhere to take everything on at once. Also there is no need to. It's easier, faster and more practical to tackle one element at a time. I've been trying to do this with you using Venus as a tool because it totally side steps the issues of accuracy that trouble you when it comes to Earth. You have been ducking that debate for weeks now.

What the scientific method is:


What you would seem to be doing is this:
1- Question everything at the same time
2- Form the hypothesis that they all got it all wrong
3- Do NOT experiment, for the love of GOD, don't go down that road!
4- Make sure it's Valid Raw Data, don't worry though, it is not
5- Conclusion

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles, your WACKY religious dogma does not stand up to scrutiny.
What scrutiny? Bring it on.
16-03-2020 07:23
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11753)
tmiddles wrote:...deleted TMSb2...


No argument presented.


The Parrot Killer
16-03-2020 08:10
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11753)
tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 1...35b1...34...31...35b1...20c...6...


No argument presented.


The Parrot Killer
16-03-2020 08:17
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11753)
tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 20c...20j...20l...20e2...10 (religion<->science)...TMSb4...TMSb8...
What the scientific method is:



Observation is nor part of any theory of science. All observations are subject to the problems of phenomenology.

Supporting evidence is not used in science.

Experiments are not required for science.

The theory of science is a conclusion before anything else. A theory is an explanatory argument. An argument is a set of predicates and a conclusion.

There are no proofs in science. There is no voting bloc in science.

Only religion uses supporting evidence. Only religion assumes theories are True.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 16-03-2020 08:23
16-03-2020 12:20
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2520)
Into the Night wrote:
Observation is not part of any theory of science.


A theory can only come from a hypothesis which can only come from a human being. Observation is an unavoidable component ITN.

You seem to really go out of your way to avoid admitting science is ever a working and applied study.

Do you have a different name for the method, research, execution, application and empirical knowledge that is generally also called "science"?

I know you have your own unique definition:
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:Science is a set of falsifiable theories.
Your definition of science has long since been debunked:
Google: 7 results, pretty much just you


Maybe you could call it something else so you can actually use it in a sentence. Saying Science is not Science repeatedly is pretty confusing. Because it's Scientific Research, the Scientific Method and Scientific Evidence as part of Science.

ITN's SCIENTIFIC METHOD:
1) Theory
Edited on 16-03-2020 12:23
16-03-2020 14:29
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6253)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Observation is not part of any theory of science.


A theory can only come from a hypothesis which can only come from a human being. Observation is an unavoidable component ITN.


E = m * c^2

What part of this theory of science contains observations? I have looked over every part of this theory of science five times ... no wait ... six times now ... and I don't see any observations included in any part. Please point the observations out to me.

Also, would you cite for me where the owner of science requires observations be provided for a theory to be approved as science.

You seem to really go out of your way to avoid admitting science is a collection of falsifiable models that predict nature.

tmiddles wrote: Do you have a different name for the method, research, execution, application and empirical knowledge that is generally also called "science"?

Only science is correctly called science. "Science" is mistakenly applied as a label in many occasions, often by scientifically illiterate warmizombies in the process of preaching their religion.



.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

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

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

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

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
16-03-2020 15:32
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2520)
IBdaMann wrote:
Only science is correctly called science.

So when you said:
IBdaMann wrote:
...The scientific method requires EVERYTHING be scrutinized without exception....

What do you mean by "The scientific method"?

Does that translate to "The collection of falsifiable models that predict nature method" and it somehow avoids observation?

And yes e = mc^2 was developed by Albert Einstein who observed as part of his "Scientific Method".

And you have time to reply when it's semantics but no time for a rebuttal to your being debunked on 1st LTD, placks Law, SB, 2nd law...just keep running away IBD.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
Edited on 16-03-2020 15:36
16-03-2020 18:49
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11753)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Observation is not part of any theory of science.

A theory can only come from a hypothesis which can only come from a human being. Observation is an unavoidable component ITN.

Nope. Observation is not required to form a theory of science. No theory of science contains an observation.
tmiddles wrote:
You seem to really go out of your way to avoid admitting science is ever a working and applied study.

It is neither.
tmiddles wrote:
Do you have a different name for the method, research, execution, application and empirical knowledge that is generally also called "science"?

Religion. You call it 'science'.
tmiddles wrote:
I know you have your own unique definition:

Not my definition.
tmiddles wrote:
Maybe you could call it something else so you can actually use it in a sentence.

