Remember me
▼ Content

The SCIENCE of the "Greenhouse Effect"



Page 5 of 6<<<3456>
16-10-2015 17:32
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3688)
climate scientist wrote: The IPCC report are written by scientists.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. It's completely irrelevant.

Can a scientist be religious?

climate scientist wrote:Many of them, from all around the world.

Can a religion be international?

climate scientist wrote: A few people are paid to help format the documents, organise meetings, etc.

Politicians are in charge of taking whatever papers are written and of ensuring every word is rewritten if necessary to convey the official dogma in the final official release. Politicians ensure final publications are properly filled with sufficient fear-mongering. Politicians ensure that all official IPCC documents are sufficiently vague and completely unfalsifiable.

climate scientist wrote: I know, because I work in the environmental science department at a university. Many of my colleagues contributed to the last IPCC report (and the ones before).

...and I can only imagine the amount of religious dogma that permeated those contributions. Why would the IPCC think that asking for opinions from every Global Warming yahoo who has access to the internet would somehow be perceived as resulting in science? Might it be that there's no intention of generating any science? Consensus is the stuff of religion and politics, which is why the IPCC focuses on it. Science doesn't fear-monger, so why does the IPCC do it? Fear is the essential tool of religions.

climate scientist wrote: The IPCC is policy relevant but not policy prescriptive.

The IPCC takes the firebrand religion approach, i.e. they use fear propaganda to push an unfalsifiable dogma.

climate scientist wrote: It's international nature makes it this way. The science is reviewed independently, and the reviews are available to read online.

There's no science in any of the IPCC reports. None. Paste into this thread the science you believe exists therein (hint: nothing will be forthcoming).

climate scientist wrote: There have been many criticisms of the IPCC process,

Not nearly enough.

climate scientist wrote: and there have been a few mistakes in the IPCC reports,

What kind of mistakes can there be in a scam?

climate scientist wrote: but the overall science has been found to be robust again and again.

I like the way you hide behind the passive voice. Who has even found any science at the IPCC? You? You can't discern science from religion.

There isn't any science at the IPCC. There is only WACKY theology.

climate scientist wrote: No independent investigation has ever found fault with the overall science represented in the IPCC reports.

No one has ever found any IPCC science with which to find fault.


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
16-10-2015 17:37
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
Hmm... as predictable as always. Anyone care to make a sensible comment???
16-10-2015 21:52
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7976)
climate scientist wrote:
So how come they were caught literally manufacturing data?


I have never heard of this. Can you be more specific? The IPCC do not collect any data, carry out any research, or monitor any climate variables. They only report on the peer-reviewed literature.

You say you work at a university science program. What is the source of funding for producing this report or for any related research?


As I said before, scientists who contribute to the reports do so as volunteers. There is no source of funding for contributing to the reports.

Volunteers gotta eat. The only reason they are there is because of related research programs.
climate scientist wrote:
Our department receives funding from various sources. Mostly from the Natural Environment Research Council, but also from a few government departments, and quite a lot from the EU. We have to apply for this funding, and there is only a 10% success rate at the moment. The funding agencies do not place constraints on what we can apply for, or what the outcomes should be. We set this ourselves.

In other words, the government. The NERC is government. They are no different than the 'a few government departments'. You have not specified where in the EU. I assume governmental and political groups.
climate scientist wrote:
When a grant finishes, we have to write a report on what was found. We also have to show that the money was spent appropriately (i.e. not on some other research). It is not uncommon for research grant final reports to state results that are different from the predicted results, or to state that more research is needed to determine any kind of conclusion.

No different than any grant.
climate scientist wrote:
This is not the case in the school of pharmacy in our university. Many of the researchers there get funded by drug companies, and they are under a lot of pressure to produce the results that the companies want. This is not the case with environmental research.

Actually, it is. Unless your department conforms with the interests of the NERC or any other government agency, you don't get your funding.
climate scientist wrote:
At the end is enough.


Only the summary for policy makers, and I think also the technical summaries are reviewed by governments. The actual main reports are not.

Government watching government...great.
climate scientist wrote:
Then all I can say is their peer review process sucks. The IPCC is absolutely policy prescriptive. It's international nature does not change that. They were formed specifically to report on global warming.


