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: Rob Dekker on 10 Apr 2010 05:17 "Bill Ward" <bward(a)ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message news:LJCdnV0aaYVElCDWnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > 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> > Bill, did you find the scientific paper that Miskolczi published on this latest work ? I can't find anything more than a slide show on this work, and a link to an article on the web site of a fossil-fuel sponsered "think tank". Maybe he lost the paper ? After all, his friend Zagoni stated that "the co-author of the article was his boss" who "logged in with Ferenc`s password, and canceled a recently submitted paper from a high-reputation journal as if Ferenc had withdrawn it himself". Gosh. Such an important piece of research destroyed because his boss cancelled the application to "a high-reputation journal". Sarcasm intended. Miskolczi is just whining, and in a very childish way. Rob
From: Bill Ward on 10 Apr 2010 06:01 On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 02:05:19 -0700, Rob Dekker wrote: > "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. I disagree. They take advantage of their readers lack of science knowledge to mislead them with half truths. It's marketing spin, not science, they provide. For an example, just look at the RC "explanation" of how the 800 year lag of CO2 behind H2O levels doesn't show causation. > >> 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". Where do I sign up? I'm not getting any. I'm at least as effective as Lloyd. ;-) >> 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. But still not very well. The explanation has to involve physics, not magic. > 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. I'd suggest you also try to understand the mechanisms involved, rather than worry about who said what. If it doesn't make sense, it doesn't matter who said it. Always question authority. > 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. If the "evidence" is simply accepted without understanding, you're back to argument from authority. >> Most of the rest of the proponents are simply ignorant trolls, full of >> themselves and little else. >> >> > Can't disagree with that...
From: spudnik on 14 Apr 2010 15:15
Rob, you uneducated bog-creature -- did you create any oil, today? seriously, that was amuzing about the cancellation-of-submission. reminds me of the time that Popular Science made an on-the-wayside attack upon S. Fred Singer; at the time they were owned by Times-Mirror, the then-owner of the LAtribcoTimes. the article was nominally and visually an aggrandizement of three professors (and taht could have included one of my own, at UCLA) of a theory about climate, which had been celebrated already (I think) with a Nobel. they included a mug-shot of the good doctor, along with no mention of his vitae; alas! > Gosh. Such an important piece of research destroyed because his boss > cancelled the application to "a high-reputation journal". thus: the Skeptics were a Greek cult in the Roman Pantheon, along with the Peripatetics, the Gnostics, the Solipsists etc. ad vomitorium; as long as the Emperor was the Top doG, you were left to your beliefs (til, of course, Jesus -- after it became the state church). thus: virtually all of "global" warming -- strictly a misnomer, along with Arrhenius 1896 "glasshouse gasses," except to first-order -- is computerized simulacra & very selective reporting, although a lot of the latter is just a generic lack of data (that is, historical data for almost all glaciers -- not near civilization). I say, from the few that I casually *am* familiar with, that *no* database shows "overall" warming -- not that the climate is not changing, rapidly, in the Anthropocene. thus: instead, we should blame Pascal for discovering, experimentally, his "plenum," which he thought was perfect. I mean, it's always good to have a French v. English dichotomy, with a German thrown-in for "triality." > of Newton's "action at a distance" of gravity, > via the re-adumbration of his dead-as- > a-doornail-or-Schroedinger's-cat corpuscle, > "the photon." well, and/or "the aether," > necessitated by "the vacuum." --Light: A History! http://21stcenturysciencetech.com --NASCAR rules on rotary engines! http://white-smoke.wetpaint.com |