You can use it in a sentence. Perhaps you need to study English a bit more.
tmiddles wrote:
Saying Science is not Science repeatedly is pretty confusing. Because it's Scientific Research, the Scientific Method and Scientific Evidence as part of Science.

None of that is science.
* There is no such thing as 'scientific' research. There is only research, or there is not.
* There is no such thing as 'scientific' method. There is only a method, or there is not.
* There is no such thing as 'scientific' evidence. There is only evidence, or there is not.
Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's all. That's it. It is just the theories themselves.

You are describing religion, not science. Only religions use supporting evidence. Science does not use supporting evidence at all. There are no proofs in science. Fundamentalist religion tries to 'prove' it's ideas. There is no such thing as 'settled' science. There are no voting blocs in science to 'approve' a theory. Only religions do that.

What you are describing as the 'scientific method' was once used by Francis Bacon to try to 'prove' the existence of God by using science.

Come out of the 17th century, dude. Science is not a 'method', a 'research', or an 'evidence'. It is just a set of falsifiable theories.

Now that you've denied science in general, can we go back to your denying the 1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law?


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 16-03-2020 18:50
16-03-2020 18:54
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11753)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Only science is correctly called science.

So when you said:
IBdaMann wrote:
...The scientific method requires EVERYTHING be scrutinized without exception....

What do you mean by "The scientific method"?

Mantra 29. RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
Does that translate to "The collection of falsifiable models that predict nature method" and it somehow avoids observation?

Yes.
tmiddles wrote:
And yes e = mc^2 was developed by Albert Einstein who observed as part of his "Scientific Method".

What is the observation? Be specific. Mantra 20e1.
tmiddles wrote:
And you have time to reply when it's semantics but no time for a rebuttal to your being debunked on 1st LTD, placks Law, SB, 2nd law...just keep running away IBD.

Mantras 20a1...20b...20a2...17...

RQAA.


The Parrot Killer
16-03-2020 23:41
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6253)
tmiddles wrote:What do you mean by "The scientific method"?

Do you not know what the scientific method is? Are you asking me to teach you?

tmiddles wrote:And yes e = mc^2 was developed by Albert Einstein who observed as part of his "Scientific Method".

So you finally recognize that there simply are no observations contained anywhere within the model E = m * c^2, yes?


.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

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

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

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

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
17-03-2020 02:07
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2520)
Into the Night wrote:
Nope. Observation is not required to form a theory of science. No theory of science contains an observation.
No cake contains the recipe for the cake (that bit wouldn't taste very good). You seem to struggle mightily in understanding that while we have "Theories of Science" there is also a "Scientific Method", "Scientific Research", "Applied Science" and so on. Now you've got your own weird definition of "SCIENCE" that forbids the inclusion of anything other than disembodies theories but that's just you.

Also the Scientific Method is not a requirement or a law. It's a guide and an advised approach to developing scientific knowledge.
But again if you don't want to use "Science" for anything other than research make up your own word for _______method, _______research, and applied _______. As it is you're totally unclear as to if you're in someway opposed to those activities?

Into the Night wrote:There are no proofs in science.
Wouldn't you agree that while you cannot prove something to be true you can prove something to be false? So in that sense there are real solid proofs in science?

Into the Night wrote:Now that you've denied science in general, can we go back to your denying the 1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law?
Yes please!!! I'm patiently waiting:

Misuse of the 1st LTD, Plancks Law/SB Law, and glaring hypocrisy of "Valid Data" exposed:
https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/venus-is-hotter-than-mercury--d6-e2710-s720.php#post_53762
5 days with no reply

Debating "photons of the lower temperature object are not absorbed by the higher temperature object." and that the a light bulb absorbs the radiance from an oven, IBD claims "go ahead ... I'm ready to debate it.":
https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/the-radiative-greenhouse-effect-does-not-exist-d10-e3047-s40.php#post_53357
12 days with no reply

2nd Law and disproving IBD's confusion about Earth being a isolated system:
https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/2nd-law-d6-e3030-s80.php#post_53063
18 days with no reply

Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
And yes e = mc^2 was developed by Albert Einstein who observed as part of his "Scientific Method".

What is the observation? Be specific.

You mean "AN observation", or "SOME observations", the scientific method does not dictate a single observation.

Was Einstein the First to Invent E = mc2?
"Anyone who sits through a freshman electricity and magnetism course learns that charged objects carry electric fields, and that moving charges also create magnetic fields. Hence, moving charged particles carry electromagnetic fields. Late 19th-century natural philosophers believed that electromagnetism was more fundamental than Isaac Newton's laws of motion and that the electromagnetic field itself should provide the origin of mass. In 1881 J. J. Thomson, later a discoverer of the electron, made the first attempt to demonstrate how this might come about by explicitly calculating the magnetic field generated by a moving charged sphere and showing that the field in turn induced a mass into the sphere itself. "

IBdaMann wrote:
Do you not know what the scientific method is? Are you asking me to teach you?
No I posted it above. Do you dispute that version?

IBdaMann wrote:
So you finally recognize that there simply are no observations contained anywhere within the model E = m * c^2, yes?
Yes it's the METHOD that leads to the theory IBD. Before - After

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
Edited on 17-03-2020 02:15
17-03-2020 02:26
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6253)
tmiddles wrote: No cake contains the recipe for the cake (that bit wouldn't taste very good).

... and some cakes are invented from scratch without a formal recipe.

No cake contains any recipe. No science contains any observations.

Recipes sure make cake-baking easier but recipes are simply not required to make a cake.

Observations can certainly inspire science but observations are simply not required to have science.



.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

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

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

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

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
17-03-2020 02:31
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6253)
tmiddles wrote: Also the Scientific Method is not a requirement or a law. It's a guide and an advised approach to developing scientific knowledge.

Ooooooh, so close ... but NOPE.

The scientific method is a systematic attempt to prove a falsifiable model FALSE via a battery of tests that verify internal consistency, external consistency, the null hypothesis and then any imaginable hypothesis that can be cherry-picked for its testing value.


.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

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

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

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

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
17-03-2020 02:42
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6253)
tmiddles wrote:Wouldn't you agree that while you cannot prove something to be true you can prove something to be false? So in that sense there are real solid proofs in science?

NOPE.

The scientific method does not prove anything FALSE; it demonstrates that it is FALSE.

I suppose that you could make the case that internal and external consistency is "proven" but that does not demonstrate that any model is FALSE. Any internal or external inconsistencies become hypotheses that must be tested in experimentation and show the model to be FALSE.


.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

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

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

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

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
17-03-2020 02:46
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2520)
IBdaMann wrote:... and some cakes are invented from scratch without a formal recipe.
And the Scientific Method is not a requirement for forming a theory it's simply what works well. Most importantly it's recognized as being effective at weeding out bad theory.

IBdaMann wrote:No science contains any observations.
Producing a cake is called "Baking", what would you like to call the development of, research with, and application of "Scientific Theory"?

IBdaMann wrote:... observations are simply not required to have science.
I see you didn't read the very post you responded to:
tmiddles wrote:Also the Scientific Method is not a requirement or a law. It's a guide and an advised approach to developing scientific knowledge.
No biggie, I've been guilty of that myself many times.

IBdaMann wrote:...it demonstrates that it is FALSE.
OK that is certainly more accurate. Correction appreciated.

IBdaMann wrote:The scientific method is a systematic attempt to prove a falsifiable model FALSE via a battery of tests that verify internal consistency, external consistency, the null hypothesis and then any imaginable hypothesis that can be cherry-picked for its testing value.
Yes the Scientific Method is an advisable approach. Or did you have something better?
What you've written above is a bit unclear.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
Edited on 17-03-2020 02:52
17-03-2020 05:12
Amanbir GrewalProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(113)
Complex wave functions. courtesy Michael James Faraday.

you want to meet me?

or you want to surrender?


it your destiny, to fly high. up in the sky.


Superimposition Sciences.
17-03-2020 05:40
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6253)
tmiddles wrote: Also the Scientific Method is not a requirement or a law. It's a guide and an advised approach to developing scientific knowledge.

Nope. The scientific method has nothing to do with creating science. It is merely the required test thereof.



.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

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

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

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

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
17-03-2020 06:05
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2520)
IBdaMann wrote:The scientific method has ...
So you do call it the "Scientific method" but you say it has nothing to do with "Science".

What about scientific research? Is that just "research"? Does it have nothing to do with science?

When Josef Stefan observed the research done by John Tyndall and hypothesized that radiance is proportional to the fourth power of temperature. And that hypothesis was then confirmed by Heinrich Weber who did more research.

What do you call all of the green stuff? I know the red stuff is science to you right?