No, they were formed to report on climate change, not global warming (they are different). And that is what they do. They report on the state of the climate, from peer-reviewed literature from the scientific community.

Now you are saying they don't[]b do 'peer review'? That conflicts with their own website!
[b]climate scientist wrote:
Faults in the process, in the science, in the data, are found all the time.

I only know of a couple, the biggest one being the mistake relating to glacial melt. The IPCC apologised when this was discovered and issued a correction. They are not trying to hide anything. What are these mistakes in the data and the science that you are referring to?

Not mistakes. Fabrications.
climate scientist wrote:
The reports are public for everyone to read. Almost every sentence is referenced with peer reviewed literature. All you have to do is read the citations to know whether the IPCC has been 'manipulating the data/science'.

No, you have to look outside their carefully controlled lists of approved peers.

That's what real peer review is.
16-10-2015 23:20
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@IBdaMann & Into the Night (on behalf of myself and climate scientist) - okay, I'll grant you that most science is not pure. Unfortunately, there's not a science money tree that grows free money just for science to use, so, yes, to some degree, most mainstream science is prostituted to a government or industry (with the pharmaceutical sciences being outright whores).

That said, given nothing is perfect, what do you suggest? Just pack it in and go home and say, "Hey, at least it's sunny outside, today!"

Here's an interesting story for you. Back in the 1800's, the U.S. Navy used to station junker ships a few hundred miles off the east coast during summer months. Every few days, a supply ship would ferry supplies out to these junker ships. If the supply ship didn't come back in the expected amount of time, they presumed that a hurricane was coming. Some people disregarded they're warning thinking, "Well, maybe they're wrong!" Other people prepared. Personally, I'm in the "other people" camp.

Also, why do you insist so much on Popper's concepts? Yes, they are very useful, but mostly when working with lots of knowns and just a few variables. Everyone here seems to agree that climate science is a new field of study, with a lot of unknowns. I think Karl's ideas will be very helpful in another 10-20 years when we know more. In the meantime, you seem intent on throwing the baby out with the bathwater well before we've had a chance to thoroughly drown the baby.



FYI - Just a reminder that this coming Tuesday is "Drown a Baby in the Name of Science Day!" I wouldn't want you two to miss out on all the festivities.
Edited on 16-10-2015 23:21
17-10-2015 00:17
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7976)
trafn wrote:
@IBdaMann & Into the Night (on behalf of myself and climate scientist) - okay, I'll grant you that most science is not pure. Unfortunately, there's not a science money tree that grows free money just for science to use, so, yes, to some degree, most mainstream science is prostituted to a government or industry (with the pharmaceutical sciences being outright whores).

That said, given nothing is perfect, what do you suggest? Just pack it in and go home and say, "Hey, at least it's sunny outside, today!"

Here's an interesting story for you. Back in the 1800's, the U.S. Navy used to station junker ships a few hundred miles off the east coast during summer months. Every few days, a supply ship would ferry supplies out to these junker ships. If the supply ship didn't come back in the expected amount of time, they presumed that a hurricane was coming. Some people disregarded they're warning thinking, "Well, maybe they're wrong!" Other people prepared. Personally, I'm in the "other people" camp.

Also, why do you insist so much on Popper's concepts? Yes, they are very useful, but mostly when working with lots of knowns and just a few variables. Everyone here seems to agree that climate science is a new field of study, with a lot of unknowns. I think Karl's ideas will be very helpful in another 10-20 years when we know more. In the meantime, you seem intent on throwing the baby out with the bathwater well before we've had a chance to thoroughly drown the baby.


FYI - Just a reminder that this coming Tuesday is "Drown a Baby in the Name of Science Day!" I wouldn't want you two to miss out on all the festivities.


Seems like strange behavior for the US Navy, especially considering the real danger at sea in those days. Hint: It wasn't hurricanes. Any captain worth his salt could and did avoid those quite well.
Edited on 17-10-2015 00:19
17-10-2015 00:49
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Into the Night - it wasn't for the people at sea. It was a crude form of early detection for the people on land. I guess they just did the best with what they had.
17-10-2015 02:14
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
climate scientist wrote:
Hmm... as predictable as always. Anyone care to make a sensible comment???


How many science rejecters does it take to change a lightbulb?

None. They just declare darkness a new standard.


17-10-2015 05:21
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3688)
climate scientist wrote:
Hmm... as predictable as always. Anyone care to make a sensible comment???


How predictable. Of course you were going to EVADE the easy questions that get to the heart of your point.

Can a scientist be religious?

Can a religion be international?


You want everyone to believe that fanatically religious person stops being fanatically religious if he has a science degree.

What a dupe. The sad part is that you actually expect everyone else to be as gullible as you. The really, really sad part is that you want everyone else to fall for the scam just as you did.


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
17-10-2015 05:38
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@IBdaMann - you know, in medicine we have a saying:

Half of what we learn in medicine today is wrong, we just don't know which half.

Perhaps it's worth remembering that even Popper admitted that if a theorem does manage to pass a falsifiable test, all that means is that you haven't yet found the data which proves it false.

Humility is always a good thing, especially in science.
17-10-2015 05:57
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3688)
trafn wrote:Also, why do you insist so much on Popper's concepts?

It's not me that's doing any "insisting." Nothing that is unfalsifiable can be falsified by the scientific method so nothing unfalsifiable will undergo the scientific method. Nothing that does not undergo the scientific method can become science. It's pretty straightforward.

Oh, I may have mentioned it before but Popper is dead. Falsifiability is a requirement of science, and Popper is not around to comment one way of the other.

trafn wrote: Yes, [falsifiable models] are very useful,

Falsifiability is not a question of usefulness. It is an absolute requirement for science. If you are not interested in producing science then discard falsifiability the moment it becomes inconvenient.


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
17-10-2015 06:00
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@IBdaMann - falsifiable models weren't even a twinkle in Karl Popper's eyes when Mendel did his famous work in genetics. You're not telling me that Mendel and his work are no longer a part of science, are you?
17-10-2015 06:08
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3688)
trafn wrote:
@IBdaMann - falsifiable models weren't even a twinkle in Karl Popper's eyes when Mendel did his famous work in genetics. You're not telling me that Mendel and his work are no longer a part of science, are you?

No, I am not saying that. You are getting your dependencies reversed. This is why you should stop referring to Popper; you only confuse yourself.


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
17-10-2015 06:42
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7976)
trafn wrote:
@Into the Night - it wasn't for the people at sea. It was a crude form of early detection for the people on land. I guess they just did the best with what they had.

But it wouldn't show anything. Ships were delayed or lost at sea by privateers and pirates more than anything else in those days. Those guys ranged up the coast all the way to Quebec.
17-10-2015 06:45
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
From Understanding Science - how science really works

http://undsci.berkeley.edu/teaching/misconceptions.php#b3

*MISCONCEPTION: Science can only disprove ideas.

CORRECTION: This misconception is based on the idea of falsification, philosopher Karl Popper's influential account of scientific justification, which suggests that all science can do is reject, or falsify, hypotheses — that science cannot find evidence that supports one idea over others. Falsification was a popular philosophical doctrine — especially with scientists — but it was soon recognized that falsification wasn't a very complete or accurate picture of how scientific knowledge is built. In science, ideas can never be completely proved or completely disproved. Instead, science accepts or rejects ideas based on supporting and refuting evidence, and may revise those conclusions if warranted by new evidence or perspectives.

Science relies on evidence
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_06

"Ultimately, scientific ideas must not only be testable, but must actually be tested — preferably with many different lines of evidence by many different people. This characteristic is at the heart of all science. Scientists actively seek evidence to test their ideas — even if the test is difficult and means, for example, spending years working on a single experiment, traveling to Antarctica to measure carbon dioxide levels in an ice core, or collecting DNA samples from thousands of volunteers all over the world. Performing such tests is so important to science because in science, the acceptance or rejection of a scientific idea depends upon the evidence relevant to it — not upon dogma, popular opinion, or tradition. In science, ideas that are not supported by evidence are ultimately rejected."



Edited on 17-10-2015 06:46
17-10-2015 08:26
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
The 'greenhouse' effect is well established science grounded in the laws of physics (over the past 200 years) and a consilience of empirical evidence. It is not only falsifiable, it has been tested and measured since at least the 1970s. It's basic textbook stuff.

The enhanced 'greenhouse' effect (ie 'global warming') is also grounded in the laws of physics, has also been tested and measured and there is a consilience of empirical evidence which points to human activities being the main cause. This has been discussed and demonstrated in 10,000s of published peer-reviewed research articles by scientists from a broad range of fields and from all over the world. Every major science institution worldwide supports this because of the consilience of empirical evidence.

Alternate hypotheses (eg It's the sun! It's cosmic rays!) have been demonstrated to be lacking in plausible physical mechanisms and empirical evidence.

It's not the science that is controversial, it's the implications that are controversial. There are no real 'sides' to the science, only the politics.



Edited on 17-10-2015 08:33
17-10-2015 17:31
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3688)
Ceist wrote:The 'greenhouse' effect is well established science grounded in the laws of physics (over the past 200 years) and a consilience of empirical evidence.

Yet you cannot produce any of this science; you can only produce "The Science."

Supporting evidence has no role in science, only falsifying evidence has any role. Supporting evidence is critical to criminal justice and religious dogmas, e.g. "The Science."

There is no "greenhouse effect" science. All versions of the "greenhouse effect" violate the laws of physics, explaining why there is no falsifiable "greenhouse effect" model in existence.

...but maybe trafn will be the first to create one.

It certainly isn't going to come from 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
17-10-2015 17:59
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
IBdaMann wrote:
Ceist wrote:The 'greenhouse' effect is well established science grounded in the laws of physics (over the past 200 years) and a consilience of empirical evidence.

Yet you cannot produce any of this science; you can only produce "The Science."

Supporting evidence has no role in science, only falsifying evidence has any role. Supporting evidence is critical to criminal justice and religious dogmas, e.g. "The Science."

There is no "greenhouse effect" science. All versions of the "greenhouse effect" violate the laws of physics, explaining why there is no falsifiable "greenhouse effect" model in existence.

...but maybe trafn will be the first to create one.

It certainly isn't going to come from you.
I don't need to 'produce' anything. The 'greenhouse' effect is well accepted, well evidenced science grounded in the laws of physics, has been observed and measured, and is explained in any textbook on atmospheric physics (like those I have already mentioned).

It's not surprising that even the whacked-out 'sky dragon slayers' won't accept you into their tiny fringe group of 'greenhouse' effect rejecters. You understand even less about science and the physics involved than they do and your ideological rants are even more bizarre than theirs.

How many years have you been posting the same old PRATT (points refuted a thousand times) over and over and over again and had it explained to you where you are going wrong and have been provided valid sources where you could educate yourself. Yet you still have this delusional belief that you actually understand the basic physics involved better than all the atmospheric physicists in the world. It's one of the worst case of the Dunning-Kruger effect I've seen. Combined with paranoid conspiracy ideation, sociopathic behaviour and delusions of grandeur. Seek help.



Edited on 17-10-2015 18:17
17-10-2015 18:17
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@IBdaMann - all I'm suggesting is that it's too soon to use falsifiable models effectively. We still need to collect more data so that the knowns out-weight the unknowns. In the meantime, until sufficient data is available to make use of Popperism, we do need to consider what is the most likely prudent course of action based on the data we currently have.

@Into the Night - oh for god's sake. Okay, dear, I surrender. There were no junk ships in the 1800's because they didn't need any, because there were no hurricanes in the 1800's! Feel better?
17-10-2015 18:23
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3688)
Ceist wrote:I don't need to produce anything.

Nor do I want you to. The religion is fine as it is. It gives a strong sense of belonging to many a scientifically illiterate and affords them sufficient rationalization for demonizing and hating people who are clearly smarter than they are.

If you're happy with being a gullible dupe for a manipulative radical fringe group of idiots, I'm happy for you.

If, on the other hand, you wish to support your claim that there is somehow actual science involved in your dogma, then yes, you need to produce the science you insist you have.

Ceist wrote: It's well accepted,

Your inability to divorce yourself from the passive voice should be your warning flag. Notice, I said "should." Clearly, if you're not smart enough to understand simple science then you can't be expected to recognize a scam.

Obviously the "greenhouse effect" is well accepted amongst warmazombies such as yourself. However, there is no "greenhouse effect" model within the body of science. It's not a matter of what anyone "accepts."

Ceist wrote: well evidenced science

Supporting evidence has no role in science. There is no such thing as 'well-evidenced" science. You might as well have said "well painted science" or "well dug science" or "well travelled science" etc..

Oh, that's right, you don't even know what science is. Nevermind, let's just move on.

Ceist wrote: grounded in the laws of physics

Science is not merely "grounded in" the laws of physics. It must be completely consistent with the laws of physics. This is the first you're learning of this, right?

Ceist wrote: and is explained in any textbook on atmospheric physics (like those I already linked to).

Then why haven't you extracted the falsifiable "greenhouse effect" model from any one of those textbooks and posted it here in this thread?


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
17-10-2015 18:27
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
trafn wrote:
@IBdaMann - all I'm suggesting is that it's too soon to use falsifiable models effectively. We still need to collect more data so that the knowns out-weight the unknowns. In the meantime, until sufficient data is available to make use of Popperism, we do need to consider what is the most likely prudent course of action based on the data we currently have.



He is declaring that the 'greenhouse' effect itself doesn't even exist. He hasn't even got to the enhanced 'greenhouse effect' or how much is caused by GHG emissions by human activities or what effects it might have in the future.

The basic 'greenhouse' effect is falsifiable.



Edited on 17-10-2015 18:55
17-10-2015 18:37
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Ceist - don't sweat it so much. Remember, IBdaMann is falsifiable, too:

17-10-2015 19:09
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
trafn wrote:
@Ceist - don't sweat it so much. Remember, IBdaMann is falsifiable, too:


I was thinking more of the word 'certifiable'.



17-10-2015 19:13
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
IBdaMann wrote:
....


The real question is: In all the years you've been bleating the same old long refuted claims over and over and over again, and declaring yourself to be an "expert authority", why haven't you ever even read a textbook on atmospheric physics?

Why can you not find even one valid source that supports your claims?



Edited on 17-10-2015 19:31
17-10-2015 19:33
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3688)
Ceist wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
....


The real question is: In all the years you've been bleating the same old long refuted claims over and over and over again, and declaring yourself to be an "expert authority", why haven't you ever even read a textbook on atmospheric physics?

Why can you not find even one valid source that supports your claims?

Why haven't you ever read about the "Attempt to Shift the Burden of Proof" fallacy?

I'm not the one claiming that anything exists. You are. All the burden of proof rests with you.

You'll probably need to straighten out your confusion on the matter first.


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
17-10-2015 19:56
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Ceist - god bless you, even if he does whack you over the head with everything you say:

17-10-2015 20:07
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
IBdaMann wrote:
Ceist wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
....


The real question is: In all the years you've been bleating the same old long refuted claims over and over and over again, and declaring yourself to be an "expert authority", why haven't you ever even read a textbook on atmospheric physics?

Why can you not find even one valid source that supports your claims?

Why haven't you ever read about the "Attempt to Shift the Burden of Proof" fallacy?

I'm not the one claiming that anything exists. You are. All the burden of proof rests with you.

You'll probably need to straighten out your confusion on the matter first.


tu quoque

You're the one claiming that atmospheric physics is wrong but can't provide even one valid source to support your claims (because there aren't any). Your non-science claims run counter to the 'body of science'.

I've already provided a link to an article which showed that your unsupported evidence-free assertions are completely wrong, and links to several textbooks on atmospheric physics.

Perhaps you need to straighten out your delusional idea that 'evidence plays no role in science'. May I suggest a course or a textbook on the History and Philosophy of Science.

Perhaps you could also print out this poster of logical fallacies and stick it on a wall near your computer. As you've used nearly all of them you could play logical fallacy bingo over and over again all by yourself.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

On that note, I'll leave you to continue on playing with yourself.



Edited on 17-10-2015 20:36
17-10-2015 20:30
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7976)
trafn wrote:
@IBdaMann - all I'm suggesting is that it's too soon to use falsifiable models effectively. We still need to collect more data so that the knowns out-weight the unknowns. In the meantime, until sufficient data is available to make use of Popperism, we do need to consider what is the most likely prudent course of action based on the data we currently have.

@Into the Night - oh for god's sake. Okay, dear, I surrender. There were no junk ships in the 1800's because they didn't need any, because there were no hurricanes in the 1800's! Feel better?


No. There were plenty of junk ships (just wrecks or that sunk by enemy action). There were also hurricanes. I just don't see why the navy sending ships out to 'resupply' them and timing the voyages would work.
17-10-2015 22:22
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Into the Night - resupplying? Did I say resupplying? No, of course they weren't resupplying. Did I really say that? It must have all been a bad mistake.

17-10-2015 23:35
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3688)
trafn wrote:
@Into the Night - resupplying? Did I say resupplying? No, of course they weren't resupplying. Did I really say that? It must have all been a bad mistake.


Could it be that they were some of the first "hurricane hunters" and "thrill seekers"? What's so difficult to understand about the timeless desire for eXtreme sPorts?




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
18-10-2015 22:42
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7976)
trafn wrote:
Every few days, a supply ship would ferry supplies out to these junker ships. If the supply ship didn't come back in the expected amount of time, they presumed that a hurricane was coming.


trafn wrote:
@Into the Night - resupplying? Did I say resupplying? No, of course they weren't resupplying. Did I really say that? It must have all been a bad mistake.



Yup. You said it, and yup, it was a bad mistake.
18-10-2015 22:44
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7976)
IBdaMann wrote:
trafn wrote:
@Into the Night - resupplying? Did I say resupplying? No, of course they weren't resupplying. Did I really say that? It must have all been a bad mistake.


Could it be that they were some of the first "hurricane hunters" and "thrill seekers"? What's so difficult to understand about the timeless desire for eXtreme sPorts?


There's one ship that'll be late getting back to port!
19-10-2015 00:23
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Into the Night - regarding those thrill seekers, do you mean like these whackos:



PS - no, you misunderstood. You see, I just wanted make sure I didn't say "resupply" in those sentences as it would have been a grammatically awkward way of phrasing thinks. "Supply" is fine.


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!

Edited on 19-10-2015 00:25
19-10-2015 00:42
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7976)
trafn wrote:
@Into the Night - regarding those thrill seekers, do you mean like these whackos:



PS - no, you misunderstood. You see, I just wanted make sure I didn't say "resupply" in those sentences as it would have been a grammatically awkward way of phrasing thinks. "Supply" is fine.


Same argument. I do like how you note that journalists are this stupid.
19-10-2015 01:00
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Into the Night - yes, they can be quite the tards. Dave Barry wrote a hysterical book (sorry, forgot the name) in which a tv news station sends one crew after another to do live coverage during a local disaster, but one after another they all die in some fashion related to that disaster. This, of course, in no way inhibits the station from finally sending all their field crews to their deaths, and you see this all play out through the station's news anchors reporting each incident as they occur on tv, one after the other (the two news anchors end up disheveled and in tears by the end of the show).


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
19-10-2015 03:27
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7976)
trafn wrote:
@Into the Night - yes, they can be quite the tards. Dave Barry wrote a hysterical book (sorry, forgot the name) in which a tv news station sends one crew after another to do live coverage during a local disaster, but one after another they all die in some fashion related to that disaster. This, of course, in no way inhibits the station from finally sending all their field crews to their deaths, and you see this all play out through the station's news anchors reporting each incident as they occur on tv, one after the other (the two news anchors end up disheveled and in tears by the end of the show).


You are referring to Dave Barry's work of fiction 'Tricky Business'.

His works are generally hysterical. One of the best humor writers ever to grace the high paying business of exploding toilet humor.
19-10-2015 10:47
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
Hi Into the Night

It is clear that you don't know much about academia. This is completely understandable for someone who does not work in academia, and not a criticism in itself, however, it is a great shame that you have let your ignorance cloud your judgement on this issue, rather than doing some research to find out the truth. Let me help you with this:

Volunteers gotta eat. The only reason they are there is because of related research programs.


Most of the IPCC lead authors are pretty senior scientists, and as such have permanent positions at their respective universities/institutions. For most of those in universities, a large part of their time will be dedicated to teaching undergraduate students. It is also important for them to try and bring research funding to the institution/university, but their job security does not rely on it. They contribute to the IPCC as volunteers because it is a good experience, and it looks good on your CV.

Unless your department conforms with the interests of the NERC or any other government agency, you don't get your funding.


Wrong. There are 2 NERC funding rounds per year. NERC funds all sorts of environmental science, not just that pertaining to climate change. A list of NERC awarded standard grants can be found here:

http://gotw.nerc.ac.uk/list_them.asp?sb=sd&ZA.x=7&ZA.y=0&them=Standard+Grant&yr=&rnd=

As you can see, many of them have nothing to do with climate change. We compete for funding with all other environmental scientists.

Each proposal submitted to NERC goes out for anonymous review. This is assuming that it passes all of the NERC formatting rules, otherwise it gets thrown out immediately. Reviewers are other research scientists who have knowledge about the topic. Typically, each proposal will be reviewed by 3-6 people. Each reviewer gives the proposal a score out of 10. The proposal will then be ranked according the the scores given to it by the reviewers. For each submission round, NERC will fund proposals from the top of the list downwards, until their pot of money is all used up for that round. I.e. the highest ranked proposal is funded first, then the second highest, and so on. The success rate is only about 10% at the moment. In the last round, you essentially had to get a 9 out of 10 to get funded (and I have never heard of anyone getting a 10). Proposals are submitted by individuals, or sometimes by groups, and are not applied for by the department as a whole. Neither the department, nor the individuals have to conform to any particular view on climate science in order to be successful in getting funded. The results of your previous grant have no bearing on the success of any future proposal.

European funding (which is from the ERC) generally works in a very similar way to NERC, whereby proposals are reviewed and ranked. The main difference is that for EU funding, you generally have to compete with proposals from all fields of science, rather than just environmental science proposals.

Now you are saying they don't[]b do 'peer review'? That conflicts with their own website!


I never said this. I said that they report on climate change, not global warming. The two are not the same. The IPCC reports are based on peer reviewed literature. The reports themselves are also independently reviewed, and the reviewers comments are available to read on the IPCC website.

Not mistakes. Fabrications.


With the glacial melt error, they got the date wrong. The rest of the sentence was fine. They issued a correction. Please can you stop making false accusations, and post some evidence of these data fabrications?

No, you have to look outside their carefully controlled lists of approved peers


You seem to be confused. The IPCC reference thousands of peer-reviewed scientific publications. Almost every sentence includes citations. All you have to do to see if the IPCC has re-worded the science, is read the sentence in the IPCC report, and then read the paper(s) that they cite for that same sentence, and see if they have somehow manipulated what the original paper said. It is time consuming, but perfectly possible. People actually check up on the IPCC in this way. The IPCC encourage it, because they are not hiding anything.
19-10-2015 13:32
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3688)
climate scientist wrote:. We compete for funding with all other environmental scientists.

How does "climate science" differ substantially from any major religion?

Should religions receive goverment funding earmarked for actual 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
19-10-2015 13:36
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
How does "climate science" differ substantially from any major religion?


In the same way that physics, chemistry, and biology differ substantially from any major religion.
19-10-2015 14:07
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1285)
climate scientist wrote:
How does "climate science" differ substantially from any major religion?


In the same way that physics, chemistry, and biology differ substantially from any major religion.


Exalent!

I look forward to seeing you post the evidence to support your position. Something some here utterly fail to do.
19-10-2015 14:43
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
climate scientist wrote:
How does "climate science" differ substantially from any major religion?


In the same way that physics, chemistry, and biology differ substantially from any major religion.


This nonsense about calling climate science a 'religion' is wearing really thin and only makes the people using this troll tactic look ignorant, childish and silly.




Edited on 19-10-2015 15:36
Page 5 of 6<<<3456>





Join the debate The SCIENCE of the "Greenhouse Effect":

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Trump Administration's Attempts to Limit Climate Change Science 'Like Designing Cars Without Seat128-05-2019 20:13
Trump Administration Hardens Its Attack on Climate Science028-05-2019 15:12
Antarctica's Effect on Sea Level Rise in Coming Centuries2613-05-2019 07:51
City of Toronto staff to explore cost of climate change, legal options for compensation from greenhouse g026-04-2019 15:37
White House eyes nuclear weapons expert to lead challenge to climate science019-04-2019 19:15
▲ 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