Remember me
▼ Content

Why deny global warming



Page 3 of 4<1234>
17-02-2016 17:10
Buildreps
★☆☆☆☆
(100)
What is a 'science' denier? Someone who doesn't swallow blindly what the priests of the new religion tell us?

I am not denying that the climate is warming. I am denying that science has found the right cause. It is laughable to think that humanity is causing climate change. Climate change is part of earth's balancing system for already billions of years.

There are clear relations between the rotation speed of the earth and climate change. The Coriolis effect depends on it. Is that clear enough? Don't just quote professors with their insane ideas that are perfectly in line with the investment plans of the big industries.

The closer earth gets to the sun the slower it rotates. This is a terrain where science hardly scratched the surface - mathematically too difficult for most to wrap their heads around.

You're looking on the wrong spot, bro.
Edited on 17-02-2016 17:11
17-02-2016 19:55
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Buildreps wrote:
What is a 'science' denier? Someone who doesn't swallow blindly what the priests of the new religion tell us?

I am not denying that the climate is warming. I am denying that science has found the right cause. It is laughable to think that humanity is causing climate change. Climate change is part of earth's balancing system for already billions of years.

There are clear relations between the rotation speed of the earth and climate change. The Coriolis effect depends on it. Is that clear enough? Don't just quote professors with their insane ideas that are perfectly in line with the investment plans of the big industries.

The closer earth gets to the sun the slower it rotates. This is a terrain where science hardly scratched the surface - mathematically too difficult for most to wrap their heads around.

You're looking on the wrong spot, bro.

So, Mr. Skeptic, who told you that the Earth is getting closer to the sun, and why do you believe them?
17-02-2016 20:26
Buildreps
★☆☆☆☆
(100)
That's one of the basic laws of physics, my friend.

I never claimed that global warming is man-made, and therefore CO2 would get the blame. I don't have to stare at graphs, like in a crystal ball that it might tell me something. But first things first. I challenge you and your CO2-mates, who believe that CO2 is the cause of global warming, to prove this.

No graphs. Show me a math model. No model is no proof.
Edited on 17-02-2016 20:36
17-02-2016 21:07
spot
★★★★☆
(1231)
better to stare at graphs then listen to gibbering demons in your head.
17-02-2016 21:09
Buildreps
★☆☆☆☆
(100)
spot wrote:
better to stare at graphs then listen to gibbering demons in your head.


You don't have to become insulting, spot. That shows you're not ready for a real debate.

By the way: Look at the new thread just started (looking for new CO2 director). What did I tell you? Carbon is big business
17-02-2016 21:25
spot
★★★★☆
(1231)
I don't have to insult you but I want to If you insist on presenting stupid assertions as fact you can't really expect people to take you seriously and I started this thread anyway.

You say you want a "math model" what the hell do you mean? as opposed to a airfix model? a model made out of matchsticks?

And why don't you go for the job you are a supergenius that worked out that pyramids can be used to predict trends in future climate so it won't be that hard for you.
17-02-2016 21:32
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Buildreps wrote:
That's one of the basic laws of physics, my friend.

No, it isn't. In fact, the Earth is gradually receding from the sun by about 15 cm per year. What makes you think anyone should take you seriously if you can't even be bothered to check the basic facts?

Reference: Secular increase of astronomical unit from analysis of the major planet motions, and its interpretation
Edited on 17-02-2016 21:37
17-02-2016 21:36
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5230)
Buildreps wrote: What is a 'science' denier?

I am so glad you asked. First let me address what a "troll" is.

Warmizombies NEED to redefine standard words so they can claim ownership to key ideas and concepts. The common understanding of "troll" wrt an online forum is a pejorative label for someone who performs a "hit and run" by posting something inflamatory and then leaves. Warmizombies, on the other hand, use it strictly to mean "someone who effectively chips away at my religious dogma and makes me feel threatened." Warmizombies are forever hurling the "troll" pejorative at long-time residents who discuss actual science.

Now for "denier." Since science is the heavyweight authority on nature and reality, it is a grand prize in any forum of ideas for any person or group who can own it. Of course, no one can own science, but warmizombies and climate lemmings will certainly try. The classic "red flag" alert is the implementation of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Warmizombies like to pick and choose which facts and which science they want to believe just like a Christian might pick and choose which biblical passages s/he chooses to interpret literally, which ones to interpret figuratively, and which ones no longer apply. The way this is done is to refer to desired/preferred things as "peer reviewed science" (i.e. a true Scotsman) while dismissing anything else as "cherry-picked bluster from a discredited charlatan" (i.e. not a true Scotsman). However, since actual science runs counter to their WACKY dogma, they try to pull the following classic switcheroo.

First, they name their WACKY dogma "The Science" (in the same manner that Christians name their dogma "The Word of God"). They then call nonbelievers "deniers" (in the same manner that a Christian might call someone a "heathen"). So the answer to your question is that someone who does not believe in the Global Warming religion is a "denier who doesn't accept The Science" or is a "Science denier." This feeds into the standard invalid warmizombie tactic of attempting to shift the burden of proof.

Religions are unfalsifiable, meaning no one can prove them false. No one can prove them true either. Warmizombies are thus hosed. On the one hand they claim that their dogma is "settled science" and is thus true, but on the other hand they cannot prove any of their unfalsifiable assertions to be true. The only option they have is to try to obligate the unwary "denier" to somehow prove Global Warming false...which cannot be done because it is completely unfalsifiable. Warmizombies control the conversation to assume Global Warming true until proven false (which cannot happen) and voila! Chalk up a win for Global Warming.

Before the advent of Global Warming, the classic western example went something like this:

Christian: "God is real and active in our lives."
Heathen: "Prove it."
Christian: "Just look around. Who do you think created everything?"
Heathen: "Well, I don't know."
Christian: "Then prove God isn't real and that someone else created everything. Good luck with that."

The Global Warming version does not differ in any substantial way. Attention climate deniers: This scientist will give you $10,000 for actual proof that global warming is a hoax . (This web page is highly recommended reading)

Buildreps wrote: I am not denying that the climate is warming.

Well you are implying that you know what "climate" is. Tell me, what is the global "climate" system?

Buildreps wrote: I am denying that science has found the right cause.

Is "climate" a tangible thing or is it an effect? ...or is it a completely notional concept, like an "average"?

Buildreps wrote: It is laughable to think that humanity is causing climate change.

Hold on! It most certainly is not laughable. I assume "climate" is the temperature in my car, which I adjust with my "climate control" setting. Nature doesn't change it. I do, or whoever happens to be driving, or the front passenger.

Buildreps wrote:Climate change is part of earth's balancing system for already billions of years.

The earth has a balancing system?

Buildreps wrote:There are clear relations between the rotation speed of the earth and climate change.

"climate change"? What are the units of measure for "climate"?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
17-02-2016 21:39
Buildreps
★☆☆☆☆
(100)
You're right, spot. That was a too long forecast of me. Sorry


The eccentricity of earth's orbit is currently increasing. That means that the summer and winter swings are increasing, and therefore the orbital changes of the earth's rotation. This has significant effects on our climate, while the tensions between the crust and the core, with the magma serving as the connection, are increasing. That is making our climate change.

CO2 is just a playground for mental underdeveloped.
17-02-2016 22:49
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Surface Detail wrote:
Buildreps wrote:
That's one of the basic laws of physics, my friend.

No, it isn't. In fact, the Earth is gradually receding from the sun by about 15 cm per year. What makes you think anyone should take you seriously if you can't even be bothered to check the basic facts?

Reference: Secular increase of astronomical unit from analysis of the major planet motions, and its interpretation


oops



Edited on 17-02-2016 22:49
17-02-2016 23:05
Buildreps
★☆☆☆☆
(100)
IBdaMann wrote:
Buildreps wrote: What is a 'science' denier?

I am so glad you asked. First let me address what a "troll" is.

Warmizombies NEED to redefine standard words so they can claim ownership to key ideas and concepts. The common understanding of "troll" wrt an online forum is a pejorative label for someone who performs a "hit and run" by posting something inflamatory and then leaves. Warmizombies, on the other hand, use it strictly to mean "someone who effectively chips away at my religious dogma and makes me feel threatened." Warmizombies are forever hurling the "troll" pejorative at long-time residents who discuss actual science.

Now for "denier." Since science is the heavyweight authority on nature and reality, it is a grand prize in any forum of ideas for any person or group who can own it. Of course, no one can own science, but warmizombies and climate lemmings will certainly try. The classic "red flag" alert is the implementation of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Warmizombies like to pick and choose which facts and which science they want to believe just like a Christian might pick and choose which biblical passages s/he chooses to interpret literally, which ones to interpret figuratively, and which ones no longer apply. The way this is done is to refer to desired/preferred things as "peer reviewed science" (i.e. a true Scotsman) while dismissing anything else as "cherry-picked bluster from a discredited charlatan" (i.e. not a true Scotsman). However, since actual science runs counter to their WACKY dogma, they try to pull the following classic switcheroo.

First, they name their WACKY dogma "The Science" (in the same manner that Christians name their dogma "The Word of God"). They then call nonbelievers "deniers" (in the same manner that a Christian might call someone a "heathen"). So the answer to your question is that someone who does not believe in the Global Warming religion is a "denier who doesn't accept The Science" or is a "Science denier." This feeds into the standard invalid warmizombie tactic of attempting to shift the burden of proof.

Religions are unfalsifiable, meaning no one can prove them false. No one can prove them true either. Warmizombies are thus hosed. On the one hand they claim that their dogma is "settled science" and is thus true, but on the other hand they cannot prove any of their unfalsifiable assertions to be true. The only option they have is to try to obligate the unwary "denier" to somehow prove Global Warming false...which cannot be done because it is completely unfalsifiable. Warmizombies control the conversation to assume Global Warming true until proven false (which cannot happen) and voila! Chalk up a win for Global Warming.

Before the advent of Global Warming, the classic western example went something like this:

Christian: "God is real and active in our lives."
Heathen: "Prove it."
Christian: "Just look around. Who do you think created everything?"
Heathen: "Well, I don't know."
Christian: "Then prove God isn't real and that someone else created everything. Good luck with that."

The Global Warming version does not differ in any substantial way. Attention climate deniers: This scientist will give you $10,000 for actual proof that global warming is a hoax . (This web page is highly recommended reading)

Buildreps wrote: I am not denying that the climate is warming.

Well you are implying that you know what "climate" is. Tell me, what is the global "climate" system?

Buildreps wrote: I am denying that science has found the right cause.

Is "climate" a tangible thing or is it an effect? ...or is it a completely notional concept, like an "average"?

Buildreps wrote: It is laughable to think that humanity is causing climate change.

Hold on! It most certainly is not laughable. I assume "climate" is the temperature in my car, which I adjust with my "climate control" setting. Nature doesn't change it. I do, or whoever happens to be driving, or the front passenger.

Buildreps wrote:Climate change is part of earth's balancing system for already billions of years.

The earth has a balancing system?

Buildreps wrote:There are clear relations between the rotation speed of the earth and climate change.

"climate change"? What are the units of measure for "climate"?


.


Thanks a lot, IBdaMann, for this comprehensive explanation, and the link. I can agree with most of it, especially the believe/religious parts.

You seem to have the tendency to keep sticking in the realm of definitions. I'm not saying that's a bad thing though.

1) What is climate? I think climate is the combination of parameters like temperature, wind speeds, ocean currents, moisture, etcetera. There's no need to complicate things unnecessary. New insights might complicate this definition.

2) Is climate tangible or an effect? Tangible and effect are of the same kind. The ultimate causes are noumenal, not phenomenal. You cannot touch the causes. Climate is an effect, which you can treat as an abstraction, so it can be measured to some degree.

3) No comment.

4) Of course has earth a balancing mechanism. What do you think El Nina and El Nino are doing? What do you think high and low pressure systems are doing? They are balancing systems.

5) That's one of the themes of the second volume. I won't discuss this here further.

Thanks for your kind reply!
17-02-2016 23:46
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann, what makes you so sure that you have sufficient expertise in the field to determine whether global warming theory is falsifiable or not?
18-02-2016 00:08
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Buildreps wrote:
The eccentricity of earth's orbit is currently increasing.

Wrong again. It's currently 0.01670 and decreasing:



You're just making this up as you go along, aren't you?
Edited on 18-02-2016 00:08
18-02-2016 00:19
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5230)
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann, what makes you so sure that you have sufficient expertise in the field to determine whether global warming theory is falsifiable or not?

I'm not sure what "expertise" is required to show that an unfalsifiable dogma is unfalsifiable. It's really just something that is noted. Do you have difficulty discerning science from religion?

Is there a falsifiable Global Warming model of which you are aware? If not, then there you go. If so, please post it here.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
18-02-2016 00:26
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann, what makes you so sure that you have sufficient expertise in the field to determine whether global warming theory is falsifiable or not?

I'm not sure what "expertise" is required to show that an unfalsifiable dogma is unfalsifiable. It's really just something that is noted. Do you have difficulty discerning science from religion?

Is there a falsifiable Global Warming model of which you are aware? If not, then there you go. If so, please post it here.

The point is that it is often not easy for a layman without expertise in a particular area to determine what constitutes proper science and what doesn't. That is why we have peer review - to determine if a contribution is actual science or not.

You are deluding yourself if you think that you have the competence to state that global warming is "unfalsifiable dogma". See points (1) and (2) under the list of Dunning-Kruger signs that I posted.
Edited on 18-02-2016 00:27
18-02-2016 01:02
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10256)
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann, what makes you so sure that you have sufficient expertise in the field to determine whether global warming theory is falsifiable or not?

I'm not sure what "expertise" is required to show that an unfalsifiable dogma is unfalsifiable. It's really just something that is noted. Do you have difficulty discerning science from religion?

Is there a falsifiable Global Warming model of which you are aware? If not, then there you go. If so, please post it here.

The point is that it is often not easy for a layman without expertise in a particular area to determine what constitutes proper science and what doesn't. That is why we have peer review - to determine if a contribution is actual science or not.

You are deluding yourself if you think that you have the competence to state that global warming is "unfalsifiable dogma". See points (1) and (2) under the list of Dunning-Kruger signs that I posted.

Dunning-Kruger is psychoquackery. They are the proud owners of an Ig Nobel Prize as well. I'll use the theory in reverse on you:

You are deluding yourself if you think you have the competence to state that global warming is falsifiable science, or that you have the expertise to psychoanalyze people. See the Dunning-Kruger effect.

What these two (and you) have failed to realize is that they are subject to their own effect. To even use this reasoning to discard another's argument is Bulverism. Because their own effect comes back upon them as well, the net result is a void argument. It cancels itself out.

Peer review does not define science. Lack of peer review does not define lack of science.

Fast talking your way out of providing a falsifiable theory of Global Warming is not going to work.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 18-02-2016 01:07
18-02-2016 01:26
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5230)
Buildreps wrote:Thanks a lot, IBdaMann, for this comprehensive explanation, and the link.

You are welcome.