Again this does seem like a vocabulary game of your own invention.
17-03-2020 07:42
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11753)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Nope. Observation is not required to form a theory of science. No theory of science contains an observation.
No cake contains the recipe for the cake (that bit wouldn't taste very good). You seem to struggle mightily in understanding that while we have "Theories of Science" there is also a "Scientific Method", "Scientific Research", "Applied Science" and so on. Now you've got your own weird definition of "SCIENCE" that forbids the inclusion of anything other than disembodies theories but that's just you.

Also the Scientific Method is not a requirement or a law. It's a guide and an advised approach to developing scientific knowledge.

There is no such thing as 'scientific' research.
tmiddles wrote:
But again if you don't want to use "Science" for anything other than research make up your own word for _______method, _______research, and applied _______. As it is you're totally unclear as to if you're in someway opposed to those activities?

Mantra 29. RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:There are no proofs in science.
Wouldn't you agree that while you cannot prove something to be true you can prove something to be false? So in that sense there are real solid proofs in science?

No. A theory that has been falsified is no longer a theory of science.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:Now that you've denied science in general, can we go back to your denying the 1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law?
Yes please!!! I'm patiently waiting:

Mantra 29. RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
Misuse of the 1st LTD, Plancks Law/SB Law, and glaring hypocrisy of "Valid Data" exposed:
https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/venus-is-hotter-than-mercury--d6-e2710-s720.php#post_53762
5 days with no reply

Mantra 29. RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
Debating "photons of the lower temperature object are not absorbed by the higher temperature object." and that the a light bulb absorbs the radiance from an oven, IBD claims "go ahead ... I'm ready to debate it."
https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/the-radiative-greenhouse-effect-does-not-exist-d10-e3047-s40.php#post_53357
12 days with no reply

Mantra 29. RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
2nd Law and disproving IBD's confusion about Earth being a isolated system:
https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/2nd-law-d6-e3030-s80.php#post_53063
18 days with no reply

Mantra 29. RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
And yes e = mc^2 was developed by Albert Einstein who observed as part of his "Scientific Method".

What is the observation? Be specific.

You mean "AN observation", or "SOME observations", the scientific method does not dictate a single observation.

Evasion. Answer the question.
tmiddles wrote:
Was Einstein the First to Invent E = mc2?

Yes.
tmiddles wrote:
"Anyone who sits through a freshman electricity and magnetism course learns that charged objects carry electric fields, and that moving charges also create magnetic fields. Hence, moving charged particles carry electromagnetic fields. Late 19th-century natural philosophers believed that electromagnetism was more fundamental than Isaac Newton's laws of motion and that the electromagnetic field itself should provide the origin of mass. In 1881 J. J. Thomson, later a discoverer of the electron, made the first attempt to demonstrate how this might come about by explicitly calculating the magnetic field generated by a moving charged sphere and showing that the field in turn induced a mass into the sphere itself. "

Never happened. Mantra 21.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Do you not know what the scientific method is? Are you asking me to teach you?
No I posted it above. Do you dispute that version?

Yes. Mantra 29. RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
So you finally recognize that there simply are no observations contained anywhere within the model E = m * c^2, yes?
Yes it's the METHOD that leads to the theory IBD. Before - After

WRONG. No method is required to create a theory.


The Parrot Killer
17-03-2020 09:22
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2520)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
....Late 19th-century natural philosophers believed that electromagnetism was more fundamental than Isaac Newton's laws of motion and that the electromagnetic field itself should provide the origin of mass. ...

Never happened.
It never happened?

Which part? The late 19th century? Isaac Newton? The belief the electromagnetic field itself should provide the origin of mass?
17-03-2020 09:55
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11753)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
....Late 19th-century natural philosophers believed that electromagnetism was more fundamental than Isaac Newton's laws of motion and that the electromagnetic field itself should provide the origin of mass. ...

Never happened.
It never happened?

Which part? The late 19th century? Isaac Newton? The belief the electromagnetic field itself should provide the origin of mass?


Mantra 29. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate Setting the record straight on the climate debate:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Hottest day on record (going back to 1880s) in Paris6730-07-2019 00:02
Why is Climate-debate.com so messed up?6519-07-2019 07:37
record high temp in france7808-07-2019 06:18
Climate debate myth1822-06-2019 20:58
Temperatures leap 40 degrees above normal as the Arctic Ocean and Greenland ice sheet see record June mel318-06-2019 06:22
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact