Remember me
▼ Content

"The temperature record is unreliable!"



Page 2 of 5<1234>>>
12-10-2016 09:45
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
I don't think you knew what I ment when I said "your posts have an Alice in wonderland quality to them".
12-10-2016 10:12
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Stop that! Stop using that escape hatch!

I was referring to your "averages cannot be computed" statement.


You suck at math. You do not understand probability, random number generation, or statistics.


You keep saying that. You keep using bullying and Bulverism. It's not super effective.

(yes, I did that on purpose)


I keep saying it because you keep showing it.

You also don't know what 'bulverism' is.


It is a fallacy. Regardless of how obviously moronic I appear to be, that is not a valid argument.


I am making valid arguments.


My statement and yours do not conflict. For all arguments A which you are making, if some A are valid, then your statement is correct. If the specific A which I refer to is invalid, then my statement is correct. Thus, your statement does not contradict mine and cannot be used to argue against it.

Interpreting your statement as "the argument which you reference is valid": it is not. Arguments stand on their own - even if the most idiotic person in the world wrote an argument, you could not dismiss it with "well you're just moronic." It is fallacious to explain why the supposed logical error exists, rather than to describe the error itself.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
12-10-2016 10:12
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:It looks like you're as ignorant about statistics as you are about science.

Could you point to a post in which you were correct about something?

How about all of them?
Surface Detail wrote: Tell me, how could you define a margin of error without giving a confidence level?

You have to be a moron to ask that question. Calibration is all about accuracy/margin of error and nothing about "confidence level."

The confidence level, say, a=0.05, is how likely it is that the true value is outside the given confidence interval.

Back at you: how can you have any confidence without knowing the accuracy?

Too funny.


But... you...

You seem like you've gone through Stat, but you don't even know what a confidence level is! How?!


You suck at statistics. You don't know what you're doing.

Let's start with the raw data itself. What is required to sample the raw data?


You don't sample the raw data. You sample the population, and receive your raw data. There are many ways to do this. It's called "testing", and you don't believe that it has any place in science, apparently.


Now you want to redirect to populations as raw data instead of temperatures?

You can't to seem to stay on task.


I wrote multiple sentences.

The raw data is the result of sampling. The raw data is not sampled from, but is rather the product of sampling the population.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
12-10-2016 10:15
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Who is Alice?

Apparently you are unaware of the works of C.S. Lewis?


Unbeknownst to most people, there are in fact multiple people with the name Alice. Alice could be a reference to anything other than Carroll (not C.S. Lewis, you're still doing that), for all I knew; without the necessary context, nor having read the specific book by Carroll (I've read Alice in Wonderland, but not Through the Looking Glass), I could not narrow down the possible explanations sufficiently to be confident that I was correct.

That is why I asked you.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
12-10-2016 19:30
jerrylh
☆☆☆☆☆
(13)
Hi everyone
I'm new and would like to add my input. Climate change is a theory just as the theory of evolution is and you can't prove either. However, the fingerprints supporting evolution are all over as are the fingerprints supporting global warming. Jwoodward listed several and there are more. For example the documented thickening of the polar ice caps are consistent and support global warming. The reason is this: With a general warming of the earth, there is more water evaporation and as a result more precipitation. The polar caps never thaw out and so the increased precipitation translates into a thickening of the polar ice caps. The rate of rise in the earth's temperature is unprecedented in the last 40-50 years. There are vanishing few legitimate climatologists remaining who doubt global warming and that we are contributing to that in a substantial way. But hey!! There are people that deny evolution as well.
Those graphs above are telling. Weather (temperature and precipitatoin) varies every year, as we all know. But the trend is there and it is undeniable
12-10-2016 20:03
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
jerrylh wrote:
Hi everyone
I'm new and would like to add my input. Climate change is a theory just as the theory of evolution is and you can't prove either.

AAAAAAAAA

Please stop. That causes me physical pain, it is so wrong. It's a very common misconception, though, so I don't blame you. Saying "just a theory" is like saying "just an Olympic gold medaller." Theories are the basis of scientific knowledge (that and models). If anybody says they know something for sure, like a literal 1.0 probability, then they are wrong. AGW and evolution are ~0.9999999999999999999 probability, though, since there have been multitudes of verifying studies and experiments.

However, the fingerprints supporting evolution are all over as are the fingerprints supporting global warming.


Ah, thank goodness, a sane person. (Just wanted to make sure you knew the correct things so that other science geeks wouldn't start writhing on the floor when you talked to them.
)

Jwoodward listed several and there are more. For example the documented thickening of the polar ice caps are consistent and support global warming. The reason is this: With a general warming of the earth, there is more water evaporation and as a result more precipitation.

Thanks, I hadn't thought of that. You get a little insane after talking with IB and Into, just fyi.
The polar caps never thaw out and so the increased precipitation translates into a thickening of the polar ice caps.

Not necessarily, though. Global warming also affects the outflow, so the mass balance depends on both.
The rate of rise in the earth's temperature is unprecedented in the last 40-50 years. There are vanishing few legitimate climatologists remaining who doubt global warming and that we are contributing to that in a substantial way.

IB and Into would tell you that climatologists are either Evil Marxist Villains who are Trying to Take Over the World with Evil Science, or that the EMVwaTtTOtWwES are the government people who are controlling the scientists without any way of us knowing. Sounds preposterous? Good. It is.
But hey!! There are people that deny evolution as well

The two biggest threats to the popular understanding of science (evolution deniers, AGW deniers) are indeed very similar.
Those graphs above are telling. Weather (temperature and precipitation) varies every year, as we all know. But the trend is there and it is undeniable.

Oh, it's deniable. Everything is deniable. The blueness of the sky is deniable. Just watch the right people. They've convinced themselves that weather is entirely random and trendless, and that the average temperature of the Earth is somehow impossible to measure.
12-10-2016 20:39
jerrylh
☆☆☆☆☆
(13)
By outflow, I assume that you mean evaporation. At the poles, that has very less effect when the temperature is well below freezing (ie there is less effect when the temperature goes from minus 3 to minus 2 as opposed when the temperature goes from 80 to 81.
JWoodward, I know you are knowledgeable, but you would do better, not to inject sarcasm and attack other posters as it takes away from your arguments which I find very persuasive. And yes you can deny anything, that is not really relevant to this discussion.
12-10-2016 20:54
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
That would technically be sublimation, but yes. There are other ways of losing ice, such as melting and calving. Also keep in mind that while Antarctica is gaining mass, the overall level of ice in the world is decreasing.

I'm sorry if this came across as too aggressive or nasty. I'm used to debating with arseholes; it takes a while to get acclimated to a discussion with people who may disagree, but are still decent. Could you specify where I was being sarcastic in the above post? (Or was it just referring to my posts in general?)
Edited on 12-10-2016 20:55
12-10-2016 21:13
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4267)
jerrylh wrote:Hi everyone, I'm new and would like to add my input.

Knock yourself out. Incidentally, I'm not entirely convinced you are new.

jerrylh wrote: Climate change is a theory just as the theory of evolution is and you can't prove either.

Correct. They are both unfalsifiable.

jerrylh wrote: However, the fingerprints supporting evolution are all over as are the fingerprints supporting global warming.

You lost me here. I can see things that support evolution. I don't see anything supporting Global Warming. Young-earth creationists can find things that support evolution despite remaining unconvinced that it's true. Nobody has shown me anything, however, that supports an inherent violation of physics.

jerrylh wrote: For example the documented thickening of the polar ice caps are consistent and support global warming.

Nope.

jerrylh wrote: The reason is this: With a general warming of the earth, there is more water evaporation and as a result more precipitation. The polar caps never thaw out and so the increased precipitation translates into a thickening of the polar ice caps.

Do the polar ice caps thicken during an ice age? If so, thickening polar ice caps support a descent into an ice age. A general warming of the earth would be signaled by disappearing ice caps that are becoming tropical rain forests (greater precipitation).

Visit the jungles of Nicaragua.

jerrylh wrote: The rate of rise in the earth's temperature is unprecedented in the last 40-50 years.

Nope. For all you know the earth's average temperature is cooling right now. The likelihood is that the earth is cooling at present.

jerrylh wrote: There are vanishing few legitimate climatologists remaining who doubt global warming

Nobody cares what climatologists think. They're all scientifically illiterate political activists. Their religious devotion does not equate to any sort of knowledge.

jerrylh wrote: ... and that we are contributing to that in a substantial way.

Are you including me in that "we"? What about my children? What about Tibetan monks?

jerrylh wrote: But hey!! There are people that deny evolution as well.

Tell me about it.

jerrylh wrote: Weather (temperature and precipitatoin) varies every year, as we all know. But the trend is there and it is undeniable

Precipitation is included in weather.

You can't have "trends" in random events. Weather is random.


.


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
12-10-2016 21:38
jerrylh
☆☆☆☆☆
(13)
Hi JWoodward"
As for sarcasm, I was referring to your posts in general. I am of the opinion that you can always learn something from people who disagree with you. Even when you are an expert in the field. From reading your posts, I recognize from your posts that you are very knowledgeable.

Hi IbdaMann
Yes the total mass of ice at the poles is decreasing, but where the temperature NEVER goes above, freezing the ice is thickening for the reasons I stated above.
As for the fingerprints, I mentioned just one, but look at JWoodward's earlier posts and he/she mentioned many others.
As for the term "we", it doesn't benefit anyone to play on words. Certainly, I was not including individuals such as a new born infant. It is obvious that I was referring to "us" as a group. I was not referring to "we" as every single human on earth.
People do care what climatologists think. I don't believe that it reasonable to place all climatologists in one political and/or religious basket.
I have never visited this board before. I just stated that I was new to introduce myself. What purpose would it serve to lie about that?? What does that have to do with global warming anyway??
12-10-2016 21:48
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Hi Jerry, and welcome to the forum!

Edit: With regard to polar ice, you might take a look at the "Let's Revisit Earth's Ice Accumulation" thread. This discusses a recent paper on the topic of ice accumulation.
Edited on 12-10-2016 21:51
12-10-2016 22:03
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
jerrylh wrote:Hi everyone, I'm new and would like to add my input.

Knock yourself out. Incidentally, I'm not entirely convinced you are new.

He's not me, that's for sure.
jerrylh wrote: Climate change is a theory just as the theory of evolution is and you can't prove either.

Correct. They are both unfalsifiable.

Oh, by the four hells, you're hopeless.
jerrylh wrote: However, the fingerprints supporting evolution are all over as are the fingerprints supporting global warming.

You lost me here. I can see things that support evolution. I don't see anything supporting Global Warming. Young-earth creationists can find things that support evolution despite remaining unconvinced that it's true. Nobody has shown me anything, however, that supports an inherent violation of physics.

That's because it doesn't violate physics.
jerrylh wrote: For example the documented thickening of the polar ice caps are consistent and support global warming.

Nope.

Why do you even write more than that? It makes up most of your argument: "Nope. Also you're an illiterate religious moron."
jerrylh wrote: The reason is this: With a general warming of the earth, there is more water evaporation and as a result more precipitation. The polar caps never thaw out and so the increased precipitation translates into a thickening of the polar ice caps.

Do the polar ice caps thicken during an ice age? If so, thickening polar ice caps support a descent into an ice age.

Correlation =/= causation.
A general warming of the earth would be signaled by disappearing ice caps that are becoming tropical rain forests (greater precipitation).

...why would Greenland become a rainforest?
Visit the jungles of Nicaragua.

How does this support your point? There are warm places on Earth... ergo what?
jerrylh wrote: The rate of rise in the earth's temperature is unprecedented in the last 40-50 years.

Nope. For all you know the earth's average temperature is cooling right now. The likelihood is that the earth is cooling at present.

We have data! How can you deny that?
jerrylh wrote: There are vanishing few legitimate climatologists remaining who doubt global warming

Nobody cares what climatologists think. They're all scientifically illiterate political activists. Their religious devotion does not equate to any sort of knowledge.

Called it, partially.
jerrylh wrote: ... and that we are contributing to that in a substantial way.

Are you including me in that "we"? What about my children? What about Tibetan monks?

Yes, you. Most everyone. (I'm sorry for your children, btw.)
jerrylh wrote: But hey!! There are people that deny evolution as well.

Tell me about it.

If you insist that evolution is unfalsifiable, you're just helping the deniers. It's had the possibility of being falsified, and it was not.
jerrylh wrote: Weather (temperature and precipitatoin) varies every year, as we all know. But the trend is there and it is undeniable

Precipitation is included in weather.

You can't have "trends" in random events. Weather is random.


That's just utterly false. Weather is chaotic, weather is unpredictable, but weather is not random.

Random = "governed by or involving equal chances for each item." If I am in the desert, it could rain, but it's far less likely than if I'm in the rainforest.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
12-10-2016 22:07
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
jerrylh wrote:
Hi JWoodward"
As for sarcasm, I was referring to your posts in general. I am of the opinion that you can always learn something from people who disagree with you.

I've given them many chances to support their claims. All they've done is argue from assertion. When questioned, they insist that this is very basic information found in basic textbooks, and that they shouldn't need to demonstrate or prove a thing, "you illiterate moron."

I've learned a bit, though. It's somewhat hard to learn from somebody who's insulting you in every other sentence.

Even when you are an expert in the field. From reading your posts, I recognize from your posts that you are very knowledgeable.

Oh, I'm certainly no expert. Thanks for the compliment.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
Edited on 12-10-2016 22:08
12-10-2016 22:15
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4267)
jerrylh wrote:From reading your posts, I recognize from your posts that you are very knowledgeable.

Isn't that what Surface Detail said to you upon your arrival? Isn't that the "Welcome brother to our church! I see the Force is strong within you!" greeting?

jerrylh wrote:Hi IbdaMann

Hello.

jerrylh wrote: Yes the total mass of ice at the poles is decreasing

Are you speaking from your personal observations? Actual surveyors say otherwise. Actual observations say otherwise.

Sorry.

jerrylh wrote:As for the term "we", it doesn't benefit anyone to play on words.

It seems to benefit the weasels. If you can get them to stop, please do.

jerrylh wrote: Certainly, I was not including individuals such as a new born infant.

Of course not.

jerrylh wrote: It is obvious that I was referring to "us" as a group. I was not referring to "we" as every single human on earth.

Which includes all the newborn infants.

You haven't thought any of this through, have you?

jerrylh wrote: People do care what climatologists think.

Nope.

jerrylh wrote: I don't believe that it reasonable to place all climatologists in one political and/or religious basket.

Get used to it. Climatologists are leftist warmizombies.

jerrylh wrote:I have never visited this board before. I just stated that I was new to introduce myself. What purpose would it serve to lie about that?? What does that have to do with global warming anyway??

Why are you reacting so defensively like I somehow hit close to home?


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
12-10-2016 22:31
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
jerrylh wrote:From reading your posts, I recognize from your posts that you are very knowledgeable.

Isn't that what Surface Detail said to you upon your arrival? Isn't that the "Welcome brother to our church! I see the Force is strong within you!" greeting?

It's quite refreshing, compared to the incessant insults that you spew out on a regular basis.

jerrylh wrote: Yes the total mass of ice at the poles is decreasing

Are you speaking from your personal observations? Actual surveyors say otherwise. Actual observations say otherwise.

Sorry.


Actual observations show some ice masses increasing, some decreasing, with an overall decrease in sea ice (Arctic especially).

jerrylh wrote:As for the term "we", it doesn't benefit anyone to play on words.

It seems to benefit the weasels. If you can get them to stop, please do.

Kindly stop wriggling, then.
jerrylh wrote: It is obvious that I was referring to "us" as a group. I was not referring to "we" as every single human on earth.

Which includes all the newborn infants.

You haven't thought any of this through, have you?

Ah, the IB welcome. Rolling out the red carpet, eh?

Could you lay off the insults for the first few minutes? Let him get adjusted.
jerrylh wrote: People do care what climatologists think.

Nope.

You don't, because you don't care about science, but most reasonable people do.
jerrylh wrote: I don't believe that it reasonable to place all climatologists in one political and/or religious basket.

Get used to it. Climatologists are leftist warmizombies.

Science has a liberal bias, as does reality. Sorry about that. As for 'zombies,' who makes the claims then? The Climatuminati?
jerrylh wrote:I have never visited this board before. I just stated that I was new to introduce myself. What purpose would it serve to lie about that?? What does that have to do with global warming anyway??

Why are you reacting so defensively like I somehow hit close to home?

You're throwing a baseless accusation of dishonesty at him. He's not used to talking with arseholes. His response was to be expected.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
Edited on 12-10-2016 22:59
12-10-2016 22:56
jerrylh
☆☆☆☆☆
(13)
Hi Surface-where exactly is the link?? Would be interested in looking at it.
12-10-2016 22:59
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Stop that! Stop using that escape hatch!

I was referring to your "averages cannot be computed" statement.


You suck at math. You do not understand probability, random number generation, or statistics.


You keep saying that. You keep using bullying and Bulverism. It's not super effective.

(yes, I did that on purpose)


I keep saying it because you keep showing it.

You also don't know what 'bulverism' is.


It is a fallacy. Regardless of how obviously moronic I appear to be, that is not a valid argument.


I am making valid arguments.


My statement and yours do not conflict.

Great! You agree with everything I said! Kumbayah!
jwoodward48 wrote:
For all arguments A which you are making, if some A are valid, then your statement is correct. If the specific A which I refer to is invalid, then my statement is correct. Thus, your statement does not contradict mine and cannot be used to argue against it.

Several formal logic errors with this statement. It also denies your earlier statement. No Kumbayah.

jwoodward48 wrote:
Interpreting your statement as "the argument which you reference is valid": it is not. Arguments stand on their own - even if the most idiotic person in the world wrote an argument, you could not dismiss it with "well you're just moronic." It is fallacious to explain why the supposed logical error exists, rather than to describe the error itself.


Which is why I describe the error itself. I only need to describe it once. If you keep making the error, I do not have to describe it again.


The Parrot Killer
12-10-2016 23:00
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:It looks like you're as ignorant about statistics as you are about science.

Could you point to a post in which you were correct about something?

How about all of them?
Surface Detail wrote: Tell me, how could you define a margin of error without giving a confidence level?

You have to be a moron to ask that question. Calibration is all about accuracy/margin of error and nothing about "confidence level."

The confidence level, say, a=0.05, is how likely it is that the true value is outside the given confidence interval.

Back at you: how can you have any confidence without knowing the accuracy?

Too funny.


But... you...

You seem like you've gone through Stat, but you don't even know what a confidence level is! How?!


You suck at statistics. You don't know what you're doing.

Let's start with the raw data itself. What is required to sample the raw data?


You don't sample the raw data. You sample the population, and receive your raw data. There are many ways to do this. It's called "testing", and you don't believe that it has any place in science, apparently.


Now you want to redirect to populations as raw data instead of temperatures?

You can't to seem to stay on task.


I wrote multiple sentences.

The raw data is the result of sampling. The raw data is not sampled from, but is rather the product of sampling the population.


No. Go learn statistics. Don't sit here and attempt to redefine 'raw data'.


The Parrot Killer
12-10-2016 23:01
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Who is Alice?

Apparently you are unaware of the works of C.S. Lewis?


Unbeknownst to most people, there are in fact multiple people with the name Alice. Alice could be a reference to anything other than Carroll (not C.S. Lewis, you're still doing that), for all I knew; without the necessary context, nor having read the specific book by Carroll (I've read Alice in Wonderland, but not Through the Looking Glass), I could not narrow down the possible explanations sufficiently to be confident that I was correct.

That is why I asked you.


Are you still trying to redefine Bulverism?


The Parrot Killer
12-10-2016 23:04
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Stop that! Stop using that escape hatch!

I was referring to your "averages cannot be computed" statement.


You suck at math. You do not understand probability, random number generation, or statistics.


You keep saying that. You keep using bullying and Bulverism. It's not super effective.

(yes, I did that on purpose)


I keep saying it because you keep showing it.

You also don't know what 'bulverism' is.


It is a fallacy. Regardless of how obviously moronic I appear to be, that is not a valid argument.


I am making valid arguments.


My statement and yours do not conflict.

Great! You agree with everything I said! Kumbayah!

You can't derive that from what I said.
jwoodward48 wrote:
For all arguments A which you are making, if some A are valid, then your statement is correct. If the specific A which I refer to is invalid, then my statement is correct. Thus, your statement does not contradict mine and cannot be used to argue against it.

Several formal logic errors with this statement. It also denies your earlier statement. No Kumbayah.

1. Formal logic errors: which?
2. Denial of previous argument: which? Which two conflicting things have I said? You can't just say "fallacy fallacy fallacy fallacy," you need to be able to show how it is fallacious. For things like "appeal to authority," it's obvious. This isn't.
jwoodward48 wrote:
Interpreting your statement as "the argument which you reference is valid": it is not. Arguments stand on their own - even if the most idiotic person in the world wrote an argument, you could not dismiss it with "well you're just moronic." It is fallacious to explain why the supposed logical error exists, rather than to describe the error itself.


Which is why I describe the error itself. I only need to describe it once. If you keep making the error, I do not have to describe it again.


1. Why don't you link to your description?
2. It is possible that you would need to clarify your description.
3. Replacing a description with a fallacy is usually not good.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
12-10-2016 23:05
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:It looks like you're as ignorant about statistics as you are about science.

Could you point to a post in which you were correct about something?

How about all of them?
Surface Detail wrote: Tell me, how could you define a margin of error without giving a confidence level?

You have to be a moron to ask that question. Calibration is all about accuracy/margin of error and nothing about "confidence level."

The confidence level, say, a=0.05, is how likely it is that the true value is outside the given confidence interval.

Back at you: how can you have any confidence without knowing the accuracy?

Too funny.


But... you...

You seem like you've gone through Stat, but you don't even know what a confidence level is! How?!


You suck at statistics. You don't know what you're doing.

Let's start with the raw data itself. What is required to sample the raw data?


You don't sample the raw data. You sample the population, and receive your raw data. There are many ways to do this. It's called "testing", and you don't believe that it has any place in science, apparently.


Now you want to redirect to populations as raw data instead of temperatures?

You can't to seem to stay on task.


I wrote multiple sentences.

The raw data is the result of sampling. The raw data is not sampled from, but is rather the product of sampling the population.


No. Go learn statistics. Don't sit here and attempt to redefine 'raw data'.


Raw data are those data which have been collected. They may contain error from the testing itself. The population, by definition, cannot be in error. See the difference between "raw data" and "population"?


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
12-10-2016 23:17
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
jerrylh wrote:
Hi everyone
I'm new and would like to add my input.
Welcome!
jerrylh wrote:
Climate change is a theory just as the theory of evolution is and you can't prove either.

Absolutely correct. Neither theory is falsifiable. They therefore remain just a theory and not a scientific one.
jerrylh wrote:
However, the fingerprints supporting evolution are all over as are the fingerprints supporting global warming.
These 'fingerprints' are just the result of the initial circular argument of the theory itself. Since all theories begin as circular arguments, a method is needed to take a theory beyond that. That method is the test of falsifiability and the test of external consistency (compatibility with existing theories of science).

All theories, whether scientific or not, must pass the test of internal consistency. They cannot be based on a fallacy.

Science does not use supporting evidence. It only is interested in anything that would falsify a theory. This means 'fingerprints' are not a way to prove or legitimize a theory.
jerrylh wrote:
Jwoodward listed several and there are more.
He has listed quite a few, all based on the initial circular argument. Unfortunately, many of them violate existing theories of science.
jerrylh wrote:
For example the documented thickening of the polar ice caps are consistent and support global warming. The reason is this: With a general warming of the earth, there is more water evaporation and as a result more precipitation. The polar caps never thaw out and so the increased precipitation translates into a thickening of the polar ice caps.
Attributing any change of polar ice caps to the theory of global warming is just the circular argument again.
jerrylh wrote:
The rate of rise in the earth's temperature is unprecedented in the last 40-50 years.

It is not possible to measure anything like global temperature. We don't have the instrumentation to satisfy the required margin of error.

To put it simply, we just don't know what the global temperature is doing.

jerrylh wrote:
There are vanishing few legitimate climatologists
I hope so.
jerrylh wrote:
remaining who doubt global warming and that we are contributing to that in a substantial way.
Since a climatologist is trained to study global warming, this is rather a self fulfilling statement, don't you thiink?
jerrylh wrote:
But hey!! There are people that deny evolution as well.

Quite true. Some deny it because they claim creationism. Others (like me) simply treat the Theory of Evolution as the circular argument that it is, and equally unfalsifiable. It is no different from creationism or any other explanation. We simply don't know.

jerrylh wrote:
Those graphs above are telling.
These graphs above are fake.
jerrylh wrote:
Weather (temperature and precipitatoin) varies every year, as we all know. But the trend is there and it is undeniable

We can't measure a trend without measuring global temperature. It is not possible to measure or calculate a global temperature.

This is also the reason that the theory of global warming is unfalsifiable.


The Parrot Killer
12-10-2016 23:28
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
jerrylh wrote:
Climate change is a theory just as the theory of evolution is and you can't prove either.

Absolutely correct. Neither theory is falsifiable. They therefore remain just a theory and not a scientific one.

Aaaaaaugh, why? Why would you say that?
jerrylh wrote:
However, the fingerprints supporting evolution are all over as are the fingerprints supporting global warming.
These 'fingerprints' are just the result of the initial circular argument of the theory itself. Since all theories begin as circular arguments, a method is needed to take a theory beyond that. That method is the test of falsifiability and the test of external consistency (compatibility with existing theories of science).

Get gud at science and logic. Hypotheses are not circular arguments.
All theories, whether scientific or not, must pass the test of internal consistency. They cannot be based on a fallacy.

Yes.
Science does not use supporting evidence. It only is interested in anything that would falsify a theory. This means 'fingerprints' are not a way to prove or legitimize a theory.

If a theory has passed enough tests of falsifiability, then it's accepted - it could still be proven wrong, but it's moved beyond conjecture.
jerrylh wrote:
Jwoodward listed several and there are more.
He has listed quite a few, all based on the initial circular argument. Unfortunately, many of them violate existing theories of science.

Not so. He's talking about evidence.
jerrylh wrote:
For example the documented thickening of the polar ice caps are consistent and support global warming. The reason is this: With a general warming of the earth, there is more water evaporation and as a result more precipitation. The polar caps never thaw out and so the increased precipitation translates into a thickening of the polar ice caps.
Attributing any change of polar ice caps to the theory of global warming is just the circular argument again.

Except it's not, because we have an explanation of how ice cap changes are caused by AGW. Unless you have a better explanation...
jerrylh wrote:
The rate of rise in the earth's temperature is unprecedented in the last 40-50 years.

It is not possible to measure anything like global temperature. We don't have the instrumentation to satisfy the required margin of error.

To put it simply, we just don't know what the global temperature is doing.


We do. We can know this. I've explained why before, so I shouldn't have to repeat myself, right?



jerrylh wrote:
remaining who doubt global warming and that we are contributing to that in a substantial way.
Since a climatologist is trained to study global warming, this is rather a self fulfilling statement, don't you thiink?

No, climatologists study the climate. This is obvious.
jerrylh wrote:
But hey!! There are people that deny evolution as well.

Quite true. Some deny it because they claim creationism. Others (like me) simply treat the Theory of Evolution as the circular argument that it is, and equally unfalsifiable. It is no different from creationism or any other explanation. We simply don't know.

AAAAAAUGH you are causing me PHYSICAL PAIN when you say things like that and call it scientific.

It is very different from creationism, because it is supported by evidence, whereas creationism is not. Do you doubt Einstein? How about QM? Why not?
jerrylh wrote:
Those graphs above are telling.
These graphs above are fake.

Anything that counters your WACKY religion can be explained away as having been fabricated, yes. Your point?
jerrylh wrote:
Weather (temperature and precipitatoin) varies every year, as we all know. But the trend is there and it is undeniable

We can't measure a trend without measuring global temperature. It is not possible to measure or calculate a global temperature.

This is also the reason that the theory of global warming is unfalsifiable.


Except that we can, and it isn't.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
12-10-2016 23:33
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
jwoodward48 wrote:
jerrylh wrote:
Hi everyone
I'm new and would like to add my input. Climate change is a theory just as the theory of evolution is and you can't prove either.

AAAAAAAAA

Please stop. That causes me physical pain, it is so wrong. It's a very common misconception, though, so I don't blame you. Saying "just a theory" is like saying "just an Olympic gold medaller." Theories are the basis of scientific knowledge (that and models). If anybody says they know something for sure, like a literal 1.0 probability, then they are wrong. AGW and evolution are ~0.9999999999999999999 probability, though, since there have been multitudes of verifying studies and experiments.

Stay out of Vegas. You don't know probability math or anything about random number generation. You are just making up numbers out of your ass.

Not all theories are scientific. They must be falsifiable to be scientific theories.

jwoodward48 wrote:
However, the fingerprints supporting evolution are all over as are the fingerprints supporting global warming.


Ah, thank goodness, a sane person. (Just wanted to make sure you knew the correct things so that other science geeks wouldn't start writhing on the floor when you talked to them.
)

Jwoodward listed several and there are more. For example the documented thickening of the polar ice caps are consistent and support global warming. The reason is this: With a general warming of the earth, there is more water evaporation and as a result more precipitation.

Thanks, I hadn't thought of that. You get a little insane after talking with IB and Into, just fyi.

That's because we use actual physics, not the made up stuff that comes from the Church of Global Warming. We use actual math, not arguments of 'applicability'. We use actual words, not the constant redefinitions you attempt.

jwoodward48 wrote:
The polar caps never thaw out and so the increased precipitation translates into a thickening of the polar ice caps.

Not necessarily, though. Global warming also affects the outflow, so the mass balance depends on both.

Magick Holy Gas has no such magick properties. You can't warm the surface with Magick Holy Gas that is cooler than the surface. You can't warm the planet without increasing the source of energy.
jwoodward48 wrote:
The rate of rise in the earth's temperature is unprecedented in the last 40-50 years. There are vanishing few legitimate climatologists remaining who doubt global warming and that we are contributing to that in a substantial way.

IB and Into would tell you that climatologists are either Evil Marxist Villains who are Trying to Take Over the World with Evil Science, or that the EMVwaTtTOtWwES are the government people who are controlling the scientists without any way of us knowing. Sounds preposterous? Good. It is.

I'm going to leave this attempt to put words in people's mouths for the moment simply as an example of what you are doing.
jwoodward48 wrote:
But hey!! There are people that deny evolution as well

The two biggest threats to the popular understanding of science (evolution deniers, AGW deniers) are indeed very similar.

It is YOU that is denying science. At least the Theory of Evolution, though itself remains a circular argument, HAS spawned good scientific theories that are both falsifiable, consistent, and are part of science today. Global Warming theory hasn't even done that.
jwoodward48 wrote:
Those graphs above are telling. Weather (temperature and precipitation) varies every year, as we all know. But the trend is there and it is undeniable.

Oh, it's deniable. Everything is deniable. The blueness of the sky is deniable. Just watch the right people. They've convinced themselves that weather is entirely random and trendless, and that the average temperature of the Earth is somehow impossible to measure.

It is impossible to measure or calculate. You really should go study a good book on statistics and probability. Failing that, stay tuned. I may yet explain enough statistics to understand this again to someone. I'm just not going to explain it to you again and again.


The Parrot Killer
12-10-2016 23:38
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
jerrylh wrote:
Hi everyone
I'm new and would like to add my input. Climate change is a theory just as the theory of evolution is and you can't prove either.

AAAAAAAAA

Please stop. That causes me physical pain, it is so wrong. It's a very common misconception, though, so I don't blame you. Saying "just a theory" is like saying "just an Olympic gold medaller." Theories are the basis of scientific knowledge (that and models). If anybody says they know something for sure, like a literal 1.0 probability, then they are wrong. AGW and evolution are ~0.9999999999999999999 probability, though, since there have been multitudes of verifying studies and experiments.

Stay out of Vegas. You don't know probability math or anything about random number generation.

You keep saying that.
You are just making up numbers out of your ass.

True. I was doing you a favour. I wanted to make sure that when you claimed that "warmists think that confidence levels are just how sure they are," you could point to this, and then I could bash you for having not ever said "confidence level". My evil plots are myriad and ineffective, as they must be, being both a stupid warmist and an evil Marxist.
Not all theories are scientific. They must be falsifiable to be scientific theories.

And they are.
jwoodward48 wrote:
However, the fingerprints supporting evolution are all over as are the fingerprints supporting global warming.


Ah, thank goodness, a sane person. (Just wanted to make sure you knew the correct things so that other science geeks wouldn't start writhing on the floor when you talked to them.
)

Jwoodward listed several and there are more. For example the documented thickening of the polar ice caps are consistent and support global warming. The reason is this: With a general warming of the earth, there is more water evaporation and as a result more precipitation.

Thanks, I hadn't thought of that. You get a little insane after talking with IB and Into, just fyi.

That's because we use actual physics, not the made up stuff that comes from the Church of Global Warming. We use actual math, not arguments of 'applicability'. We use actual words, not the constant redefinitions you attempt.

No, it's because you're a bunch of abusive arseholes who deny science.
jwoodward48 wrote:
The polar caps never thaw out and so the increased precipitation translates into a thickening of the polar ice caps.

Not necessarily, though. Global warming also affects the outflow, so the mass balance depends on both.

Magick Holy Gas has no such magick properties. You can't warm the surface with Magick Holy Gas that is cooler than the surface. You can't warm the planet without increasing the source of energy.

Nononono. Stop. One step at a time.

Can the atmosphere affect the radiation that goes through it.
jwoodward48 wrote:
The rate of rise in the earth's temperature is unprecedented in the last 40-50 years. There are vanishing few legitimate climatologists remaining who doubt global warming and that we are contributing to that in a substantial way.

IB and Into would tell you that climatologists are either Evil Marxist Villains who are Trying to Take Over the World with Evil Science, or that the EMVwaTtTOtWwES are the government people who are controlling the scientists without any way of us knowing. Sounds preposterous? Good. It is.

I'm going to leave this attempt to put words in people's mouths for the moment simply as an example of what you are doing.

Hey, learned it from the two best strawmanners ever.
jwoodward48 wrote:
But hey!! There are people that deny evolution as well

The two biggest threats to the popular understanding of science (evolution deniers, AGW deniers) are indeed very similar.

It is YOU that is denying science. At least the Theory of Evolution, though itself remains a circular argument, HAS spawned good scientific theories that are both falsifiable, consistent, and are part of science today. Global Warming theory hasn't even done that.

It is not a circular argument. It doesn't assume its truthiness in its proof.
jwoodward48 wrote:
Those graphs above are telling. Weather (temperature and precipitation) varies every year, as we all know. But the trend is there and it is undeniable.

Oh, it's deniable. Everything is deniable. The blueness of the sky is deniable. Just watch the right people. They've convinced themselves that weather is entirely random and trendless, and that the average temperature of the Earth is somehow impossible to measure.

It is impossible to measure or calculate. You really should go study a good book on statistics and probability. Failing that, stay tuned. I may yet explain enough statistics to understand this again to someone. I'm just not going to explain it to you again and again.


Explain how, or link to it. Or admit that you're making it all up. Either way works.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
13-10-2016 00:01
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Stop that! Stop using that escape hatch!

I was referring to your "averages cannot be computed" statement.


You suck at math. You do not understand probability, random number generation, or statistics.


You keep saying that. You keep using bullying and Bulverism. It's not super effective.

(yes, I did that on purpose)


I keep saying it because you keep showing it.

You also don't know what 'bulverism' is.


It is a fallacy. Regardless of how obviously moronic I appear to be, that is not a valid argument.


I am making valid arguments.


My statement and yours do not conflict.

Great! You agree with everything I said! Kumbayah!

You can't derive that from what I said.
jwoodward48 wrote:
For all arguments A which you are making, if some A are valid, then your statement is correct. If the specific A which I refer to is invalid, then my statement is correct. Thus, your statement does not contradict mine and cannot be used to argue against it.

Several formal logic errors with this statement. It also denies your earlier statement. No Kumbayah.

1. Formal logic errors: which?

If A->B therefore !A->!B. This is known as denying the antecedent.

A->!A. This is a direct violation of the proof of identity. In other words, you are denying your own argument.
1) My statement and yours do not conflict.
2) My statement is claimed to be invalid, making your statement correct.

If A&B, and C&B, therefore A&!C. This is a known as a fallacy of exclusive premises. In other words, it a syllogistic error stemming from a misapplication of set theory. This is due to your attempt to declare your argument correct because you claim a specific A to be invalid.

This particular case also attempts to form a negative conclusion from positive premises. Also not allowed.


jwoodward48 wrote:

2. Denial of previous argument: which? Which two conflicting things have I said? You can't just say "fallacy fallacy fallacy fallacy," you need to be able to show how it is fallacious. For things like "appeal to authority," it's obvious. This isn't.
jwoodward48 wrote:
Interpreting your statement as "the argument which you reference is valid": it is not. Arguments stand on their own - even if the most idiotic person in the world wrote an argument, you could not dismiss it with "well you're just moronic." It is fallacious to explain why the supposed logical error exists, rather than to describe the error itself.


Which is why I describe the error itself. I only need to describe it once. If you keep making the error, I do not have to describe it again.


1. Why don't you link to your description?
2. It is possible that you would need to clarify your description.
3. Replacing a description with a fallacy is usually not good.


I have given you the method of fallacy when you commit one. I have described how it is a fallacy. You simply invoke the argument of the Stone and attempt to redefine words again to get away from it. Then you sit there and claim that because I don't repeat the description when you make the same fallacy again, I am making the argument of the Stone. That in itself is a fallacy, known as the argument from fallacy, or the fallacy fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
13-10-2016 00:02
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:It looks like you're as ignorant about statistics as you are about science.

Could you point to a post in which you were correct about something?

How about all of them?
Surface Detail wrote: Tell me, how could you define a margin of error without giving a confidence level?

You have to be a moron to ask that question. Calibration is all about accuracy/margin of error and nothing about "confidence level."

The confidence level, say, a=0.05, is how likely it is that the true value is outside the given confidence interval.

Back at you: how can you have any confidence without knowing the accuracy?

Too funny.


But... you...

You seem like you've gone through Stat, but you don't even know what a confidence level is! How?!


You suck at statistics. You don't know what you're doing.

Let's start with the raw data itself. What is required to sample the raw data?


You don't sample the raw data. You sample the population, and receive your raw data. There are many ways to do this. It's called "testing", and you don't believe that it has any place in science, apparently.


Now you want to redirect to populations as raw data instead of temperatures?

You can't to seem to stay on task.


I wrote multiple sentences.

The raw data is the result of sampling. The raw data is not sampled from, but is rather the product of sampling the population.


No. Go learn statistics. Don't sit here and attempt to redefine 'raw data'.


Raw data are those data which have been collected. They may contain error from the testing itself. The population, by definition, cannot be in error. See the difference between "raw data" and "population"?


Do not try to redefine 'raw data'. You are just making a fool of yourself.


The Parrot Killer
13-10-2016 00:13
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
So what is your definition?
13-10-2016 00:18
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jerrylh wrote:
Climate change is a theory just as the theory of evolution is and you can't prove either.

Absolutely correct. Neither theory is falsifiable. They therefore remain just a theory and not a scientific one.

Aaaaaaugh, why? Why would you say that?
The reason is clear.
jwoodward48 wrote:
jerrylh wrote:
However, the fingerprints supporting evolution are all over as are the fingerprints supporting global warming.
These 'fingerprints' are just the result of the initial circular argument of the theory itself. Since all theories begin as circular arguments, a method is needed to take a theory beyond that. That method is the test of falsifiability and the test of external consistency (compatibility with existing theories of science).

Get gud at science and logic. Hypotheses are not circular arguments.
ALL theories start as circular arguments. It is the tests that take it beyond that.
jwoodward48 wrote:
All theories, whether scientific or not, must pass the test of internal consistency. They cannot be based on a fallacy.

Yes.
Science does not use supporting evidence. It only is interested in anything that would falsify a theory. This means 'fingerprints' are not a way to prove or legitimize a theory.

If a theory has passed enough tests of falsifiability, then it's accepted - it could still be proven wrong, but it's moved beyond conjecture.

It only takes one.
jwoodward48 wrote:
jerrylh wrote:
Jwoodward listed several and there are more.
He has listed quite a few, all based on the initial circular argument. Unfortunately, many of them violate existing theories of science.

Not so. He's talking about evidence.

Yeah...so? Do you somehow think I'm NOT talking about evidence?
jwoodward48 wrote:
jerrylh wrote:
For example the documented thickening of the polar ice caps are consistent and support global warming. The reason is this: With a general warming of the earth, there is more water evaporation and as a result more precipitation. The polar caps never thaw out and so the increased precipitation translates into a thickening of the polar ice caps.
Attributing any change of polar ice caps to the theory of global warming is just the circular argument again.

Except it's not, because we have an explanation of how ice cap changes are caused by AGW. Unless you have a better explanation...

Don't need one. I do not need to prove a negative. Your argument is a circular argument.
jwoodward48 wrote:
jerrylh wrote:
The rate of rise in the earth's temperature is unprecedented in the last 40-50 years.

It is not possible to measure anything like global temperature. We don't have the instrumentation to satisfy the required margin of error.

To put it simply, we just don't know what the global temperature is doing.


We do. We can know this. I've explained why before, so I shouldn't have to repeat myself, right?

We don't. Your explanation violated the rules of statistics and demonstrated you have no understanding of probability or random number generation. You suck at math.
jwoodward48 wrote:

jerrylh wrote:
remaining who doubt global warming and that we are contributing to that in a substantial way.
Since a climatologist is trained to study global warming, this is rather a self fulfilling statement, don't you thiink?

No, climatologists study the climate. This is obvious.

There is nothing to study with climate. Climate is a word with a vague meaning.
jwoodward48 wrote:
jerrylh wrote:
But hey!! There are people that deny evolution as well.

Quite true. Some deny it because they claim creationism. Others (like me) simply treat the Theory of Evolution as the circular argument that it is, and equally unfalsifiable. It is no different from creationism or any other explanation. We simply don't know.

AAAAAAUGH you are causing me PHYSICAL PAIN when you say things like that and call it scientific.

I am not calling it scientific.
jwoodward48 wrote:
It is very different from creationism, because it is supported by evidence, whereas creationism is not. Do you doubt Einstein? How about QM? Why not?

Because those theories have been tested properly against internal and external inconsistencies, and they are falsifiable, and the falsifiability has been tested.

Of course Einstein never made any theories of science about Evolution Theory, and quantum mechanics doesn't address it.

jwoodward48 wrote:
jerrylh wrote:
Those graphs above are telling.
These graphs above are fake.

Anything that counters your WACKY religion can be explained away as having been fabricated, yes. Your point?

My point is they're fake. I have already explained why.
jwoodward48 wrote:
jerrylh wrote:
Weather (temperature and precipitatoin) varies every year, as we all know. But the trend is there and it is undeniable

We can't measure a trend without measuring global temperature. It is not possible to measure or calculate a global temperature.

This is also the reason that the theory of global warming is unfalsifiable.


Except that we can, and it isn't.


We can't. The rules of statistics says we can't. Your attempt at a double negative noted.


The Parrot Killer
13-10-2016 00:40
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
jerrylh wrote:
Hi everyone
I'm new and would like to add my input. Climate change is a theory just as the theory of evolution is and you can't prove either.

AAAAAAAAA

Please stop. That causes me physical pain, it is so wrong. It's a very common misconception, though, so I don't blame you. Saying "just a theory" is like saying "just an Olympic gold medaller." Theories are the basis of scientific knowledge (that and models). If anybody says they know something for sure, like a literal 1.0 probability, then they are wrong. AGW and evolution are ~0.9999999999999999999 probability, though, since there have been multitudes of verifying studies and experiments.

Stay out of Vegas. You don't know probability math or anything about random number generation.

You keep saying that.
You are just making up numbers out of your ass.

True. I was doing you a favour. I wanted to make sure that when you claimed that "warmists think that confidence levels are just how sure they are," you could point to this, and then I could bash you for having not ever said "confidence level". My evil plots are myriad and ineffective, as they must be, being both a stupid warmist and an evil Marxist.
Not all theories are scientific. They must be falsifiable to be scientific theories.

And they are.
jwoodward48 wrote:
However, the fingerprints supporting evolution are all over as are the fingerprints supporting global warming.


Ah, thank goodness, a sane person. (Just wanted to make sure you knew the correct things so that other science geeks wouldn't start writhing on the floor when you talked to them.
)

Jwoodward listed several and there are more. For example the documented thickening of the polar ice caps are consistent and support global warming. The reason is this: With a general warming of the earth, there is more water evaporation and as a result more precipitation.

Thanks, I hadn't thought of that. You get a little insane after talking with IB and Into, just fyi.

That's because we use actual physics, not the made up stuff that comes from the Church of Global Warming. We use actual math, not arguments of 'applicability'. We use actual words, not the constant redefinitions you attempt.

No, it's because you're a bunch of abusive arseholes who deny science.

Now there's a good example of a religious statement!
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
The polar caps never thaw out and so the increased precipitation translates into a thickening of the polar ice caps.

Not necessarily, though. Global warming also affects the outflow, so the mass balance depends on both.

Magick Holy Gas has no such magick properties. You can't warm the surface with Magick Holy Gas that is cooler than the surface. You can't warm the planet without increasing the source of energy.

Nononono. Stop. One step at a time.

Can the atmosphere affect the radiation that goes through it

No. We've been through these steps. You are still trying to make hot coffee with ice.
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
The rate of rise in the earth's temperature is unprecedented in the last 40-50 years. There are vanishing few legitimate climatologists remaining who doubt global warming and that we are contributing to that in a substantial way.

IB and Into would tell you that climatologists are either Evil Marxist Villains who are Trying to Take Over the World with Evil Science, or that the EMVwaTtTOtWwES are the government people who are controlling the scientists without any way of us knowing. Sounds preposterous? Good. It is.

I'm going to leave this attempt to put words in people's mouths for the moment simply as an example of what you are doing.

Hey, learned it from the two best strawmanners ever.

So...you are going to justify putting words in people's mouths by claiming the best instruction in strawman redirections ever? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
But hey!! There are people that deny evolution as well

The two biggest threats to the popular understanding of science (evolution deniers, AGW deniers) are indeed very similar.

It is YOU that is denying science. At least the Theory of Evolution, though itself remains a circular argument, HAS spawned good scientific theories that are both falsifiable, consistent, and are part of science today. Global Warming theory hasn't even done that.

It is not a circular argument. It doesn't assume its truthiness in its proof.
Yes, it does.
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Those graphs above are telling. Weather (temperature and precipitation) varies every year, as we all know. But the trend is there and it is undeniable.

Oh, it's deniable. Everything is deniable. The blueness of the sky is deniable. Just watch the right people. They've convinced themselves that weather is entirely random and trendless, and that the average temperature of the Earth is somehow impossible to measure.

It is impossible to measure or calculate. You really should go study a good book on statistics and probability. Failing that, stay tuned. I may yet explain enough statistics to understand this again to someone. I'm just not going to explain it to you again and again.


