Remember me
▼ Content

Snow: predicted decline globally, increase locally



Page 4 of 5<<<2345>
08-05-2019 02:15
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8182)
dehammer wrote:
All scientists write their own procedures. You think a new theory is in some sort of instruction book?
Theories are not procedures.

Then why are you claiming they are? You are locked in another paradox.
dehammer wrote:
Procedures are things like never changing the subject you are measuring or the method of measuring it.

Why would you never change what you are measuring or how you are measuring it?
dehammer wrote:
A good example is the hockey stick.
Bad example. Has nothing to do with it.
dehammer wrote:
It violate both of these procedures.
WRONG. It is simply a chart of random numbers.
dehammer wrote:
It goes from climate to temperature
WRONG. It is claimed to be temperature. They are actually just random numbers. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
dehammer wrote:
and from proxies to instruments.

WRONG. It does not mention the instruments used. Proxies are not data.
dehammer wrote:
Once again, you have proven your anti science is religious.

Void proof fallacy. Redefinition fallacy (math <-> science, math <-> religion). Void argument fallacy.

You have denied the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, the Stefan-Boltzmann law, Kirchoff's law, Planck's laws, and Newton's laws. You are denying statistical mathematics. Although you haven't done so yet, you probably deny probability mathematics as well for the same reasons.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 08-05-2019 02:17
08-05-2019 02:47
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
Im beginning to think that English is not your first language.

You certainly do not seem to have any knowledge of science.
Edited on 08-05-2019 02:47
08-05-2019 11:26
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8182)
dehammer wrote:
Im beginning to think that English is not your first language.

You certainly do not seem to have any knowledge of science.


You are trolling again.


The Parrot Killer
08-05-2019 15:35
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3888)
Into the Night wrote: A scientist is anyone that creates a theory of science.

Remember that this includes all those who apply the scientific method and show theories to be false. Being a scientist is a mindset. When you doubt and question Greenhouse Effect claims and then use existing science to support your doubts, you are being a scientist in every respect, even if you are not creating a new theory.

No one is required to put on his/her "scientist" hat for all ideas. Religions have their place in helping people make sense of the unknown for which there is a personal "need to know."

To this end, Global Warming/Climate Change is a problematic religion because it dogmatically demands belief that the religion is science. This, in turn, turns otherwise reasonable people into bulveristic morons who can no longer discern religion from science. They obediently regurgitate whatever they are instructed to believe and they attack/hate those who apply scientific reasoning to the religious Global Warming belief system.

Show me someone who believes in Greenhouse Effect and I'll show you a religious zealot who is either scientifically illiterate or who is a flat out science denier.


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

Edited on 08-05-2019 15:37
08-05-2019 16:27
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3888)
dehammer wrote: Im beginning to think that English is not your first language.

In English, we put an apostraphe after the "I" in "I'm". You never told me, what is your first language?

dehammer wrote:You certainly do not seem to have any knowledge of science.

Into the Night's grasp of science is pretty solid but one of science's strong points is that no one needs to have any understanding of science to use science.

Science is a collection of falsifiable models that predict nature. Anyone can simply look up any model and let the model speak for itself with regard to what it says.

For example, if you tell an eight-year-old that "greenhouse gas" increases the earth's average global temperature by trapping heat (i.e. reducing radiance) then there is nothing preventing that eight-year-old from looking at Stefan-Boltzmann:

Radiance = Boltzmann_Constant * Emissivity_Constant * Temperature^4

... and telling you that you are full of chits, that Temperature and Radiance must move in the same direction and cannot move in opposite directions.

Even an eight-year-old can be a scientist, even without any sort of firm understanding of 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
08-05-2019 17:05
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
Into the Night wrote:
dehammer wrote:
Im beginning to think that English is not your first language.

You certainly do not seem to have any knowledge of science.


You are trolling again.
Its always so funny to hear a troll complain about being trolled.
08-05-2019 18:23
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
You never told me, what is your first language?
The problem with not having English as the first language is not that you don't make mistakes with punctuations, but that you don't understand the meaning of things. You are showing a definite lack of understanding of many things in the English language.
08-05-2019 19:12
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8182)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote: A scientist is anyone that creates a theory of science.

Remember that this includes all those who apply the scientific method and show theories to be false. Being a scientist is a mindset. When you doubt and question Greenhouse Effect claims and then use existing science to support your doubts, you are being a scientist in every respect, even if you are not creating a new theory.
Quite true. Falsification often results in a new theory though.
IBdaMann wrote:
No one is required to put on his/her "scientist" hat for all ideas. Religions have their place in helping people make sense of the unknown for which there is a personal "need to know."
Certainly one way of putting it!
IBdaMann wrote:
To this end, Global Warming/Climate Change is a problematic religion because it dogmatically demands belief that the religion is science. This, in turn, turns otherwise reasonable people into bulveristic morons who can no longer discern religion from science. They obediently regurgitate whatever they are instructed to believe and they attack/hate those who apply scientific reasoning to the religious Global Warming belief system.

Show me someone who believes in Greenhouse Effect and I'll show you a religious zealot who is either scientifically illiterate or who is a flat out science denier.

Couldn't have said it better myself.


The Parrot Killer
08-05-2019 19:13
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8182)
dehammer wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
dehammer wrote:
Im beginning to think that English is not your first language.

You certainly do not seem to have any knowledge of science.


You are trolling again.
Its always so funny to hear a troll complain about being trolled.

Insult fallacy, troll.


The Parrot Killer
08-05-2019 19:20
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8182)
dehammer wrote:
You never told me, what is your first language?
The problem with not having English as the first language is not that you don't make mistakes with punctuations, but that you don't understand the meaning of things. You are showing a definite lack of understanding of many things in the English language.


Inversion fallacy. 'Punctuation' does not have a plural.

The meanings of words have meanings in other languages. Even the Japanese understand science.

Anata wa tegakari o motte imasen. IBdaMann wa Oranda-go de giron suru koto ga dekimasu. Netsu rikigaku no daiichihōsoku o tekiyō suru.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 08-05-2019 19:26
08-05-2019 19:30
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
Understanding the meaning in Japanese doesn't mean you understand the English words. You both have shown a serious lack of understanding of English meaning.
08-05-2019 21:05
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3888)
dehammer wrote: You both have shown a serious lack of understanding of English meaning.

But you have shown a fervent disdain for science along with a commensurate level of ignorance.

I'll get where I need to go with my deficiencies in English, but thank you for your concern.

You, on the other hand, will not be taken anywhere by your existing science acumen ... or lack thereof.

So, what are your thoughts about Greenhouse Effect?


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
08-05-2019 21:24
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
The greenhouse effect exist, which is why life can exist on the earth. It is not known well enough to come close to knowing how much which gas contributes and in what way to it. There is no way to model any of the effects to the extent you could predict future weather or climate.

As I have said, claims that co2 will cause problems is nothing but a scam.
08-05-2019 22:25
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8182)
dehammer wrote:
Understanding the meaning in Japanese doesn't mean you understand the English words. You both have shown a serious lack of understanding of English meaning.


The meaning is the same, dude. That's the point.


The Parrot Killer
08-05-2019 22:27
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
Your lack of understanding is showing again.
08-05-2019 22:33
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8182)
dehammer wrote:
The greenhouse effect exist, which is why life can exist on the earth.

It cannot. Again, you are ignoring laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
dehammer wrote:
It is not known well enough to come close to knowing how much which gas contributes and in what way to it.

No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth using light emitted from the Earth. See the 1st law of thermodynamics. Now which do you want to use, the Magick Blanket argument or the Magick Bouncing Photon argument?
dehammer wrote:
There is no way to model any of the effects to the extent you could predict future weather or climate.

There are no effects. There is nothing to model.
dehammer wrote:
As I have said, claims that co2 will cause problems is nothing but a scam.

This particular branch of the Church of Global Warming actually argues a paradox, for if CO2 did have this magick property, it WOULD cause problems. The Earth would keep gaining more and more energy until it fried into a crisp, thus destroying the experiment catastrophically.


The Parrot Killer
08-05-2019 22:34
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8182)
dehammer wrote:
Your lack of understanding is showing again.

Bulverism. Argument of the stone fallacy. Void argument fallacy. Trolling.


The Parrot Killer
08-05-2019 22:36
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
It cannot. Again, you are ignoring laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
yea, you seem to know everything.
08-05-2019 22:50
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8182)
dehammer wrote:
It cannot. Again, you are ignoring laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
yea, you seem to know everything.


Never claimed any such thing. I do know, however, the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You can look it up yourself. I also know the laws of thermodynamics. You can look them up yourself.

These are theories of science. It's not like I'm hiding them or anything, or even claiming to have invented them.

I know a shitload of other stuff too, but that is not relevant here at the moment.

However, I don't know everything. No one does.


The Parrot Killer
08-05-2019 23:12
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
Yes and I know karate, judo and a dozen other Japanese words.
09-05-2019 01:00
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3888)
dehammer wrote:The greenhouse effect exist, which is why life can exist on the earth.

Christians claim God exists, which is why life exists on earth. It's not a very scientific claim, right. It's pretty well established to be religious dogma, right?

dehammer wrote: It is not known well enough to come close to knowing how much which gas contributes and in what way to it.

Correct. It is nothing but a religious belief. Nothing is known about it, right? After all, you cannot even define Greenhouse Effect in any formal, falsifiable manner such that science can even apply to it, right? It's just like Christians cannot define God in any formal, falsifiable manner such that science can even apply in the first place, right?

Religions are all the same in that regard. You simply revere the Greenhouse Effect more than you revere, say, the Christian God.

dehammer wrote: There is no way to model any of the effects to the extent you could predict future weather or climate.

... then you don't have science now, do you?


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
09-05-2019 01:20
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3888)
Into the Night wrote:Never claimed any such thing. I do know, however, the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You can look it up yourself. I also know the laws of thermodynamics. You can look them up yourself.


These are excellent references on your part. Well cited. I will save everyone some time and trouble.

Stefan-Boltzmann:
Radiance = Temperature^4 * Boltzmann_Constant * Emissivity_Constant

0th LoT:
If Thermal_Equilibrium(A,B), and Thermal_Equilibrium(B,C) then Thermal_Equilibrium(A,C)

1st LoT:
Q(t) = Q(t+1) or
Q(final) = Q(initial) - Work

2nd LoT [within a closed system]:
Q_Usable(t) > Q_Usable(t+1), or
Thermal_Energy(Warmer Body) -> Thermal_Energy(Cooler Body)


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
09-05-2019 01:41
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
... then you don't have science now, do you?
You are either a troll or you have no comprehension of the English language.

Climate change is natural.
Global warming is part of climate change.
Global cooling is part of climate change.
Weather pattern is part of climate change.

Has man effected the climate? Yes.
The first time man irrigated a farm, he affected the climate.
The first time he build a building he affected climate.
The first time he build a road, he affected climate.
The first time he cut down trees, he affected climate.

Is his affect positive or negative. The juries out on that one.
Does he improve the climate making a desert capable of being farmed? I would say yes, others say no.
Does he improve the climate by making the cold north more livable? I would say yes, others say no.
Does he improved the climate by altering river patterns? Its not as cut and dry as you might think.

Does he improve the climate dumping tons of waste? I would say no.
Does he improve the climate dumping tons of hydrocarbons, mostly unburnt gas, into the air? Not likely.

Does anything he has done CONTROL the environment. A resounding NO
09-05-2019 02:09
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3888)
dehammer wrote:Climate change is natural.

Not according to the science you have posted on the matter ... which is absolutely zero.

dehammer wrote: Global warming is part of climate change.

Neither of which are defined in any formal, falsifiable manner such that science can even be applied.

dehammer wrote: Global cooling is part of climate change.

Still no definition. Still no science.

dehammer wrote: Weather pattern is part of climate change.

Not per any science you have provided.

dehammer wrote: Has man effected the climate? Yes.

You haven't defined "climate." Until then, this is not true.

Has man affected Valhalla? Yes. Of course! Right?

dehammer wrote: The first time man irrigated a farm, he affected the climate.

How do you suggest we go back in time to verify whether you are correct or just full of compost?

dehammer wrote: The first time he build a building he affected climate. The first time he build a road, he affected climate.
The first time he cut down trees, he affected climate.

What's your first language?

dehammer wrote: Is his affect positive or negative. The juries out on that one.

There's no jury. There's nothing to consider until you start providing formal, falsifiable definitions and the science that supports your (rather strange) assertions.

So, if I were to assert that "Climate" hasn't changed one iota over the course of my lifetime, how would you prove me wrong?

dehammer wrote: Does anything he has done CONTROL the environment. A resounding NO

Oooohhh ... did anyone catch the goalpost shift here? Anyone? The floor is open.


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
09-05-2019 02:25
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
IBdaMann wrote:
dehammer wrote:Climate change is natural.

dehammer wrote: Global warming is part of climate change.
dehammer wrote: Global cooling is part of climate change.
dehammer wrote: Weather pattern is part of climate change.


Still no science.
That's says it all. Enjoy your religion.
Edited on 09-05-2019 02:27
09-05-2019 02:32
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8182)
dehammer wrote:
Yes and I know karate, judo and a dozen other Japanese words.


Do you? What does 'karate' mean? What does 'judo' mean?


The Parrot Killer
09-05-2019 02:34
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8182)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:Never claimed any such thing. I do know, however, the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You can look it up yourself. I also know the laws of thermodynamics. You can look them up yourself.


These are excellent references on your part. Well cited. I will save everyone some time and trouble.

Stefan-Boltzmann:
Radiance = Temperature^4 * Boltzmann_Constant * Emissivity_Constant

0th LoT:
If Thermal_Equilibrium(A,
, and Thermal_Equilibrium(B,C) then Thermal_Equilibrium(A,C)

1st LoT:
Q(t) = Q(t+1) or
Q(final) = Q(initial) - Work

2nd LoT [within a closed system]:
Q_Usable(t) > Q_Usable(t+1), or
Thermal_Energy(Warmer Body) -> Thermal_Energy(Cooler Body)


You are making it too easy for him!



The Parrot Killer
09-05-2019 02:36
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
Into the Night wrote:
dehammer wrote:
Yes and I know karate, judo and a dozen other Japanese words.


Do you? What does 'karate' mean? What does 'judo' mean?


Zooom, right over the head.
09-05-2019 02:46
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8182)
dehammer wrote:
... then you don't have science now, do you?
You are either a troll

And now for a trip down name calling and paradoxes...
dehammer wrote:
or you have no comprehension of the English language.

Already demonstrated that you don't. Inversion fallacy.
dehammer wrote:
Climate change is natural.

'Climate change' has no meaning. It's a buzzword. It can only be defined by itself.
dehammer wrote:
Global warming is part of climate change.

'Global warming' has no meaning. It's a buzzword. It can only be defined by itself.
dehammer wrote:
Global cooling is part of climate change.

'Global cooling' has no meaning. It's a buzzword. It can only be defined by itself.
dehammer wrote:
Weather pattern is part of climate change.

'Weather pattern' has no meaning. It's a buzzword. It can only be defined by itself.
dehammer wrote:
Has man effected the climate? Yes.

Try English. It works better.
dehammer wrote:
The first time man irrigated a farm, he affected the climate.

Not the meaning of 'climate'. Irrigating a farm has nothing to do with weather.
dehammer wrote:
The first time he build a building he affected climate.

Not the meaning of 'climate'. A building has nothing to do with weather.
dehammer wrote:
The first time he build a road, he affected climate.

Not the meaning of 'climate'. A road has nothing to do with the weather.
dehammer wrote:
The first time he cut down trees, he affected climate.

Nothing to do with climate. Trees have nothing to do with weather.
dehammer wrote:
Is his affect positive or negative. The juries out on that one.

Try English. It works better. You seem to have a lot of trouble with 'effect' and 'affect'.
dehammer wrote:
Does he improve the climate making a desert capable of being farmed? I would say yes, others say no.

Not the meaning of 'climate'. A farm has nothing to do with the weather.
dehammer wrote:
Does he improve the climate by making the cold north more livable? I would say yes, others say no.

Not the meaning of 'climate'. A building has nothing to do with the weather.
dehammer wrote:
Does he improved the climate by altering river patterns? Its not as cut and dry as you might think.

Not the meaning of 'climate'. A river's path has nothing to do with the weather.
dehammer wrote:
Does he improve the climate dumping tons of waste? I would say no.

Define 'waste'. Void argument.
dehammer wrote:
Does he improve the climate dumping tons of hydrocarbons, mostly unburnt gas, into the air?

Not the meaning of 'climate'. Smog has nothing to do with the weather.
dehammer wrote:
Does anything he has done CONTROL the environment. A resounding NO

Paradox. You are claiming that man can control the environment by these things. Then you deny it. Which is it, dude?

This post is filled with meaningless buzzwords and misuse of the word 'climate', essentially leaving it as a meaningless buzzword as well.

Try English. It works better.


The Parrot Killer
09-05-2019 02:48
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8182)
dehammer wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
dehammer wrote:Climate change is natural.

dehammer wrote: Global warming is part of climate change.
dehammer wrote: Global cooling is part of climate change.
dehammer wrote: Weather pattern is part of climate change.


Still no science.
That's says it all. Enjoy your religion.

That says nothing. 'Climate change' is a meaningless buzzword. 'Global warming' is a meaningless buzzword. 'Global cooling' is a meaningless buzzword.

You cannot define a word with itself or another meaningless buzzword.


The Parrot Killer
09-05-2019 02:49
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8182)
dehammer wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
dehammer wrote:
Yes and I know karate, judo and a dozen other Japanese words.


Do you? What does 'karate' mean? What does 'judo' mean?


Zooom, right over the head.


I didn't think you knew the meaning of those words.


The Parrot Killer
09-05-2019 02:56
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
Into the Night wrote:
dehammer wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
dehammer wrote:
Yes and I know karate, judo and a dozen other Japanese words.


Do you? What does 'karate' mean? What does 'judo' mean?


Zooom, right over the head.


I didn't think you knew the meaning of those words.
Actually I did study karate, brown belt lol.

The point is, I can throw around words like that too and have the exact same understanding as you have of those science words.
09-05-2019 03:10
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8182)
dehammer wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
dehammer wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
dehammer wrote:
Yes and I know karate, judo and a dozen other Japanese words.


Do you? What does 'karate' mean? What does 'judo' mean?


Zooom, right over the head.


I didn't think you knew the meaning of those words.
Actually I did study karate, brown belt lol.

Still have no idea what 'karate' means, eh?
dehammer wrote:
The point is, I can throw around words like that too

Which is what you are doing.
dehammer wrote:
and have the exact same understanding as you have of those science words.

Science isn't words. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. IBdaMann has been kind enough to post the equations for the laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. What part do you think is a 'science word'?

[/quote]


The Parrot Killer
09-05-2019 03:20
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
The point is, it is obvious that you do not know the science behind the words. I can throw out tons of words from other parts of the world an not know a single thing behind them. You are doing the same thing with science.

Do you even know what falsifiable means?
09-05-2019 03:37
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8182)
dehammer wrote:
The point is, it is obvious that you do not know the science behind the words.

There is no science behind words. Science is a set of falsifiable theories, not linquistics.
dehammer wrote:
I can throw out tons of words from other parts of the world an not know a single thing behind them.

