Five Small Problems with AGW science.
in [Physics]
|
From: Marvin the Martian on 20 Feb 2010 13:29 On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 23:43:01 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote: > On 2/19/10 11:37 PM, Last Post wrote: >> ø The issue is really irrelevant. >> Nobody can control the wind >> Nobody can control the rain or snow >> Nobody (collectively) can control climate. Global temps are within >> natural variations Oceans heating are a prelude to glaciation Get >> used to it!! > > > > Many of your arguments are addressed and rebutted in this document: > > http://www.swissre.com/resources/2225fb0040c36b1fa49cbfb02e99dba1- Factsheet_Climate_sceptic.pdf > > Give it a read and follow the references. More left wing sociopathic bullshit being passed off as science. They start off with the fallacy of counting the effects of CO2 first, as if H2O vapor on a water planet didn't exist, which is just propaganda bullshit. Then they prattle about their models as if a computer model proved diddly. That's circular logic: using the model to prove the model. Then the next one ignores that Solar cycle is far more strongly correlated to mean global temperature than CO2, and "debunks" solar cycle with the red herring argument about solar output can't account for the warming (warming that doesn't exist in the real world, btw). Then they make the fallacy of neglectful induction: ignoring Svensmark has been able to show his PROVEN theory can explain 4.5 BILLION years of climate change, while they INGORE that their hypothesis failed to predict. That rag isn't science, it's propaganda and lies. You should be ashamed to like to it. It proves you to be a fool for falling for it.
From: Last Post on 20 Feb 2010 13:45 On Feb 20, 10:01 am, Chris L Peterson <c...(a)alumni.caltech.edu> wrote: > On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 02:38:53 -0800 (PST), Last Post > > <last_p...(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. ø The only way to "evaluate the quality of the work" is to repeat the experiment 100 times and if it works at least 95 times it is a winner. > > With most climate research based on modeling, "replication" of the sort > you define is trivial and meaningless. ø Bullshit!!! > 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, ø It is not the 'equipment' that is at fault, it is that they are all using the same databases, so BSI= BSO and why there is such an > overwhelming consensus among climate scientists that AGW is real. Ø almost all "climate scientists" are dependent on government funding and the product of their research is "what-if". Some of those products are comical > > 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. ø None of the 3± thousand scientist reviewers would sign off on the IPCC report. It is full of what-if, shoulda, coulda, woulda and none of the earlier results have come even close. (like Hansen's claim that Manhatten would be under water by 2008) I have been reading those papers for a long time and few make any sense at all. Some could be refuted by a grade school student, like one from a prestigious Cal institution claiming that because of (the nonhexistent) global warming the lakes are warming faster than the land. Any 12 year old living near water knows that that is how it has always been. > > 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). ø You are a silly fool Peterson, absent of scientific curiosity and the knowledge check it for yourself. I get many papers every day. It is so convenient with email unlike when I asked my science teacher for help with a biochem experiment and he said "Dunno" ran into his office and hid. Of the climate based papers I see very few are even worth reading. NONE have to do with global warming per se, but for what will happen far down the line if global warming does happen. ø For Copenhagen, IPCC trotted out a report that sea levels had been rising by 1 mm pa but due to faster melting of glaciers etc the rate is tripled to 3 mm pa and low lying coastal cities will soon be inundated by metres. I did the math and it would take 866 years by which time nothing will be melting. ø Now sunny boy, run along and get with your homework. "Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so. IPCC is not a scientific institution; it's a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavour." However climate change is functioning as it has for 500 million years or more "Other top-level politicians do not express their global warming doubts because a whip of political correctness strangles their voice." * Vaclav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic.
From: Marvin the Martian on 20 Feb 2010 13:45 On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 22:46:40 -0700, Chris L Peterson wrote: > On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 21:37:13 -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. > > 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. Idiot. The word "consensus" never appears in the scientific method. The scientific method says you form a testable hypothesis. AGW stated their hypothesis in the form of computer models. Each and every one of these computer models FAILED TO PREDICT. IN real science, this is now called a "rejected hypothesis". Not for these damned frauds who are posing as scientists. Now Jones even ADMITS there has been no warming since 1995, so you don't even have the "correlation proves causation" fallacy as an excuse. Not only do you have no valid hypothesis anymore, but your AGW "theory" has become untestable with the stupid claims that fridge weather and record amounts of snow is a result of global warming. Regardless of where the climate change goes, it is now claimed to be a result of man made global warming. This is totally non-science. AGW isn't even a hypothesis, but an untestable idea; more religion now than science. Further, we know from the e-mails and the revelations of the NASA fraud that the entire thing is a work of fiction by damned liars and frauds. What is more, there never was a "consensus". That was Oakes' damned lie. She was either stupid or a liar, but her simple minded "NEXUS" search was unscientific from the get go. What kind of stupidity is this that the bad logic of "consensus" is based on a false premise! Lastly, there ISN'T ANYTHING TO DISPROVE. Not only is it YOU who are utterly ignorant of the nature of science, you're not even able to think rationally.
From: Sam Wormley on 20 Feb 2010 13:52 On 2/20/10 4:05 AM, Last Post wrote: > On Feb 20, 1:16 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On 2/20/10 12:04 AM, Last Post wrote: > >>> � Can you make the wind to blow? >>> � Can you make the rain to fall? >> >>> � If you can not do either, how do you expect to >>> control the climate? You are an arrogant fool, >>> fascist too. But none of that cuts any ice here. >>> One roll of toilet paper is worth more than all >>> of the IPCC documents. At least it is useful. >> >> You didn't read it did you? > > � I have them all on file Filing isn't the same as reading and understanding > http://www.swissre.com/resources/2225fb0040c36b1fa49cbfb02e99dba1-Factsheet_Climate_sceptic.pdf
From: Sam Wormley on 20 Feb 2010 13:55
On 2/20/10 12:29 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote: > On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 23:43:01 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote: > >> On 2/19/10 11:37 PM, Last Post wrote: >>> ø The issue is really irrelevant. >>> Nobody can control the wind >>> Nobody can control the rain or snow >>> Nobody (collectively) can control climate. Global temps are within >>> natural variations Oceans heating are a prelude to glaciation Get >>> used to it!! >> >> >> >> Many of your arguments are addressed and rebutted in this document: >> >> http://www.swissre.com/resources/2225fb0040c36b1fa49cbfb02e99dba1- > Factsheet_Climate_sceptic.pdf >> >> Give it a read and follow the references. > > More left wing sociopathic bullshit being passed off as science. > Actually this is commentary backed up by science. > http://www.swissre.com/resources/2225fb0040c36b1fa49cbfb02e99dba1-Factsheet_Climate_sceptic.pdf |