Five Small Problems with AGW science.
in [Physics]
|
From: Last Post on 20 Feb 2010 05:38 On Feb 20, 1:59 am, "I M @ good guy" <I...(a)good.guy> wrote: > On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 22:46:40 -0700, Chris L Peterson > > <c...(a)alumni.caltech.edu> wrote: > >On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 21:37:13 -0800 (PST), Last Post > ><last_p...(a)primus.ca> wrote: > > >> | In real science the burden of proof is always > >> | on the proposer, never on the sceptics. > > >A demonstration that you don't understand the most basic nature of > >science. The burden of proof is on a proposer until a consensus is > >achieved. ø You defy logic. A proposal must provide proof with his theory. He can offer it for peer review. If the peers are able to reproduce the same result using the same equipment with 95% confidence then it is considered proven. There is no consensus in science no matter what Algore says > > There is no burden of proof on anybody, > gossip can only be corrected with the understanding > of the science. ø Bullshit > >Once a theory becomes widely accepted, however, the burden of > >proof is on those who believe the theory is wrong. And contrary to your > >assertion, the consensus that AGW is a real phenomenon is extremely > >broad. ø Consensus is bullshit. Nothing in IPCC #4 was peer reviewed > > BS, obviously irrelevant, you can't have it > both ways, next time you post you might say there > is no AGW, and with no GW, there is never AGW. > > >> | So far > >> | neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one > >> | iota of valid data for global warming nor have > >> | they provided data that climate change is being > >> | effected by commerce and industry, and not by > >> | natural phenomena > > >This statement is proof positive that you are ignorant, and not > >qualified to have an opinion on the matter. ø ROTFLMAO: Peterson you and your buds above your are poster boys for scientific ignorance. Here is a little quizz for you: ø Can you control the wind? Can you control the rain or snow? Can you control the climate. If you say yes to any one be prepared to describe your method | In real science the burden of proof is always | on the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far | neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one | iota of valid data for global warming nor have | they provided data that climate change is being | effected by commerce and industry, and not by | natural phenomena
From: Roving rabbit on 20 Feb 2010 08:14 Marvin the Martian wrote: > Scientific experts like Al Gore and Barack Obama assure us that the > science of AGW is settled; and it is except for a few minor details, > those details being: > > 1) There isn't any warming. Even Jones admits this. Lie #1 > 2) CO2 doesn't cause the greenhouse effect. Water vapor does. Lie #2 > 3) We didn't put the CO2 into the atmosphere. A warmer ocean did that. Lie #3 > 4) AGW science isn't science, it's bullshit and leftist propaganda. Lie #4 > 5) If there was warming, it wouldn't be bad, it would be good. Lie #5 > > Gawd, Humans are a gullible species. I can't believe you fell for AGW. Check that iphone app from www.skepticalscience.com, I love it. Q -- The difference between us and the Titanic is the band.
From: Chris L Peterson on 20 Feb 2010 10:01 On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 02:38:53 -0800 (PST), Last Post <last_post(a)primus.ca> wrote: >� You defy logic. A proposal must provide proof > with his theory. He can offer it for peer review. > If the peers are able to reproduce the same result > using the same equipment with 95% confidence > then it is considered proven. There is no > consensus in science no matter what Algore says More evidence of a gross lack of understanding about science. A theory cannot be proved. A good theory is one with high quality supporting evidence, and which isn't contradicted by any evidence (or only be limited poor quality evidence). It isn't the job of peer review to replicate experimental evidence, but to evaluate the quality of the work and look for technical or experimental errors. With most climate research based on modeling, "replication" of the sort you define is trivial and meaningless. In reality, replication here consists of other researchers developing and applying completely different models (i.e. different "equipment") and getting the same results- which in fact is what happens, and why there is such an overwhelming consensus among climate scientists that AGW is real. >� Consensus is bullshit. Nothing in IPCC #4 was peer reviewed Who cares about IPCC? Their report is just a synthesis of other reports- a metastudy at best. Climate scientists don't look to IPCC reports for their knowledge, they look to the primary research. If you would do the same, you'd find thousands and thousands of papers which provide powerful support for the idea of AGW. You can always tell the ignorant, dogma driven anti-AGW crowd. They are the ones who spend all their effort trying to discredit the IPCC or Al Gore, as if that mattered, and totally ignore the actual science (which they don't have the education or intelligence to refute). _________________________________________________ Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com
From: Androcles on 20 Feb 2010 10:12 "Chris L Peterson" <clp(a)alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message news:dgtvn550ptcrokmqpno5p0h2se60lafhrh(a)4ax.com... > You can always tell the ignorant, dogma driven anti-AGW crowd. They are > the ones who spend all their effort trying to discredit the IPCC or Al > Gore, as if that mattered, and totally ignore the actual science (which > they don't have the education or intelligence to refute). > _________________________________________________ You can't tell the ignorant, dogma-driven AGW bigots and propagandists anything. They are the ones who spend all their effort trying to discredit reason and totally ignore the actual data (which they don't have the education or intelligence to interpret) because they have their heads up their arses and a political agenda.
From: hal on 20 Feb 2010 10:27
On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 02:38:53 -0800 (PST), Last Post <last_post(a)primus.ca> wrote: > | In real science the burden of proof is always > | on the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far > | neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one > | iota of valid data for global warming nor have > | they provided data that climate change is being > | effected by commerce and industry, and not by > | natural phenomena > YOU defy logic. Of course there is proof for global warming. The data is all there. The only question remains is to how much effect does manmade carbon emissions contribute to the warming, and how much is natural climate cycles. Another question remains as to how little effect cutting back on emissions would actually have on climate warming, but the data is clear and conclusive: the plantet is warming over the last several decades. Warming a lot, and rapidly, and you denying it only makes you look like the fool. So if you're against AGW, then say so, and say why, but at least try to get your story straight and state exactly what it is you are denying, because it sure the hell can't be climate change because only shows you for what the fool you are. |