John Cook: Skeptical Science *debunked*
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Anyone knowledgeable about lowest viscosity fluid at roomtemperature and atmospheric pressure?
Next: What is "kibology", anyway? I have looked it up in my dictionary...
From: bw on 7 Apr 2010 15:30 "Bill Ward" <bward(a)ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message news:7I2dnSVPRK-AISHWnZ2dnUVZ_rQ6AAAA(a)giganews.com... > On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 11:11:53 -0500, Marvin the Martian wrote: > >> On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 11:10:50 -0500, Bill Ward wrote: >> >> Again, NOT EVEN A HYPOTHESIS. Their claim cannot be tested. >> >>> Skeptics (I, at least) ask to see the data and mechanisms showing the >>> existence and operation of these assumed positive feedbacks. As >>> proponents, it is up to them to show evidence (measured, not modeled) >>> that supports their hypothesis. It's not up to us to provide support >>> for their hypothesis, or any other. >>> >>> The present situation is that proponents insist that the data >>> supporting their positive feedback theory is out there somewhere, but >>> none of them are willing or able to explain it specifically. >> >> Actually, there have been several attempts using computer models. Each >> and every one FAILED to predict. In REAL SCIENCE, at least how we do >> science on Mars, this is called a "rejected hypothesis". Not with these >> AGWers. >> >>> If proponents can't explain specifically and defend what they propose, >>> there is no proposition of which to be skeptical. It loses by default, >>> regardless of the blundering, bluster and bluff accompanying it. >>> >>> That's why I'm encouraging those who want to be proponents to explain >>> specifically what they are proposing. Rob and perhaps TomP are, I >>> believe, trying to make an honest effort. >>> >>> Most of the rest of the proponents are simply ignorant trolls, full of >>> themselves and little else. >> >> It's the sycophant effect. By mindlessly parroting the claims of the >> "scientist", they hope to gain respect from the respected glory. > > Wow! You're even grouchier than I am. Congratulations. ;-) I agree with Marvin, the AGWer claims are pathetic. I just don't care as much about their claims to bother responding to them. Stephen Wilde has a recent post to WUWT with a reference to Miskolczi here, in his preliminary points http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/06/a-new-and-effective-climate-model/#comments
From: Roving rabbit on 7 Apr 2010 17:24 spudnik wrote: > cuaght me -- signing out! > >> You are wasting precious energy. > > thus: > Newton's corpuscuar "theory" had that light "rays" went faster > in a heavier medium. now, just because you (and he) can > use "ray-tracing" or "geometrical optics," a la the brachistochrone, > which really created "the caclulus" -- as opposed to Newton's -- > should that mean that all of the properties of light, > being wave-like, as shown by Young after a hundred years ... > that you should hang-on to Newton's silly corpuscle? > > is it because Einstein got his Nobel for that > entirely instrumental ("eV") quantification of lightwaves, > the "photon?" > > why does "quantum" have ipso facto to mean "particulate?" > > how can a particle have no restmass?... well, > it can if it is not a zero-D wave ("guidewave" per de Broglie/Bohm/ > etc. > as adumbrated by the Copenhagen joke-cat school) "for" the particle; > why are the pioneer's fuzzy analogies so holy? > > --Light: A History! > http://wlym.com > http://21stcenturysciencetech.com > http://white-smoke.wetpaint.com You are wasting even more precious energy. Q -- Who is general failure and why does he need my attention?
From: Bill Ward on 7 Apr 2010 18:40 On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 14:30:17 -0500, bw wrote: > "Bill Ward" <bward(a)ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message > news:7I2dnSVPRK-AISHWnZ2dnUVZ_rQ6AAAA(a)giganews.com... >> On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 11:11:53 -0500, Marvin the Martian wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 11:10:50 -0500, Bill Ward wrote: >>> >>> Again, NOT EVEN A HYPOTHESIS. Their claim cannot be tested. >>> >>>> Skeptics (I, at least) ask to see the data and mechanisms showing the >>>> existence and operation of these assumed positive feedbacks. As >>>> proponents, it is up to them to show evidence (measured, not modeled) >>>> that supports their hypothesis. It's not up to us to provide support >>>> for their hypothesis, or any other. >>>> >>>> The present situation is that proponents insist that the data >>>> supporting their positive feedback theory is out there somewhere, but >>>> none of them are willing or able to explain it specifically. >>> >>> Actually, there have been several attempts using computer models. Each >>> and every one FAILED to predict. In REAL SCIENCE, at least how we do >>> science on Mars, this is called a "rejected hypothesis". Not with >>> these AGWers. >>> >>>> If proponents can't explain specifically and defend what they >>>> propose, there is no proposition of which to be skeptical. It loses >>>> by default, regardless of the blundering, bluster and bluff >>>> accompanying it. >>>> >>>> That's why I'm encouraging those who want to be proponents to explain >>>> specifically what they are proposing. Rob and perhaps TomP are, I >>>> believe, trying to make an honest effort. >>>> >>>> Most of the rest of the proponents are simply ignorant trolls, full >>>> of themselves and little else. >>> >>> It's the sycophant effect. By mindlessly parroting the claims of the >>> "scientist", they hope to gain respect from the respected glory. >> >> Wow! You're even grouchier than I am. Congratulations. ;-) > > I agree with Marvin, the AGWer claims are pathetic. I just don't care as > much about their claims to bother responding to them. Stephen Wilde has > a recent post to WUWT with a reference to Miskolczi here, in his > preliminary points > http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/06/a-new-and-effective-climate-model/#comments Good stuff - thanks. That's what I mean by an explanation. Here's the direct link to an explanation of Miskolczi that might help those who want to understand it: <http://www.examiner.com/x-7715-Portland-Civil-Rights-Examiner%7Ey2010m1d12-Hungarian-Physicist-Dr-Ferenc-Miskolczi-proves-CO2-emissions-irrelevant-in-Earths-Climate>
From: Rob Dekker on 8 Apr 2010 17:45 "Marvin the Martian" <marvin(a)ontomars.org> wrote in message news:kMudnZab8ZxLKSHWnZ2dnUVZ_jydnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 23:58:14 -0700, Rob Dekker wrote: > >> "Marvin the Martian" <marvin(a)ontomars.org> wrote in message >> news:v_6dneP6Y6_KGifWnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >>> On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 17:09:32 -0700, Rob Dekker wrote: >>> >>>> "Marvin the Martian" <marvin(a)ontomars.org> wrote in message >>> >>> >>> > > Actually, we know from the CRU e-mails that peer review in "climate >>> > > science" was outright intentional fraud committed by many >>> > > conspirators. >> >>> < Martian snipped out Dekker's questions to provide evidence for any of >>> these allegations, and then claims : > >> >>> Mr. Dekker's claim that he is utterly ignorant of recent events, much >>> less science. >> >> Mr. Martian : Your inability to back up your own empty allegations with >> ANY facts > > 1) http://www.eastangliaemails.com/index.php > These are the e-mails and they specifically relate to the question at > hand. > > 2) Here is the code that shows the "fudge factor" in the valadj (value > adjust, obviously) > > yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904] > > valadj= > [0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6] > *0.75 ; fudge factor > > End Quote. That is out right fraud. > > 3) While not directly related, there is the work done by Svensmark and > others who provided a theory that explains much of climate change, and > CO2 of any kind was not invoked. > > 4) Simple chemistry and AGW are in conflict, in that Chemistry predicts > that warming will cause more CO2 in the atmosphere. I tend to believe > Chemistry, since it produces useful predictions and AGW "science" > predicts nothing. > >> proves my point that you are are simply echoing beliefs and >> spin that the denial industry feeds you. >> >> I hope they pay you well for acting as a mindless parrot. > > Sadly, I've not gotten so much as a free lump of coal from the big fossil > fuel companies. But then, they never offered and I've never asked. :-D Maybe you could make some money as a laywer : Just imagine your first trial : "case mm-agw-2010 : Marvin the Martian versus all AGW climate scientists" Lawyer Marvin : "Your honor, peer review in "climate science" was outright intentional fraud committed by many conspirators." Judge : "What is your evidence for your allegation ?". Laywer Marvin : "These emails here specifically relate to the question at hand, somebody wrote the words "fudge factor" in a comment somewhere, Svensmark has a theory, and AGW science predicts nothing". Judge : "Constable, the question at hand was about evidence. Now I'll ask you one last time : What is your evidence for your allegation ? " > Seems you lied about the paid part. I said : "I hope they pay you well for acting as a mindless parrot" I'm not sure if there are any linguists around here, but I do not think it is possible to lie in a sentence like this.. If I would have stated : "They pay you well for acting as a mindless parrot", then you could claim that that is a lie, since you are the one how knows best if you get paid for acting as a mindless parrot. But because I put the words "I hope" in front of the statement, I am simply expressing my own wish. You could never claim that my wish for you is not that you would get paid for acting as a mindless parrot. Only I know if I have such wish for you or not, so only I can determine if I lied or not when I said "I hope they pay you well for acting as a mindless parrot". See ? Linguistics are not so difficult. > >> Rob >
From: Rob Dekker on 10 Apr 2010 05:05
"Bill Ward" <bward(a)ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message news:WKidnb1AE5yXwCbWnZ2dnUVZ_t0AAAAA(a)giganews.com... > On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 08:56:58 -0500, josephus wrote: > >> Marvin the Martian wrote: >> >>> On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 17:09:32 -0700, Rob Dekker wrote: >>> >>> >>>>"Marvin the Martian" <marvin(a)ontomars.org> wrote in message >>> >>> >>> < snip Mr. Dekker's claim that he is utterly ignorant of recent events, >>> much less science. > >>> >>>>That's what your spin-masters they teach you to do in denial-school ? >>>>Accuse others of what you commit yourself ? >>> >>> >>> I believe your claims that you're utterly and completely ignorant, Mr. >>> Dekker. I feel sorry for you. That was... pathetic. >>> >>> Even more sadly for you, appeal to ignorance is still a fallacy. ;-D >> >> idiot. where is your theory, where is your data. adhomin attacks are >> not either data , evidece or theory. > > I realize you're new here, but there are proponents and skeptics. > Proponents are supposed to, well, propose, a specific theory, then those > that have questions about the theory (skeptics) ask them to explain the > aspects that they think don't fit. Nice general summary, but the real questions that the skeptics raise are very well answered already by the effords of John Cook's skepticalscience.com and RealClimate.org. > > At this point in the process, proponents have proposed a theory that says > anthropogenic CO2 will raise surface temperatures enough to cause severe > problems in the future. > > Unfortunately for the theory, but fortunately for humanity, the theory > predicts only 0.6K of warming per century from CO2 at the present rate. That seems to be the opinion of some fossil-fuel industry funded "think tanks". > > Proponents contend that some unknown but dangerous amount of additional > warming will hypothetically come from postulated positive feedbacks which > cannot as yet be found (measured) in the climate system. They seem > unusually sure of this. The most common reason is that they believe > climate models, but don't understand them. > > Skeptics (I, at least) ask to see the data and mechanisms showing the > existence and operation of these assumed positive feedbacks. As > proponents, it is up to them to show evidence (measured, not modeled) > that supports their hypothesis. It's not up to us to provide support for > their hypothesis, or any other. > > The present situation is that proponents insist that the data supporting > their positive feedback theory is out there somewhere, but none of them > are willing or able to explain it specifically. > > If proponents can't explain specifically and defend what they propose, > there is no proposition of which to be skeptical. It loses by default, > regardless of the blundering, bluster and bluff accompanying it. > > That's why I'm encouraging those who want to be proponents to explain > specifically what they are proposing. Rob and perhaps TomP are, I > believe, trying to make an honest effort. I appreciate the compliment, but I must say that I do not spend much time explaining the theory of AGW. It's been explained ad nausium by people much better skilled than me. So instead, I spend most of my time here on the NG simply asking questions and providing some context where it is missing. Mostly I ask questions about where people get their information from. Because I believe that it is a good thing if people base their opion on scientific evidence, and I believe it is good if people realize when they are being misled by opinionated writers with their own agenda. > > Most of the rest of the proponents are simply ignorant trolls, full of > themselves and little else. > Can't disagree with that... |