Buildreps wrote: I think climate is the combination of parameters like temperature, wind speeds, ocean currents, moisture, etcetera.

Just between us, I don't think you have made up your mind about what you want "climate" to be. Like almost every other "climate" believer, you want "climate" to be an omnipotent shape-shifter that can take the form of weather one moment, a tangible element of the environment another (a lake, a mountain, a forest, etc) and always have the ability to become an intangible, completely notional concept when convenient (an average, a trend, a statistical distribution, etc).

Only gods can be what you want "climate" to be, i.e. unfalsifiable, otherwise you have to rigidly define your version of "climate" and eliminate all your semantic wiggle room in the process.

Just remember that until you unambiguously define it, anyone is free to ask you what you mean by "climate."


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
18-02-2016 01:55
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann, what makes you so sure that you have sufficient expertise in the field to determine whether global warming theory is falsifiable or not?

I'm not sure what "expertise" is required to show that an unfalsifiable dogma is unfalsifiable. It's really just something that is noted. Do you have difficulty discerning science from religion?

Is there a falsifiable Global Warming model of which you are aware? If not, then there you go. If so, please post it here.

The point is that it is often not easy for a layman without expertise in a particular area to determine what constitutes proper science and what doesn't. That is why we have peer review - to determine if a contribution is actual science or not.

You are deluding yourself if you think that you have the competence to state that global warming is "unfalsifiable dogma". See points (1) and (2) under the list of Dunning-Kruger signs that I posted.

Dunning-Kruger is psychoquackery. They are the proud owners of an Ig Nobel Prize as well. I'll use the theory in reverse on you:

You are deluding yourself if you think you have the competence to state that global warming is falsifiable science, or that you have the expertise to psychoanalyze people. See the Dunning-Kruger effect.

What these two (and you) have failed to realize is that they are subject to their own effect. To even use this reasoning to discard another's argument is Bulverism. Because their own effect comes back upon them as well, the net result is a void argument. It cancels itself out.

Peer review does not define science. Lack of peer review does not define lack of science.

Fast talking your way out of providing a falsifiable theory of Global Warming is not going to work.

The difference is that I'm not stating that global warming is falsifiable science and simply expecting you to believe me. I use logical argument and refer to the peer-reviewed work of others to bolster my arguments. IBdaMann and you simply state an opinion (and occasionally refer to non-peer reviewed gibberish) and unreasonably expect others to take you seriously.

For practical purposes, peer review does define science, or at least judges what constitutes science according to the principles that include falsifiability.
18-02-2016 01:56
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5230)
Surface Detail wrote:The point is that it is often not easy for a layman without expertise in a particular area to determine what constitutes proper science and what doesn't.

...which is why I asked you if you have difficulty discerning science from religion. I'm offering to help.


Surface Detail wrote:That is why we have peer review - to determine if a contribution is actual science or not.

So the correct answer is that you haven't the vaguest idea what is required for science. You are obviously operating under the egregious misunderstanding that there are people who somehow own science and who are anointed with the authority to determine what constitutes science and what does not.

No one owns science. Peer review is useful but is in no way required for science to be created. No one and no institution gets any sort of veto. No one's permission or approval is needed.

Whenever someone mentions "peer review" as you just did, as though it is science's gatekeeper process, it's a lame attempt to hijack the authority of science.

Surface Detail wrote:You are deluding yourself if you think that you have the competence to state that global warming is "unfalsifiable dogma"

Nope. I am fully competent to declare Global Warming an unfalsifiable religious dogma that appeals mostly to the scientifically illiterate and to those gullible enough to believe that "peer review" determines science.

I asked you to post here the falsifiable Global Warming model, if you are claiming one exists. I take it by your lack of any falsifiable Global Warming model that you secretly agree with my assessment above.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
18-02-2016 02:06
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:The point is that it is often not easy for a layman without expertise in a particular area to determine what constitutes proper science and what doesn't.

...which is why I asked you if you have difficulty discerning science from religion. I'm offering to help.


Surface Detail wrote:That is why we have peer review - to determine if a contribution is actual science or not.

So the correct answer is that you haven't the vaguest idea what is required for science. You are obviously operating under the egregious misunderstanding that there are people who somehow own science and who are anointed with the authority to determine what constitutes science and what does not.

No one owns science. Peer review is useful but is in no way required for science to be created. No one and no institution gets any sort of veto. No one's permission or approval is needed.

Whenever someone mentions "peer review" as you just did, as though it is science's gatekeeper process, it's a lame attempt to hijack the authority of science.

Surface Detail wrote:You are deluding yourself if you think that you have the competence to state that global warming is "unfalsifiable dogma"

Nope. I am fully competent to declare Global Warming an unfalsifiable religious dogma that appeals mostly to the scientifically illiterate and to those gullible enough to believe that "peer review" determines science.

I asked you to post here the falsifiable Global Warming model, if you are claiming one exists. I take it by your lack of any falsifiable Global Warming model that you secretly agree with my assessment above.

If you cannot understand the importance of peer review for distinguishing science from quackery, then you have a lot of learning to do.

And what do you mean by "post a falsifiable global warming model"? Perhaps you could post a falsifiable model of, say, evolution, to illustrate the sort of thing you're looking for?
18-02-2016 02:08
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10256)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Dunning-Kruger is psychoquackery. They are the proud owners of an Ig Nobel Prize as well. I'll use the theory in reverse on you:

You are deluding yourself if you think you have the competence to state that global warming is falsifiable science, or that you have the expertise to psychoanalyze people. See the Dunning-Kruger effect.

What these two (and you) have failed to realize is that they are subject to their own effect. To even use this reasoning to discard another's argument is Bulverism. Because their own effect comes back upon them as well, the net result is a void argument. It cancels itself out.

Peer review does not define science. Lack of peer review does not define lack of science.

Fast talking your way out of providing a falsifiable theory of Global Warming is not going to work.

The difference is that I'm not stating that global warming is falsifiable science and simply expecting you to believe me. I use logical argument and refer to the peer-reviewed work of others to bolster my arguments. IBdaMann and you simply state an opinion (and occasionally refer to non-peer reviewed gibberish) and unreasonably expect others to take you seriously.

For practical purposes, peer review does define science, or at least judges what constitutes science according to the principles that include falsifiability.


You ARE stating that global is falsifiable or you couldn't call it science.

Your 'logic' leaves a lot to be desired. You have very little understanding of it and what it is capable of.

Peer review is not science. It is not required of science. The scientific method does not require it at all. For all practical purposes, you are using a false presentation of what science is and how it operates.

Who is to say a particular group of men are the gateway of what is a falsifiable theory or that something is science? What gives these men such god-like powers over science? Answer: NOTHING. Science cannot operate that way and still be science.

You are worshiping the Great God Consensus. It is a false god. It does not allow you to redefine the meanings of words at will.


The Parrot Killer
18-02-2016 02:09
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5230)
@ Buildreps, notice Surface Detail's perfect example of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy involving "peer review":

Surface Detail wrote: I use logical argument and refer to the peer-reviewed work of others to bolster my arguments. IBdaMann and you simply state an opinion (and occasionally refer to non-peer reviewed gibberish)...


@ Buildreps, notice Surface Detail's attempt to claim ownership of science:

Surface Detail wrote: For practical purposes, peer review does define science, or at least judges what constitutes science according to the principles that include falsifiability.


Warmizombies are locked into the modus operandi I discussed. It took only a few hours for an example to appear in this very thread. This will not be the last occurrence of the above.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
18-02-2016 02:12
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10256)
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:The point is that it is often not easy for a layman without expertise in a particular area to determine what constitutes proper science and what doesn't.

...which is why I asked you if you have difficulty discerning science from religion. I'm offering to help.


Surface Detail wrote:That is why we have peer review - to determine if a contribution is actual science or not.

So the correct answer is that you haven't the vaguest idea what is required for science. You are obviously operating under the egregious misunderstanding that there are people who somehow own science and who are anointed with the authority to determine what constitutes science and what does not.

No one owns science. Peer review is useful but is in no way required for science to be created. No one and no institution gets any sort of veto. No one's permission or approval is needed.

Whenever someone mentions "peer review" as you just did, as though it is science's gatekeeper process, it's a lame attempt to hijack the authority of science.

Surface Detail wrote:You are deluding yourself if you think that you have the competence to state that global warming is "unfalsifiable dogma"

Nope. I am fully competent to declare Global Warming an unfalsifiable religious dogma that appeals mostly to the scientifically illiterate and to those gullible enough to believe that "peer review" determines science.

I asked you to post here the falsifiable Global Warming model, if you are claiming one exists. I take it by your lack of any falsifiable Global Warming model that you secretly agree with my assessment above.

If you cannot understand the importance of peer review for distinguishing science from quackery, then you have a lot of learning to do.

And what do you mean by "post a falsifiable global warming model"? Perhaps you could post a falsifiable model of, say, evolution, to illustrate the sort of thing you're looking for?

Peer review is unable to distinguish science from quackery. You are putting your faith in the God of Consensus. The scientific method has no need for such Religions.


The Parrot Killer
18-02-2016 02:25
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:The point is that it is often not easy for a layman without expertise in a particular area to determine what constitutes proper science and what doesn't.

...which is why I asked you if you have difficulty discerning science from religion. I'm offering to help.


Surface Detail wrote:That is why we have peer review - to determine if a contribution is actual science or not.

So the correct answer is that you haven't the vaguest idea what is required for science. You are obviously operating under the egregious misunderstanding that there are people who somehow own science and who are anointed with the authority to determine what constitutes science and what does not.

No one owns science. Peer review is useful but is in no way required for science to be created. No one and no institution gets any sort of veto. No one's permission or approval is needed.

Whenever someone mentions "peer review" as you just did, as though it is science's gatekeeper process, it's a lame attempt to hijack the authority of science.

Surface Detail wrote:You are deluding yourself if you think that you have the competence to state that global warming is "unfalsifiable dogma"

Nope. I am fully competent to declare Global Warming an unfalsifiable religious dogma that appeals mostly to the scientifically illiterate and to those gullible enough to believe that "peer review" determines science.

I asked you to post here the falsifiable Global Warming model, if you are claiming one exists. I take it by your lack of any falsifiable Global Warming model that you secretly agree with my assessment above.

If you cannot understand the importance of peer review for distinguishing science from quackery, then you have a lot of learning to do.

And what do you mean by "post a falsifiable global warming model"? Perhaps you could post a falsifiable model of, say, evolution, to illustrate the sort of thing you're looking for?

Peer review is unable to distinguish science from quackery. You are putting your faith in the God of Consensus. The scientific method has no need for such Religions.

I see the root of your and IBdaMann's misunderstanding now - you really don't appreciate the importance of peer review! That certainly doesn't reflect well on the science education systems of your respective home countries and explains why you are unable to distinguish fact from fiction.

Here's an introductory guide from the University of California to get you started:

Scrutinizing science: Peer review
18-02-2016 02:35
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10256)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:The point is that it is often not easy for a layman without expertise in a particular area to determine what constitutes proper science and what doesn't.

...which is why I asked you if you have difficulty discerning science from religion. I'm offering to help.


Surface Detail wrote:That is why we have peer review - to determine if a contribution is actual science or not.

So the correct answer is that you haven't the vaguest idea what is required for science. You are obviously operating under the egregious misunderstanding that there are people who somehow own science and who are anointed with the authority to determine what constitutes science and what does not.

No one owns science. Peer review is useful but is in no way required for science to be created. No one and no institution gets any sort of veto. No one's permission or approval is needed.

Whenever someone mentions "peer review" as you just did, as though it is science's gatekeeper process, it's a lame attempt to hijack the authority of science.

Surface Detail wrote:You are deluding yourself if you think that you have the competence to state that global warming is "unfalsifiable dogma"

Nope. I am fully competent to declare Global Warming an unfalsifiable religious dogma that appeals mostly to the scientifically illiterate and to those gullible enough to believe that "peer review" determines science.

I asked you to post here the falsifiable Global Warming model, if you are claiming one exists. I take it by your lack of any falsifiable Global Warming model that you secretly agree with my assessment above.

If you cannot understand the importance of peer review for distinguishing science from quackery, then you have a lot of learning to do.

And what do you mean by "post a falsifiable global warming model"? Perhaps you could post a falsifiable model of, say, evolution, to illustrate the sort of thing you're looking for?

Peer review is unable to distinguish science from quackery. You are putting your faith in the God of Consensus. The scientific method has no need for such Religions.

I see the root of your and IBdaMann's misunderstanding now - you really don't appreciate the importance of peer review! That certainly doesn't reflect well on the science education systems of your respective home countries and explains why you are unable to distinguish fact from fiction.

Here's an introductory guide from the University of California to get you started:

Scrutinizing science: Peer review

Wrong. You really don't understand the futility of using peer review as a gateway. Now you are saying Berkeley owns science. No one owns science. No publisher, no magazine, no journal, no university, no government, no other group you can name, NO ONE. Consensus has nothing to do with the scientific method.


The Parrot Killer
18-02-2016 02:44
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5230)
Surface Detail wrote: If you cannot understand the importance of peer review for distinguishing science from quackery, then you have a lot of learning to do.

There you go again with what I "cannot understand" just because you cannot understand something. This is your way of tipping your king.

Surface Detail wrote: And what do you mean by "post a falsifiable global warming model"?

This is where you should have started. You admit that you don't know everything and you leverage the knowledge of the many people on the forum by asking for explanations of those things you don't understand. If you assume that you can only learn from others who have also been duped into believing your WACKY religion then you will be doomed to learning very little beyond really stupid ideas.


To answer your question, science requires a falsifiable model that predicts nature. Nothing else is required.

The scientific method takes falsifiable models and does everything possible to show the model to be false. As long as the model survives, it retains its seat in body of science.

Surface Detail wrote:
Perhaps you could post a falsifiable model of, say, evolution, to illustrate the sort of thing you're looking for?

I could. It would be very easy.

But remember, I am not "looking" for a falsifiable Global Warming model. I don't think one exists.

You are the one who needs others to think your WACKY religion is science. I'm telling you what you need to be convincing.

Why don't we start with an admission from you that you just aren't an authority in this area, along with a polite request for some help?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
18-02-2016 02:47
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:The point is that it is often not easy for a layman without expertise in a particular area to determine what constitutes proper science and what doesn't.

...which is why I asked you if you have difficulty discerning science from religion. I'm offering to help.


Surface Detail wrote:That is why we have peer review - to determine if a contribution is actual science or not.

So the correct answer is that you haven't the vaguest idea what is required for science. You are obviously operating under the egregious misunderstanding that there are people who somehow own science and who are anointed with the authority to determine what constitutes science and what does not.

No one owns science. Peer review is useful but is in no way required for science to be created. No one and no institution gets any sort of veto. No one's permission or approval is needed.

Whenever someone mentions "peer review" as you just did, as though it is science's gatekeeper process, it's a lame attempt to hijack the authority of science.

Surface Detail wrote:You are deluding yourself if you think that you have the competence to state that global warming is "unfalsifiable dogma"

Nope. I am fully competent to declare Global Warming an unfalsifiable religious dogma that appeals mostly to the scientifically illiterate and to those gullible enough to believe that "peer review" determines science.

I asked you to post here the falsifiable Global Warming model, if you are claiming one exists. I take it by your lack of any falsifiable Global Warming model that you secretly agree with my assessment above.

If you cannot understand the importance of peer review for distinguishing science from quackery, then you have a lot of learning to do.

And what do you mean by "post a falsifiable global warming model"? Perhaps you could post a falsifiable model of, say, evolution, to illustrate the sort of thing you're looking for?

Peer review is unable to distinguish science from quackery. You are putting your faith in the God of Consensus. The scientific method has no need for such Religions.

I see the root of your and IBdaMann's misunderstanding now - you really don't appreciate the importance of peer review! That certainly doesn't reflect well on the science education systems of your respective home countries and explains why you are unable to distinguish fact from fiction.

Here's an introductory guide from the University of California to get you started:

Scrutinizing science: Peer review

Wrong. You really don't understand the futility of using peer review as a gateway. Now you are saying Berkeley owns science. No one owns science. No publisher, no magazine, no journal, no university, no government, no other group you can name, NO ONE. Consensus has nothing to do with the scientific method.

No, I'm not saying that Berkeley owns science. That's the voices in your head. I'm saying that the good folk at Berkeley know how go about determining what constitutes science - peer review - and have published this helpful guide to the process. It's no secret of course. Anyone working as a scientist knows the importance of peer review.
18-02-2016 02:52
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Perhaps you could post a falsifiable model of, say, evolution, to illustrate the sort of thing you're looking for?

I could. It would be very easy.

I'm waiting.
18-02-2016 02:54
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5230)
Surface Detail wrote: Anyone working as a scientist knows the importance of peer review.

Everyone except warmizombie science-illiterates is aware that "peer review" is entirely optional.

Surface Detail, whose approval do you believe is required for an idea to become science?

Who do you believe can block an idea from becoming science?

No one owns science.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
18-02-2016 03:00
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: Anyone working as a scientist knows the importance of peer review.

Everyone except warmizombie science-illiterates is aware that "peer review" is entirely optional.

Surface Detail, whose approval do you believe is required for an idea to become science?

Who do you believe can block an idea from becoming science?

No one owns science

The folks at Berkeley seem to think it's pretty important:

Peer-reviewed articles provide a trusted form of scientific communication. Even if you are unfamiliar with the topic or the scientists who authored a particular study, you can trust peer-reviewed work to meet certain standards of scientific quality. Since scientific knowledge is cumulative and builds on itself, this trust is particularly important. No scientist would want to base their own work on someone else's unreliable study! Peer-reviewed work isn't necessarily correct or conclusive, but it does meet the standards of science. And that means that once a piece of scientific research passes through peer review and is published, science must deal with it somehow — perhaps by incorporating it into the established body of scientific knowledge, building on it further, figuring out why it is wrong, or trying to replicate its results.

I suppose they're all warmizombie science-illiterates, though! Or, could it just be, that you are the science-illiterate?

Edit: Anyway, bedtime for me now. I look forward to seeing your falsifiable model of evolution tomorrow!
Edited on 18-02-2016 03:03
18-02-2016 03:01
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5230)
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Perhaps you could post a falsifiable model of, say, evolution, to illustrate the sort of thing you're looking for?

I could. It would be very easy.

I'm waiting.

Hold your breath while you do. I want my admission and polite, friendly request.

I have no dire need to help you . If you're fine with Global Warming remaining nothing more than the WACKY unfalsifiable religious dogma it is, so am I.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
18-02-2016 03:03
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10256)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wrong. You really don't understand the futility of using peer review as a gateway. Now you are saying Berkeley owns science. No one owns science. No publisher, no magazine, no journal, no university, no government, no other group you can name, NO ONE. Consensus has nothing to do with the scientific method.

No, I'm not saying that Berkeley owns science. That's the voices in your head. I'm saying that the good folk at Berkeley know how go about determining what constitutes science - peer review - and have published this helpful guide to the process. It's no secret of course. Anyone working as a scientist knows the importance of peer review.


You used this as a reference. You therefore placed Berkeley and the University of California as the source of what constitutes peer review.

Since you seem to speak for any scientist (using some kind of amazing telepathy, no doubt), you are now claiming ownership of science by describing what constitutes peer review.

You don't get it, do you? You keep rewording the same argument in different ways in an attempt to somehow whitewash this argument.

No one owns science. You certainly don't.

BTW, do the voices in my head bother you?


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 18-02-2016 03:04
18-02-2016 03:08
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5230)
Surface Detail EVADED the folloing questions::
IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail, whose approval do you believe is required for an idea to become science?

Who do you believe can block an idea from becoming science?


It appears you don't really believe as strongly in the "peer review" ritual as you claim.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
18-02-2016 11:32
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Perhaps you could post a falsifiable model of, say, evolution, to illustrate the sort of thing you're looking for?

I could. It would be very easy.

I'm waiting.

Hold your breath while you do. I want my admission and polite, friendly request.

I have no dire need to help you . If you're fine with Global Warming remaining nothing more than the WACKY unfalsifiable religious dogma it is, so am I.

Oh, no falsifiable model of evolution. What a disappointment. Following your logic, I should therefore assume that you are in fact a religious creationist.

Or could it be that "post a falsifiable model" is a meaningless request, an unanswerable rhetorical device? I've already described in detail the theory behind global warming and given references to peer-reviewed papers and introductory guides to the topic. I've indicated where you can download the software and data used to determine global temperature anomalies from weather station data. This, taken together, is the falsifiable model of global warming.

Unless you can be more specific about what you are asking for, then there's nothing more I can do to help you.
18-02-2016 12:18
spot
★★★★☆
(1231)
ibaman asserted that it was against the laws of physics for the concentration of CO2 to affect air temputure. I said that anyone can demonstrate that it can, I posted a simple experiment showing that and then he still denyed it and started making up convoluted and unphysical explanations on how the video poster was tricking us.

The fool even denys evidence that you would think was incontrovertible.
Edited on 18-02-2016 12:19
18-02-2016 13:12
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5230)
Surface Detail wrote: Or could it be that "post a falsifiable model" is a meaningless request, an unanswerable rhetorical device?

Again, if you're happy with Global Warming being nothing more than an unfalsifiable religious dogma then so am I.

I knew you couldn't bring yourself to admit that you are out of your waters and that you could use some assistance.

Now everyone knows that you are completely aware that your beliefs are based purely on unfalsifiable religious faith, that you don't know what to do pursue a falsifiable basis for your beliefs and that you remain unable to ask for help.

Now would be a good time for you to pray to Global Warming.


.
Surface Detail wrote:I've already described in detail the theory behind global warming

You quite clearly described an egregious violation of physics involving an earth that increases in temperature but strangely decreases in radiance. ...and you insist that this WACKY miracle is fundamental Global Warming dogma.

Surface Detail wrote: ...and given references to peer-reviewed papers ...

Exactly, you made your obligatory attempt to claim ownership of science and to declare your preferred church literature as science.

You have made it clear that you have been duped into believing that there are people who own science and that their "peer review" approval determines science. That's your problem, not mine.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
18-02-2016 13:53
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5230)
spot wrote: ibaman asserted that it was against the laws of physics for the concentration of CO2 to affect air temputure.

I really wish you would stop pretending you somehow speak for other people. I never made such a silly assertion. If you spray cold CO2 onto something you can cool it. If hot CO2 comes in contact with an cool object, the object warms.

spot wrote: I said that anyone can demonstrate that it can,

Just spray some cold CO2 onto a warm surface and measure how the surface cools. Allow some hot CO2 to come in contact with a cool object and observe how the object warms.

spot wrote: I posted a simple experiment showing that and then he still denyed it and started making up convoluted and unphysical explanations on how the video poster was tricking us.

You posted a parlor trick that duped gullible people like yourself into believing erroneous conclusions about CO2, that's all.

You're a bit gullible. There's no law against that.

spot wrote:The fool even denys evidence that you would think was incontrovertible.

What is your native language?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
18-02-2016 15:46
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Perhaps you could post a falsifiable model of, say, evolution, to illustrate the sort of thing you're looking for?

I could. It would be very easy.

I'm waiting.

Hold your breath while you do. I want my admission and polite, friendly request.

I have no dire need to help you . If you're fine with Global Warming remaining nothing more than the WACKY unfalsifiable religious dogma it is, so am I.

Oh, no falsifiable model of evolution. What a disappointment. Following your logic, I should therefore assume that you are in fact a religious creationist.

Or could it be that "post a falsifiable model" is a meaningless request, an unanswerable rhetorical device? I've already described in detail the theory behind global warming and given references to peer-reviewed papers and introductory guides to the topic. I've indicated where you can download the software and data used to determine global temperature anomalies from weather station data. This, taken together, is the falsifiable model of global warming.

Unless you can be more specific about what you are asking for, then there's nothing more I can do to help you.
You could refer him to a good psychiatrist who might be able to help him with his narcissistic sociopathic manipulative game playing behavior, delusions of grandeur and pathological lying?


18-02-2016 18:28
Buildreps
★☆☆☆☆
(100)
Interestingly if you just agree with one of the CO2 fanatics, in this case spot, about the eccentricity of earth's orbit, you'll be refuted by the other CO2 fanatic, in this case Ceist, who's claiming the opposite. What does this say about the CO2 matter?

That they're just talking nonsense all the time.

And spot, again, there's no reason to insult people. Like calling my friend a fool.
Edited on 18-02-2016 18:29
18-02-2016 18:53
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
You have made it clear that you have been duped into believing that there are people who own science and that their "peer review" approval determines science. That's your problem, not mine.

Nope. You are the one being duped. You refuse to accept the importance of peer review in determining the scientific worth of a paper, and you quite obviously have very little understanding of science yourself. This leaves you wide open to manipulation by any old snake oil salesman and dooms you to a life of paranoia and suspicion. I feel quite sorry for you.
Page 3 of 4<1234>





Join the debate Why deny global warming:

Remember me

▲ 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