Explain how, or link to it. Or admit that you're making it all up. Either way works.


I already did. Argument of the Stone.


The Parrot Killer
13-10-2016 00:43
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
jwoodward48 wrote:
So what is your definition?


Are you really that clueless?

Raw data is data that has not undergone any processing. No selection, no manipulation, no filtering, nothing.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 13-10-2016 00:43
13-10-2016 01:17
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
jerrylh wrote:
Hi everyone
I'm new and would like to add my input. Climate change is a theory just as the theory of evolution is and you can't prove either.

AAAAAAAAA

Please stop. That causes me physical pain, it is so wrong. It's a very common misconception, though, so I don't blame you. Saying "just a theory" is like saying "just an Olympic gold medaller." Theories are the basis of scientific knowledge (that and models). If anybody says they know something for sure, like a literal 1.0 probability, then they are wrong. AGW and evolution are ~0.9999999999999999999 probability, though, since there have been multitudes of verifying studies and experiments.

Stay out of Vegas. You don't know probability math or anything about random number generation.

You keep saying that.
You are just making up numbers out of your ass.

True. I was doing you a favour. I wanted to make sure that when you claimed that "warmists think that confidence levels are just how sure they are," you could point to this, and then I could bash you for having not ever said "confidence level". My evil plots are myriad and ineffective, as they must be, being both a stupid warmist and an evil Marxist.
Not all theories are scientific. They must be falsifiable to be scientific theories.

And they are.
jwoodward48 wrote:
However, the fingerprints supporting evolution are all over as are the fingerprints supporting global warming.


Ah, thank goodness, a sane person. (Just wanted to make sure you knew the correct things so that other science geeks wouldn't start writhing on the floor when you talked to them.
)

Jwoodward listed several and there are more. For example the documented thickening of the polar ice caps are consistent and support global warming. The reason is this: With a general warming of the earth, there is more water evaporation and as a result more precipitation.

Thanks, I hadn't thought of that. You get a little insane after talking with IB and Into, just fyi.

That's because we use actual physics, not the made up stuff that comes from the Church of Global Warming. We use actual math, not arguments of 'applicability'. We use actual words, not the constant redefinitions you attempt.

No, it's because you're a bunch of abusive arseholes who deny science.

Now there's a good example of a religious statement!

How so? Because it isn't backed up? You're saying that? Heh.
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
The polar caps never thaw out and so the increased precipitation translates into a thickening of the polar ice caps.

Not necessarily, though. Global warming also affects the outflow, so the mass balance depends on both.

Magick Holy Gas has no such magick properties. You can't warm the surface with Magick Holy Gas that is cooler than the surface. You can't warm the planet without increasing the source of energy.

Nononono. Stop. One step at a time.

Can the atmosphere affect the radiation that goes through it

No. We've been through these steps. You are still trying to make hot coffee with ice.

So you are claiming that the atmosphere does not affect in any way that enters it?
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
[quote]The rate of rise in the earth's temperature is unprecedented in the last 40-50 years. There are vanishing few legitimate climatologists remaining who doubt global warming and that we are contributing to that in a substantial way.

IB and Into would tell you that climatologists are either Evil Marxist Villains who are Trying to Take Over the World with Evil Science, or that the EMVwaTtTOtWwES are the government people who are controlling the scientists without any way of us knowing. Sounds preposterous? Good. It is.

I'm going to leave this attempt to put words in people's mouths for the moment simply as an example of what you are doing.

Hey, learned it from the two best strawmanners ever.

So...you are going to justify putting words in people's mouths by claiming the best instruction in strawman redirections ever? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Yes. I learned it from you and IB. hahahahahaaaah!!!1
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
But hey!! There are people that deny evolution as well

The two biggest threats to the popular understanding of science (evolution deniers, AGW deniers) are indeed very similar.

It is YOU that is denying science. At least the Theory of Evolution, though itself remains a circular argument, HAS spawned good scientific theories that are both falsifiable, consistent, and are part of science today. Global Warming theory hasn't even done that.

It is not a circular argument. It doesn't assume its truthiness in its proof.
Yes, it does.

Do all theories assume themselves as part of their proofs?
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Those graphs above are telling. Weather (temperature and precipitation) varies every year, as we all know. But the trend is there and it is undeniable.

Oh, it's deniable. Everything is deniable. The blueness of the sky is deniable. Just watch the right people. They've convinced themselves that weather is entirely random and trendless, and that the average temperature of the Earth is somehow impossible to measure.

It is impossible to measure or calculate. You really should go study a good book on statistics and probability. Failing that, stay tuned. I may yet explain enough statistics to understand this again to someone. I'm just not going to explain it to you again and again.


Explain how, or link to it. Or admit that you're making it all up. Either way works.


I already did. Argument of the Stone.


That is not a link. I'm not dismissing your argument - I am saying that if you do not back up an argument, it's not valid, it's just argument from assertion.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
13-10-2016 01:17
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
So what is your definition?


Are you really that clueless?

Raw data is data that has not undergone any processing. No selection, no manipulation, no filtering, nothing.


I'm not clueless. I want to make sure we're on the same page.

So you agree that raw data is the result of observation?


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
13-10-2016 01:35
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4267)
jwoodward48 wrote:So you agree that raw data is the result of observation?

Observation is passive, yes? It's not a cause, correct? With the exception of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, observations don't have "results," correct?

Question: If every fifteen minutes a suite of remote sensors automatically sends twenty weather parameters digitally over a fiber network to be entered into a weather history archive ... is there raw data in that file? Or is the file devoid of data because no human ever made any observations?


.


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
13-10-2016 01:42
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jerrylh wrote:
Climate change is a theory just as the theory of evolution is and you can't prove either.

Absolutely correct. Neither theory is falsifiable. They therefore remain just a theory and not a scientific one.

Aaaaaaugh, why? Why would you say that?
The reason is clear.

Well why don't you give the reason? Especially for evolution, which we haven't discussed before.
jwoodward48 wrote:
jerrylh wrote:
However, the fingerprints supporting evolution are all over as are the fingerprints supporting global warming.
These 'fingerprints' are just the result of the initial circular argument of the theory itself. Since all theories begin as circular arguments, a method is needed to take a theory beyond that. That method is the test of falsifiability and the test of external consistency (compatibility with existing theories of science).

Get gud at science and logic. Hypotheses are not circular arguments.
ALL theories start as circular arguments. It is the tests that take it beyond that.

You're out of your mind. No, they don't.
jwoodward48 wrote:
All theories, whether scientific or not, must pass the test of internal consistency. They cannot be based on a fallacy.

Yes.
Science does not use supporting evidence. It only is interested in anything that would falsify a theory. This means 'fingerprints' are not a way to prove or legitimize a theory.

If a theory has passed enough tests of falsifiability, then it's accepted - it could still be proven wrong, but it's moved beyond conjecture.

It only takes one.

Well, yes, but there's usually a 5% chance or so that the test has incorrect results. No test is perfect, and error and bias are always present. So the chances of the observations being wrong after one supporting study are 5%, while the chances of two such supporting studies both being wrong are 0.25%.
jwoodward48 wrote:
[quote]jerrylh wrote:
Jwoodward listed several and there are more.
He has listed quite a few, all based on the initial circular argument. Unfortunately, many of them violate existing theories of science.

Not so. He's talking about evidence.

Yeah...so? Do you somehow think I'm NOT talking about evidence?

Evidence can't violate physics. Physics itself is based on evidence.
jwoodward48 wrote:
jerrylh wrote:
For example the documented thickening of the polar ice caps are consistent and support global warming. The reason is this: With a general warming of the earth, there is more water evaporation and as a result more precipitation. The polar caps never thaw out and so the increased precipitation translates into a thickening of the polar ice caps.
Attributing any change of polar ice caps to the theory of global warming is just the circular argument again.

Except it's not, because we have an explanation of how ice cap changes are caused by AGW. Unless you have a better explanation...

Don't need one. I do not need to prove a negative. Your argument is a circular argument.

You keep using that word. I do not think you know what it means.

A circular argument is when the consequent is equivalent to the antecedent.
jwoodward48 wrote:
jerrylh wrote:
The rate of rise in the earth's temperature is unprecedented in the last 40-50 years.

It is not possible to measure anything like global temperature. We don't have the instrumentation to satisfy the required margin of error.

To put it simply, we just don't know what the global temperature is doing.


We do. We can know this. I've explained why before, so I shouldn't have to repeat myself, right?

We don't. Your explanation violated the rules of statistics and demonstrated you have no understanding of probability or random number generation. You suck at math.

You say a lot of things. It's a shame you never back any of them up or explain them, or people might take you seriously.
jwoodward48 wrote:

jerrylh wrote:
remaining who doubt global warming and that we are contributing to that in a substantial way.
Since a climatologist is trained to study global warming, this is rather a self fulfilling statement, don't you thiink?

No, climatologists study the climate. This is obvious.

There is nothing to study with climate. Climate is a word with a vague meaning.

So there are no trends in weather? It's just "flip a coin, 50% chance it rains, 50% chance it doesn't", no matter where you are? Interesting.
jwoodward48 wrote:
jerrylh wrote:
But hey!! There are people that deny evolution as well.

Quite true. Some deny it because they claim creationism. Others (like me) simply treat the Theory of Evolution as the circular argument that it is, and equally unfalsifiable. It is no different from creationism or any other explanation. We simply don't know.

AAAAAAUGH you are causing me PHYSICAL PAIN when you say things like that and call it scientific.

I am not calling it scientific.

You are saying that from a scientific point of view, evolution is unfalsifiable. This is completely false. It has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. We've witnessed it in a lab! We have piles upon piles of evidence. How do you call that unfalsifiable?
jwoodward48 wrote:
It is very different from creationism, because it is supported by evidence, whereas creationism is not. Do you doubt Einstein? How about QM? Why not?

Because those theories have been tested properly against internal and external inconsistencies, and they are falsifiable, and the falsifiability has been tested.

Internal inconsistencies, as in errors or fallacies?
External inconsistencies, as in "does not correspond to reality"?
Hmm, evolution has neither.
Of course Einstein never made any theories of science about Evolution Theory, and quantum mechanics doesn't address it.

I meant Relativity, not Einstein.
What I meant was: what do Relativity and QM have that evolution don't? No shitty brief answers like "proof", either.
jwoodward48 wrote:
jerrylh wrote:
Those graphs above are telling.
These graphs above are fake.

Anything that counters your WACKY religion can be explained away as having been fabricated, yes. Your point?

My point is they're fake. I have already explained why.

Because of the evil Marxists corrupting our government and forcing the good scientists to fabricate their data, right. Why hasn't a single scientist spoken out about this?
jwoodward48 wrote:
jerrylh wrote:
Weather (temperature and precipitatoin) varies every year, as we all know. But the trend is there and it is undeniable

We can't measure a trend without measuring global temperature. It is not possible to measure or calculate a global temperature.

This is also the reason that the theory of global warming is unfalsifiable.


Except that we can, and it isn't.


We can't. The rules of statistics says we can't. Your attempt at a double negative noted.


Statistical Rule #1: Global warming is unfalsifiable.

yeah, no.

You have to derive your statement from rules and laws, not just state that they can be derived. You know how you accuse me of "violating the laws, then insisting that I haven't"? I've actually demonstrated how your use of the laws is incorrect, so I've done more than insist, but the inverse of the statement ("stating something not derivable from the rules and laws, then insisting that it is derivable from such") applies well to you.

1. That wouldn't be a double negative, that'd be a self-contradictory statement.
2. We can [measure temperature], and it isn't [unfalsifiable]. The two applied to different things.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
Edited on 13-10-2016 01:50
13-10-2016 14:54
jerrylh
☆☆☆☆☆
(13)
Hi IBda Mann
For my benefit, could you clarify why you feel that the temperature record is unreliable. Presently, the temperature is based on averages of several readings around the globe. Then an average is taken. Now that number by itself, doesn't mean much, but it is the changes that occur during decades that are meaningful. Are you saying that the readings are wrong?? If so, what do you attribute that to?? Are they readings being intentionally falsified?? I would just like you to clarify your position so I could better understand it. Thanks
13-10-2016 16:08
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4267)
jerrylh wrote: Hi IBda Mann, For my benefit, could you clarify why you feel that the temperature record is unreliable.

Sure. We (humanity) are still unable to measure the earth's average global temperature to any useful accuracy.

Watch.

What do you consider to be an acceptable "margin of error"? (i.e. your opinion, no one else's)

jerrylh wrote: Presently, the temperature is based on averages of several readings around the globe.

Actually it is based on people making up numbers, but "several readings" around the globe is grossly insufficient. One million readings around the globe would still be insufficient.

jerrylh wrote: Now that number by itself, doesn't mean much, but it is the changes that occur during decades that are meaningful.

Why is that? I'm mulling it over and nope, unspecified changes in fudged averages of egregiously inaccurate computations do not hold any meaning for me. None whatsoever.

jerrylh wrote: Are they readings being intentionally falsified??

Well, it's not so much that any readings were falsified as it is that there weren't any readings in the first place, i.e. the numbers were just fabricated. Yes there is a lot of that going on for convenience and political agenda. Besides, warmizombies are so gullible and scientifically illiterate, all that is really necessary is to just announce on the internet that last month was the hottest month ev-ah! and that the current year is the hottest of the instrument record or whatever stupid hyperbole sounds good and the warmizombies will be eager to eat it up.

You sound like one of those gullible people who never question why there is no unfudged raw data or why the margins of error aren't given. Perhaps you did ask once and were told that none of that verifiability/accuracy "bulslhit" matters, only the "confidence levels" that you are handed (and are not to question) ... and perhaps you never questioned any of it. You probably never asked what comprises a true global average temperature nor asked why the announcements never specify what is included in the measurements.

Whatever the case, we don't know what the earth's global average temperature is to sufficient accuracy to measure any changes that are greater than the margin of error.

Again, what do you consider to be an acceptable margin of error?


.


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
13-10-2016 16:19
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
jerrylh wrote:
Hi IBda Mann
For my benefit, could you clarify why you feel that the temperature record is unreliable. Presently, the temperature is based on averages of several readings around the globe. Then an average is taken. Now that number by itself, doesn't mean much, but it is the changes that occur during decades that are meaningful. Are you saying that the readings are wrong?? If so, what do you attribute that to?? Are they readings being intentionally falsified?? I would just like you to clarify your position so I could better understand it. Thanks

I don't think you stand any more chance of getting any sense out of IBdaMann than the rest of us do. Go on, though, ask him for any evidence to support his contentions and watch the spittle fly. 3, 2, 1...

Edit: P.S. Don't try to explain to him what a "confidence level" actually is. It's one of his trigger words.

Edited on 13-10-2016 16:21
13-10-2016 16:25
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4267)
jerrylh wrote:Hi IBda Mann
For my benefit, could you clarify why you feel that the temperature record is unreliable. Presently, the temperature is based on averages of several readings around the globe. Then an average is taken. Now that number by itself, doesn't mean much, but it is the changes that occur during decades that are meaningful. Are you saying that the readings are wrong?? If so, what do you attribute that to?? Are they readings being intentionally falsified?? I would just like you to clarify your position so I could better understand it. Thanks

By the way, if you look to Surface Detail or jwoodward48 for guidance you'll have a classic case of the blind leading the blind. They are science assassins who look to deny and/or kill any and all science that runs counter to their WACKY religious faith.


.


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
13-10-2016 18:22
jerrylh
☆☆☆☆☆
(13)
Thanks for your reply. However, it appears that you didn't address my question.
Page 2 of 5<1234>>>





Join the debate "The temperature record is unreliable!":

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Earths Temperature114-08-2019 20:08
Temperature207-08-2019 05:59
Hottest day on record (going back to 1880s) in Paris6730-07-2019 00:02
record high temp in france7808-07-2019 06:18
There is no evidence CO2 increases temperature128-06-2019 05:22
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact