Snow: predicted decline globally, increase locally

dehammer wrote:

All scientists write their own procedures. You think a new theory is in some sort of instruction book?

Theories are not procedures.

dehammer wrote:
Procedures are things like never changing the subject you are measuring or the method of measuring it.

dehammer wrote:
A good example is the hockey stick.

dehammer wrote:
It violate both of these procedures.

dehammer wrote:
It goes from climate to temperature

dehammer wrote:
and from proxies to instruments.

dehammer wrote:
Once again, you have proven your anti science is religious.

dehammer wrote:
Im beginning to think that English is not your first language.

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

Into the Night wrote: A scientist is anyone that creates a theory of science.

dehammer wrote: Im beginning to think that English is not your first language.

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

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.

You never told me, what is your first language?

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

dehammer wrote: You both have shown a serious lack of understanding of English meaning.

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.

dehammer wrote:
The greenhouse effect exist, which is why life can exist on the earth.

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

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

dehammer wrote:
As I have said, claims that co2 will cause problems is nothing but a scam.

dehammer wrote:
Your lack of understanding is showing again.

It cannot. Again, you are ignoring laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

dehammer wrote:

It cannot. Again, you are ignoring laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

yea, you seem to know everything.

dehammer wrote:The greenhouse effect exist, which is why life can exist on the earth.

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

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

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.

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

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.

dehammer wrote: Has man effected the climate? Yes.

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

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.

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

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

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.

dehammer wrote:
Yes and I know karate, judo and a dozen other Japanese words.

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)

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?

dehammer wrote:

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

You are either a troll

dehammer wrote:
or you have no comprehension of the English language.

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.

dehammer wrote:
Has man effected the climate? Yes.

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

dehammer wrote:
The first time he build a building he affected climate.

dehammer wrote:
The first time he build a road, he affected climate.

dehammer wrote:
The first time he cut down trees, he affected climate.

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

dehammer wrote:
Does he improve the climate making a desert capable of being farmed? I would say yes, others say no.

dehammer wrote:
Does he improve the climate by making the cold north more livable? I would say yes, others say no.

dehammer wrote:
Does he improved the climate by altering river patterns? Its not as cut and dry as you might think.

dehammer wrote:
Does he improve the climate dumping tons of waste? I would say no.

dehammer wrote:
Does he improve the climate dumping tons of hydrocarbons, mostly unburnt gas, into the air?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

dehammer wrote:
The point is, I can throw around words like that too

dehammer wrote:
and have the exact same understanding as you have of those science words.

dehammer wrote:
The point is, it is obvious that you do not know the science behind the words.

dehammer wrote:
I can throw out tons of words from other parts of the world an not know a single thing behind them.

dehammer wrote:
You are doing the same thing with science.

dehammer wrote:
Do you even know what falsifiable means?

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.

dehammer wrote:Do you even know what falsifiable means?

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

IBdaMann wrote:

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

Even from, like, nature? Is that allowed?

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?

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."

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.