And what would be the point?
dehammer wrote:
You are doing the same thing with science.

Science isn't words.
dehammer wrote:
Do you even know what falsifiable means?

Yes. The term comes from logic and philosophy, just as science itself does.

'Falsifiable' in terms of theories of science simply means the theory can be tested to see if it is False. The test must be available, practical to conduct, be specific, and produce a specific result. In science, the test is against the null hypothesis of a theory. If the test succeeds, the theory is falsified. It is no longer a theory. It is utterly destroyed. The usual result is that the theory becomes a fallacy.

No theory of science is ever proven True. Science does not use supporting evidence at all. It only uses conflicting evidence. The theory itself is the supporting side, simply by existing. It is proven to exist by proof of identity. A theory that exists, however, is not proven True.

There is no 'method' or 'procedure' in science. Any method or procedure is fine. Theories can be inspired from anywhere. Some come from dreams. Some come from watching a show. Some come from combining two existing theories, and thus destroy both theories in favor of the new one. Some come from accidents in the lab. Some come from observation.

A theory can literally come from anywhere. For it to be a theory of science, it must be falsifiable, and it must have withstood at least one test against its null hypothesis.

No theory of science can conflict with any other theory of science. This is known as the external consistency test. One or both theories must be falsified.

No theory of any kind (scientific or othewise) can be formed out of a fallacy. This is known as the internal consistency test. A theory must be a valid argument. It cannot be a fallacy since a fallacy is not a valid argument.


The Parrot Killer
09-05-2019 04:04
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
I'm guessing you are quoting someone since you seem to copy pasted that so often. http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/potential-effects-of-broadcast-induced-rep-on-climate-change-d6-e1903-s200.phpWhen you quote someone, you should at least acknowledge it.

Again, its not simple the words but the meaning behind it, which you seem to be losing.
09-05-2019 08:23
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8182)
dehammer wrote:
I'm guessing you are quoting someone since you seem to copy pasted that so often. http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/potential-effects-of-broadcast-induced-rep-on-climate-change-d6-e1903-s200.phpWhen you quote someone, you should at least acknowledge it.

Again, its not simple the words but the meaning behind it, which you seem to be losing.


I do not copy and paste. I do, however, give credit to the theories of science that I quote to those who created them. But since you ignore them anyway, what do you care?


The Parrot Killer
09-05-2019 16:27
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3888)
dehammer wrote:Do you even know what falsifiable means?

Oh, pick me! Pick me! I know the answer! Pick me!


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
09-05-2019 17:51
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3888)
Into the Night wrote: 'Falsifiable' in terms of theories of science simply means the theory can be tested to see if it is False. The test must be available, practical to conduct, be specific, and produce a specific result. In science, the test is against the null hypothesis of a theory.

Your writeup is beautiful. There are two things that need to be emphasized:

A. The null hypothesis is just one test in the scientific method. It's clearly a big one, but it is by no means the only one and it is not the first one. The first test is internal consistency (which you mention later). If the model expresses an obvious paradox/contradiction then it fails the first test and is summarily dismissed. You yourself do a very good job in this area of testing.

The second area is external consistency (which you also mention later). Greenhouse Effect, for example, is inconsistent with existing science. External inconsistency does not falsify a model but it does put the ball back in the proposer's court to address. Until then there is no point in expending time, money and effort on further testing. The model might be correct and existing science might be in error, but that has to be sorted out before you can devise an experiment that will yield valid results.

After demonstrating internal and external consistency, then you roll up the sleeves and begin testing ... and yes, the null hypothesis is where you start.

B. The other point that cannot be overemphasized is that no person gets to say what falsifies a model. Science is not subjective and is completely independent of anyone's opinion. Only the model itself, as it is formally expressed, gets to specify what falsifies it. If the model does not, it is not falsifiable. So when a warmizombie claims that Global Warming is falsifiable ... and then offers his opinion as to what will falsify it without offering a formally expressed model, then it is to be inferred that Global Warming is thus unfalsifiable and ergo that it is merely a religious belief.

Into the Night wrote: No theory of science is ever proven True.

Excellent point! Brilliant! Only religions preach what is the Truth, the Light and the Way! Only religions declare what prophesies have been confirmed and what divine truths have been "revealed." Whenever a warmizombie claims that science has confirmed Global Warming, he is telling me two things: 1) that he has lost all ability to discern science from religion and 2) that Global Warming is a religious belief that has nothing to do with science.

Into the Night wrote: Science does not use supporting evidence at all.

Interesting point. Are you saying that if I review the science I posted earlier that I won't find any supporting data whatsoever? That can't be right, can it? How can that be? I thought that science was "based on data and observations" ... at least that's what all the warmizombies tell me.

Hold on, I'm going to scroll up and reexamine the science.

Well hog tie me and throw in the fire if you aren't spot on! There isn't a lick of data anywhere in the science, and I reviewed Stefan-Boltzmann three times.

Into the Night wrote: Any method or procedure is fine.

Whoa ... hold your horses there pard'ner. Are you telling me that an eight-year-old with no credentials and no peer-reviewed studies can just walk in off the street and willie-nillie show a theory to be false? Don't you have to be a Climate Scientist to get a vote in whether something is science or not? Isn't there an established process for establishing the scientific consensus?

Into the Night wrote: Theories can be inspired from anywhere.

Even from, like, nature? Is that allowed?

Could the inspiration for a model come from the same source as the inspiration for a poem? Isn't data required for writing poetry? There hasn't ever been a single poet who has never made any observations. What does the poetic consensus say?

Into the Night wrote: A theory can literally come from anywhere. For it to be a theory of science, it must be falsifiable, and it must have withstood at least one test against its null hypothesis.

The notion of when a model earns the label of "science" is subjective and debatable but you could certainly make an exceptionally strong case for your assertion. Ultimately each individual determines what s/he accepts as science. You are asserting that you will not accept, for your applications, any model whose null hypothesis has not been tested. Your neighbor might be fine with merely demonstrating falsifiability and showing internal and external consistency, which is his right. Someone else might claim the two of you are naive and might demand far more extensive testing before affording the label of "science."

For purposes of discussion, I'm happy to just use your definition since you stuck your neck out there and took the intellectually courageous and honest approach of proposing your definition to the forum.


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
09-05-2019 18:50
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8182)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote: 'Falsifiable' in terms of theories of science simply means the theory can be tested to see if it is False. The test must be available, practical to conduct, be specific, and produce a specific result. In science, the test is against the null hypothesis of a theory.

Your writeup is beautiful. There are two things that need to be emphasized:

A. The null hypothesis is just one test in the scientific method. It's clearly a big one, but it is by no means the only one and it is not the first one. The first test is internal consistency (which you mention later). If the model expresses an obvious paradox/contradiction then it fails the first test and is summarily dismissed. You yourself do a very good job in this area of testing.

The second area is external consistency (which you also mention later). Greenhouse Effect, for example, is inconsistent with existing science. External inconsistency does not falsify a model but it does put the ball back in the proposer's court to address. Until then there is no point in expending time, money and effort on further testing. The model might be correct and existing science might be in error, but that has to be sorted out before you can devise an experiment that will yield valid results.

After demonstrating internal and external consistency, then you roll up the sleeves and begin testing ... and yes, the null hypothesis is where you start.

Quite right. This is the order of testing. I did not emphasize that part. There is really no point in testing a theory unless it meets the external consistency test. There is really no point in discussing a theory at all if it doesn't meet the internal consistency test.
IBdaMann wrote:
B. The other point that cannot be overemphasized is that no person gets to say what falsifies a model. Science is not subjective and is completely independent of anyone's opinion. Only the model itself, as it is formally expressed, gets to specify what falsifies it. If the model does not, it is not falsifiable. So when a warmizombie claims that Global Warming is falsifiable ... and then offers his opinion as to what will falsify it without offering a formally expressed model, then it is to be inferred that Global Warming is thus unfalsifiable and ergo that it is merely a religious belief.

Quite right. The theory (and the model) itself determine if they are falsifiable. It is not possible to falsify a model that itself is not specific and formally expressible.
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote: No theory of science is ever proven True.

Excellent point! Brilliant! Only religions preach what is the Truth, the Light and the Way! Only religions declare what prophesies have been confirmed and what divine truths have been "revealed." Whenever a warmizombie claims that science has confirmed Global Warming, he is telling me two things: 1) that he has lost all ability to discern science from religion and 2) that Global Warming is a religious belief that has nothing to do with science.

Quite right. Only religions use supporting evidence.
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote: Science does not use supporting evidence at all.

Interesting point. Are you saying that if I review the science I posted earlier that I won't find any supporting data whatsoever? That can't be right, can it? How can that be? I thought that science was "based on data and observations" ... at least that's what all the warmizombies tell me.

Hold on, I'm going to scroll up and reexamine the science.

Well hog tie me and throw in the fire if you aren't spot on! There isn't a lick of data anywhere in the science, and I reviewed Stefan-Boltzmann three times.



IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote: Any method or procedure is fine.

Whoa ... hold your horses there pard'ner. Are you telling me that an eight-year-old with no credentials and no peer-reviewed studies can just walk in off the street and willie-nillie show a theory to be false? Don't you have to be a Climate Scientist to get a vote in whether something is science or not? Isn't there an established process for establishing the scientific consensus?

No votes. An eight year old can walk in off the street and falsify a theory. Childhood questions can be most difficult to answer for! His single 'vote' in the form of an innocent question can utterly destroy a theory.
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote: Theories can be inspired from anywhere.

Even from, like, nature? Is that allowed?

Of course!
A good walk in nature can do a scientist a lot of good!
IBdaMann wrote:
Could the inspiration for a model come from the same source as the inspiration for a poem? Isn't data required for writing poetry? There hasn't ever been a single poet who has never made any observations. What does the poetic consensus say?

The inspiration can even come from a poem itself.
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote: A theory can literally come from anywhere. For it to be a theory of science, it must be falsifiable, and it must have withstood at least one test against its null hypothesis.

The notion of when a model earns the label of "science" is subjective and debatable but you could certainly make an exceptionally strong case for your assertion. Ultimately each individual determines what s/he accepts as science. You are asserting that you will not accept, for your applications, any model whose null hypothesis has not been tested. Your neighbor might be fine with merely demonstrating falsifiability and showing internal and external consistency, which is his right. Someone else might claim the two of you are naive and might demand far more extensive testing before affording the label of "science."

True, people have slightly different points on when they call a theory a scientific theory. This is where I draw the line between them, for it demonstrates:
1) That there is a theory that has passed the internal and external consistency checks.
2) That there is at least one specific test that is available, is practical to conduct, and produces a specific result.
3) Surviving such a test is the point where a theory ceases to be merely a circular argument. It now has something more to stand on. The test that tried to destroy it.
IBdaMann wrote:
For purposes of discussion, I'm happy to just use your definition since you stuck your neck out there and took the intellectually courageous and honest approach of proposing your definition to the forum.

*humble bow*


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 09-05-2019 18:53
Page 4 of 5<<<2345>





Join the debate Snow: predicted decline globally, increase locally:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Burning fossil fuel reduce O2 and increase CO2 and CO2 is a cooling gas so why420-06-2019 06:30
Global warming back to medieval warm period will increase Russia population 4 fold128-05-2019 19:30
Almost all glaciers are in sharp decline10418-05-2019 04:02
O2C predicted to rise in the future?1622-04-2019 22:19
Medieval warm period was way hotter than today's climate. 1 C hotter globally. So why IPCC do not ack019-04-2019 16:33
▲ 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