The effects of calculations

spot wrote:
I suspect you can troll here to your hearts content.

I can't help notice the amount of melanin the ex-president has seems to be an issue for you.

I guess we are bambozeled by your superior intellect, congratulations on winning the internet.

Wake wrote:Thereby proving my contention that when you don't have science to back up your claims you resort to claiming racism.

Wake wrote:

Thereby proving my contention that when you don't have science to back up your claims you resort to claiming racism.

Wake wrote:
Now that I have resorted to mathematics showing that the so-called 50 billion tons of man-made CO2 does not exist and never did, how long before I will be banned from this site on the claim of racism?

On the bad science forum I was banned for racism for pointing out that Obama is not half African but half Morro - the black Arabs who comprised the slavers. And that this was the reason that his name is Arabic and why he looked the other way when Islamic terrorism occurred and would not so much as mention the words "Muslim" and "terrorist" in the same sentence.

Most of these sites on which climate change are argued are there to convince people that it is real and not that it is a normal cycle of temperature changes. So when the climate change science is shown to be faulty the usual reaction is to get rid of those capable of establishing the truth.

Perhaps spot and surface detail will argue the numbers without even understanding what they are. After all, neither has ever shown any real references to their claims because they do not understand the faulty science behind it. Instead they resort to referring to authority when I've even shown that the CLAIMS from the media about these studies and the contents of these actual studies are at odds.

As the evidence piles up against the climate change gang there can only be one response - to silence "deniers".

Wake wrote:
Now that I have resorted to mathematics showing that the so-called 50 billion tons of man-made CO2 does not exist and never did, how long before I will be banned from this site on the claim of racism?

On the bad science forum I was banned for racism for pointing out that Obama is not half African but half Morro - the black Arabs who comprised the slavers. And that this was the reason that his name is Arabic and why he looked the other way when Islamic terrorism occurred and would not so much as mention the words "Muslim" and "terrorist" in the same sentence.

Most of these sites on which climate change are argued are there to convince people that it is real and not that it is a normal cycle of temperature changes. So when the climate change science is shown to be faulty the usual reaction is to get rid of those capable of establishing the truth.

Perhaps spot and surface detail will argue the numbers without even understanding what they are. After all, neither has ever shown any real references to their claims because they do not understand the faulty science behind it. Instead they resort to referring to authority when I've even shown that the CLAIMS from the media about these studies and the contents of these actual studies are at odds.

As the evidence piles up against the climate change gang there can only be one response - to silence "deniers".

Ceist wrote:This forum is now a tiny haven overrun by a couple of nutbag science deniers (IB and ITN)....

Ceist wrote:

Wake wrote:
Now that I have resorted to mathematics showing that the so-called 50 billion tons of man-made CO2 does not exist and never did, how long before I will be banned from this site on the claim of racism?

On the bad science forum I was banned for racism for pointing out that Obama is not half African but half Morro - the black Arabs who comprised the slavers. And that this was the reason that his name is Arabic and why he looked the other way when Islamic terrorism occurred and would not so much as mention the words "Muslim" and "terrorist" in the same sentence.

Most of these sites on which climate change are argued are there to convince people that it is real and not that it is a normal cycle of temperature changes. So when the climate change science is shown to be faulty the usual reaction is to get rid of those capable of establishing the truth.

Perhaps spot and surface detail will argue the numbers without even understanding what they are. After all, neither has ever shown any real references to their claims because they do not understand the faulty science behind it. Instead they resort to referring to authority when I've even shown that the CLAIMS from the media about these studies and the contents of these actual studies are at odds.

As the evidence piles up against the climate change gang there can only be one response - to silence "deniers".

This forum is now a tiny haven overrun by a couple of nutbag science deniers (IB and ITN), so you'll fit right in with them.

Wake wrote:

Ceist wrote:

Wake wrote:
Now that I have resorted to mathematics showing that the so-called 50 billion tons of man-made CO2 does not exist and never did, how long before I will be banned from this site on the claim of racism?

On the bad science forum I was banned for racism for pointing out that Obama is not half African but half Morro - the black Arabs who comprised the slavers. And that this was the reason that his name is Arabic and why he looked the other way when Islamic terrorism occurred and would not so much as mention the words "Muslim" and "terrorist" in the same sentence.

Most of these sites on which climate change are argued are there to convince people that it is real and not that it is a normal cycle of temperature changes. So when the climate change science is shown to be faulty the usual reaction is to get rid of those capable of establishing the truth.

Perhaps spot and surface detail will argue the numbers without even understanding what they are. After all, neither has ever shown any real references to their claims because they do not understand the faulty science behind it. Instead they resort to referring to authority when I've even shown that the CLAIMS from the media about these studies and the contents of these actual studies are at odds.

As the evidence piles up against the climate change gang there can only be one response - to silence "deniers".

This forum is now a tiny haven overrun by a couple of nutbag science deniers (IB and ITN), so you'll fit right in with them.

I've asked this before - what credentials do you have for talking about science?

Into the Night wrote: It is better to depend on the content and form of your own arguments. They stand....

[b]Into the Night wrote: Credentials don't mean much here. No one believes you.

It is better to depend on the content and form of your own arguments. They stand on their own (unless one happens to be one of those that like to quote 'sources' all day long, which just steals the arguments of others).

spot wrote:
You can claim to be an award winning mathematician all you like on the internet but if you then claim that 2+2=5 don't get upset when people don't take you seriously.

"old sick silly sleepy sleazy slimy stupid steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" woofs:
If they can't give any credentials even of somewhat questionable sources I will no longer discuss anything with them. Chief Stupidsong (litesong) is the first one on that list.

Surface Detail wrote:

spot wrote:
You can claim to be an award winning mathematician all you like on the internet but if you then claim that 2+2=5 don't get upset when people don't take you seriously.

He's a poster boy for the Dunning–Kruger effect.

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

spot wrote:
You can claim to be an award winning mathematician all you like on the internet but if you then claim that 2+2=5 don't get upset when people don't take you seriously.

He's a poster boy for the Dunning–Kruger effect.

And this is a forum for climate POLICY. We have had this discussion before and you backed away from it like fire.

WHAT are you willing to do. Don't tell me what you could do if forced to. I want to know what you yourself have done already.

Wake wrote:

[b]Into the Night wrote: Credentials don't mean much here. No one believes you.

It is better to depend on the content and form of your own arguments. They stand on their own (unless one happens to be one of those that like to quote 'sources' all day long, which just steals the arguments of others).

Now that is the problem isn't it? People with a Popular Science article science education are the one's that are telling YOU that you don't know what you're talking about. Even if you worked your entire life in science.

If they can't give any credentials even of somewhat questionable sources I will no longer discuss anything with them. Chief Stupidsong is the first one on that list.

Surface Detail wrote:

spot wrote:
You can claim to be an award winning mathematician all you like on the internet but if you then claim that 2+2=5 don't get upset when people don't take you seriously.

He's a poster boy for the Dunning–Kruger effect.

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

spot wrote:
You can claim to be an award winning mathematician all you like on the internet but if you then claim that 2+2=5 don't get upset when people don't take you seriously.

He's a poster boy for the Dunning–Kruger effect.

Dunning-Kruger is not an effect, psychotwit. It's a catch-all excuse to use when you are losing an argument.

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Dunning-Kruger is not an effect, psychotwit. It's a catch-all excuse to use when you are losing an argument.

No, it's quite real. spot and Surface Detail show this effect quite vividly. And I must show the effects as well since I cannot understand how they could look at the statistics and facts and not see what BS AGW is.

So these effects are very strong. I have never seen it anywhere quite as strong as in the AGW arguments though. People without qualifications to even understand the very basis of how this world works will pontificate on things totally outside of their comprehension because the first paragraph will outline how AGW is real.

I think that we have to stick with the facts and not trade barbs with these people. Chief Crazyass is now completely off of my radar.

At least Surface Detail is TRYING to learn even though his main point is only to learn enough to argue that we're wrong. But when he learns enough it will eventually dawn on him what's going on.

[b]Into the Night wrote:

No, it is psychobabble. It is just a way to label people who seem less competent than they are. Competence itself can be measured on many levels, and it can even be difficult to describe what 'competence' actually is.

Even though Dunning-Kruger managed an Ig Nobel Prize, it still the same kind of psychobabble that has been used to create conditions of bigotry.

Psychology is NOT a science. There is nothing falsifiable about any theory they have come up with, and they do a LOT of damage. The theories they come up with label people and put them in convenient boxes often co-labeled 'good' or 'bad'. Their theories are essentially unsupported accusations against whole groups of people.

What we have here instead is a problem with the circular argument. Global warming theory can only claim itself as its predicate. It is the same with greenhouse effect, with the exception that global warming is also claimed as the predicate (a strange loop).

The other name for any circular argument is 'faith'. Such an argument has no predicate other than itself. When that faith builds into a pile of arguments all dependent on that initial circular argument, what you get is a religion.

This particular religion I refer to as the Church of Global Warming. Like any religion, it will reject Outsiders ruthlessly and with great hatred. It will cling to its faith in the face of any and all evidence against it. Like Christianity, it takes various forms, sometimes competing with each other. They are all Christian churches however. They all believe in Christ. similarly, these people all believe in Global Warming (the initial circular argument).

Most of the differences center around how much Man has caused it. In general though, most variations turn to the usual religion inspired doom and gloom predictions for failing to heed the God of that religion.

The Church of Global Warming has two gods. The Great God Consensus and the Goddess Gaia. It makes use of the Holy Gases, designed to expose the sins of Man.

None of it follows any science at all. The biggest difference between the Church of Global Warming and Christianity is that Christians have the balls to say their religion is based on faith.

Wake wrote:
This isn't about how smart or "competent" people are in general but on specific topics. I know nothing about real psychiatric problems and would never even attempt to make anything other than jokes concerning it. But spot and Surface Decal would EVEN try to use that as a weapon if they thought that they could pull it off.

Wake wrote:
Neither of them is competent in anything other than perhaps their own lives if their postings are any proof. But obviously some of the True Believers that pop up here have been successful in their lives.

Wake wrote:
As I noted - that effect ALSO includes the inability of competent people to understand how other couldn't see some things. And I've had that problem my entire life.

I sat in a room with everyone else in the 30 person meeting a PhD. I was a high school dropout. They were talking about a project in which they said couldn't be done without a couple of IBM supercomputers (which weren't all that super at the time). Finally I had to pipe up in utter confusion - "I can do that with a cheap microprocessor so why should we spend $11 million that we can't raise?"

Now the difference in power of those IBMs and my microprocessor was close to 10,000:1. HOW on Earth could PhD's not be able to understand the actual required project for simple robotics with a little artificial intelligence? What's more the programming was simple enough I wrote it in ASM.

So, we had both effects here - PhD's that far over estimated their understandings and my greatly underestimated theirs in comparison to me.

Wake wrote:
I never gave IQ much faith but over and over I've seen rather shocking lack of understandings from people with normal intelligence compared to my 145. And I simply do not understand how they could miss things so dramatically plain to me.

Wake wrote:
So this effect is quite real and it isn't psycho-babble.

Wake wrote:
Don't allow yourself to discount psychology because most practitioners are psycho themselves.

Into the Night wrote:

Science isn't people or a 'method'. Science is the theories themselves. Anyone that comes up with a theory, devises the null hypothesis for it (showing falsifiability), tests against the theory using at least that null hypothesis, shows the theory does not conflict existing theories of science or shows how those existing theories must be modified; is a scientist. The theory becomes part of the body of science. No credentials needed.

There are quite a few thousand 'scientists' today walking around with PhD's in their hands that have never produced a single scientific theory. Observations are fine (they might inspire a new theory), but that is not science. Neither is making a career out of observations. Neither is making a career out of circular arguments.

Religion pays well. So does crime. You do not need the blessing from the High Priest (in whatever form that takes) to be competent in anything.

Wake wrote:
To my way of thinking, science is the end product and not the initial guess. CO2 as a "greenhouse gas" was a hypothesis from the 19th century. It was an incorrect hypothesis and was NEVER proven. But Dr. Mann somehow managed to move from hypothesis past theory to fact without a single successful prediction on his side. The rest of the climate scientists apparently didn't need a successful model, all they required was a statement totally unproven and which hasn't been proven since.

Science is the means of envisioning a hypothesis, testing it enough to successfully model an outcome, which moves it to a theory and finally when you can't break the theory it becomes fact. Even the theory of relativity is still a theory, because we cannot test it in it's entirety.

Most of science is feeling about like a blind man but this is denied by the True Believers who think that one statement from one man can guarantee results when it never has and never will.

Into the Night wrote:You are exactly right. Science IS the end product, because all of science is nothing more than the falsifiable theories themselves.

The CO2 theory was already falsified...by the theory of thermodynamics. No theory of science is ever proven. Theories of science remain theories until they are destroyed by another theory.

The reason for this is that science only looks at falsifying evidence. It doesn't care about supporting evidence at all. Yes...this is cherry picking. That's what science is. It intentionally cherry picks out the ONE piece of falsifying evidence. That one piece is enough to destroy the theory, and with it literally mountains of supporting evidence.

The Church of Global Warming worships the Great God Consensus and the Great Goddess Gaia. This is why you constantly see these people attempt to reference <insert large number here> scientists. They do not understand that consensus is a political or religious term and has nothing to do with science at all.

Tim the plumber wrote:

Into the Night wrote:You are exactly right. Science IS the end product, because all of science is nothing more than the falsifiable theories themselves.

The CO2 theory was already falsified...by the theory of thermodynamics. No theory of science is ever proven. Theories of science remain theories until they are destroyed by another theory.

The reason for this is that science only looks at falsifying evidence. It doesn't care about supporting evidence at all. Yes...this is cherry picking. That's what science is. It intentionally cherry picks out the ONE piece of falsifying evidence. That one piece is enough to destroy the theory, and with it literally mountains of supporting evidence.

The Church of Global Warming worships the Great God Consensus and the Great Goddess Gaia. This is why you constantly see these people attempt to reference <insert large number here> scientists. They do not understand that consensus is a political or religious term and has nothing to do with science at all.

Yep.

"old sick silly sleepy sleazy slimy stupid steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" woofs: Chief Dumbass....he had six postings in a row....