User Tag List

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 37

Thread: Non-science of global warming....

  1. #11
    Alumni Member V.I.P Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsSocialCreated Blog entryVeteranRecommendation Second Class
    Overall activity: 72.0%

    Northern Rivers's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Northern Rivers AUSTRALIA
    Posts
    21,266
    Thanks
    18,190
    Thanked: 17,115
    Rep Power
    21474862
    The 70's pounded the fear of global cooling...next, came global warming...now...it's the ubiquitous "climate change".

    Even our proto-human hominids lived along the sea coast to have a dependable food source, not too cold of an environment...and...transportation.

    As the sea levels rose and fell...they relocated their yurts, huts and hovels. In today's world...nothing has changed except our yurts, huts and hovels weigh tens of thousands of tons.

    The real, undeniable drivers of climate...cannot be mitigated by present-day hominids. Moving the Earth's orbit and the sun's luminescence is beyond us.

    Here's what we we are up against:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
    If you don't practice...you'll sound like it. And, if you don't tune, your life will sound like it, too. Listen to the intervals. That's where it all hides from you.....

  2. #12
    Games People Play Forum Donor
    V.I.P
    Achievements:
    OverdriveSocial50000 Experience PointsVeteranCreated Blog entryTagger First Class
    Overall activity: 68.0%

    JustPassinThru's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    New California
    Posts
    55,104
    Thanks
    11,246
    Thanked: 42,212
    Rep Power
    21474897
    Quote Originally Posted by Taxcutter View Post
    Their models don't give alarmist results unless they doctor the data.

    Science based on falsified data is junk science.
    It's not even science.

    The Scientific Method has been established for a century: Draft an hypothesis. Then structure a controlled test to prove or disprove the hypothesis.

    Then record the result of the test and analyze whether it proves, disproves, or fails to test, the hypothesis.

    I hear NO hypotheses from these people. I hear panic; I hear "We have to HURRY - ONLY TWELVE YEARS LEFT." Science is not based in panic or flailing or efforts that won't even affect the situation. Science and emotion, science and pressure for speed...those are not related.

    Computer models. Models prove nothing, except that someone built a model. I can build a model of a starship. It doesn't mean there is a starship; only a model.

    Without knowing the numbers and processes used to work them, the data, the assumed constants and variables...the model is just a show-toy to panic the ignorant.

    Which is what's happening. And WE ARE PAYING FOR IT. Government-funded "research" to give government the result it wants, so government can grow to totalitarianism and choke off our economic freedoms.

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to JustPassinThru For This Useful Post:

    notofimport36 (08-21-2019)

  4. #13
    Senior Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class50000 Experience Points1 year registered
    Overall activity: 5.0%

    freethinker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    227
    Thanks
    21
    Thanked: 75
    Rep Power
    429501
    [QUOTE=JustPassinThru;2224900]It's not even science.

    The Scientific Method has been established for a century: Draft an hypothesis. Then structure a controlled test to prove or disprove the hypothesis.

    Then record the result of the test and analyze whether it proves, disproves, or fails to test, the hypothesis.

    I hear NO hypotheses from these people. I hear panic; I hear "We have to HURRY - ONLY TWELVE YEARS LEFT." Science is not based in panic or flailing or efforts that won't even affect the situation. Science and emotion, science and pressure for speed...those are not related.

    Computer models. Models prove nothing, except that someone built a model. I can build a model of a starship. It doesn't mean there is a starship; only a model.

    Without knowing the numbers and processes used to work them, the data, the assumed constants and variables...the model is just a show-toy to panic the ignorant.

    Which is what's happening. And WE ARE PAYING FOR IT. Government-funded "research" to give government the result it wants, so government can grow to totalitarianism and choke off our economic freedoms.

    [All of science and engineering are based upon models. The real world is generally too complex to analyze so a model must be created and tested in order to simplify the calculations. Climate science is based primarily on the laws of thermodynamics, Newton's laws, and quantum theory. The science behind anthropogenic global warming is essentially no different from climate change caused by natural changes. The only difference is that climate scientists must prove that humans have modified the atmosphere, the land, the oceans, or some other aspect of the environment that effects climate. Scientists have established that atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases have been modified by humans.

    Climate scientists can use simple models to estimate future changes that don't require computers and the current warming could have been predicted with reasonable accuracy 50 years ago if climate scientists would have known the current levels of greenhouse gases. If you exclude models you are excluding science. ]
    Last edited by freethinker; 08-14-2019 at 02:17 PM.

  5. #14
    Senior Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class50000 Experience Points1 year registered
    Overall activity: 5.0%

    freethinker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    227
    Thanks
    21
    Thanked: 75
    Rep Power
    429501
    Replying to Northern Rivers:

    Are you claiming that the current warming is caused by changes in the earth's orbit or changes in the sun's luminescence? Both of those factors are included in climate models.
    Last edited by freethinker; 08-14-2019 at 02:22 PM.

  6. #15
    Games People Play Forum Donor
    V.I.P
    Achievements:
    OverdriveSocial50000 Experience PointsVeteranCreated Blog entryTagger First Class
    Overall activity: 68.0%

    JustPassinThru's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    New California
    Posts
    55,104
    Thanks
    11,246
    Thanked: 42,212
    Rep Power
    21474897
    Quote Originally Posted by freethinker View Post
    All of science and engineering are based upon models. The real world is generally too complex to analyze so a model must be created and tested in order to simplify the calculations. Climate science is based primarily on the laws of thermodynamics, Newton's laws, and quantum theory. The science behind anthropogenic global warming is essentially no different from climate change caused by natural changes. The only difference is that climate scientists must prove that humans have modified the atmosphere, the land, the oceans, or some other aspect of the environment that effects climate. Scientists have established that atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases have been modified by humans.

    Climate scientists can use simple models to estimate future changes that don't require computers and the current warming could have been predicted with reasonable accuracy 50 years ago if climate scientists would have known the current levels of greenhouse gases. If you exclude models you are excluding science.
    Science is not engineering. Engineering has nothing to do with Glow Bull Warming.

    True science is OBJECTIVE; is RATIONAL, not emotive. It doesn't depend on political pressure, public panic, consensus, voting majorities.

    The Scientific Method is established. I can see where political Science Guys who get government grants, would want to junk the Scientific Method, but it's obvious why.

    No, all of science is not based on opaque computer models. It's based on observation, theories and hypotheses; tests of those hypotheses, and logically-written conclusions.

    True science is based on tests that can be replicated - not Michael-Mann style hockey-stick algorithms with the variables hidden.

  7. #16
    Senior Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class50000 Experience Points1 year registered
    Overall activity: 5.0%

    freethinker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    227
    Thanks
    21
    Thanked: 75
    Rep Power
    429501
    [QUOTE=JustPassinThru;2225390]Science is not engineering. Engineering has nothing to do with Glow Bull Warming.

    True science is OBJECTIVE; is RATIONAL, not emotive. It doesn't depend on political pressure, public panic, consensus, voting majorities.

    The Scientific Method is established. I can see where political Science Guys who get government grants, would want to junk the Scientific Method, but it's obvious why.

    No, all of science is not based on opaque computer models. It's based on observation, theories and hypotheses; tests of those hypotheses, and logically-written conclusions.

    True science is based on tests that can be replicated - not Michael-Mann style hockey-stick algorithms with the variables hidden.

    [The theory of evolution is true science and it isn't based on tests that can be replicated. Regarding climate science, we can't create a new earth, conduct experiments on it, and then wait for the results. So I think that your definition of what is true science is very limited. What about the science of astronomy or geology including plate tectonics? ]

  8. #17
    Games People Play Forum Donor
    V.I.P
    Achievements:
    OverdriveSocial50000 Experience PointsVeteranCreated Blog entryTagger First Class
    Overall activity: 68.0%

    JustPassinThru's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    New California
    Posts
    55,104
    Thanks
    11,246
    Thanked: 42,212
    Rep Power
    21474897
    You need to learn how to quote a post.

    I'm not weeding through that.

    You picked the wrong name here. You're neither a thinker nor do you want to be free.

  9. #18
    Senior Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class50000 Experience Points1 year registered
    Overall activity: 5.0%

    freethinker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    227
    Thanks
    21
    Thanked: 75
    Rep Power
    429501
    Quote Originally Posted by JustPassinThru View Post
    You need to learn how to quote a post.

    I'm not weeding through that.

    You picked the wrong name here. You're neither a thinker nor do you want to be free.
    I haven't posted here in a long time and I forgot how to reply with the source highlighted in blue. My post is in brackets and everything else is your statement.

    I take it that by my acceptance of the scientific consensus on AGW that I am therefore a non-thinker and someone who doesn't want to be free because by

    accepting the consensus that involves more government. If that is true then just about every well educated person on this subject is a non-thinker and the

    non-educated deniers are "thinkers". Every relevant scientific organization in the world accepts the science and by your reasoning all of these organizations

    are either corrupt or composed of non-thinkers or some combination of the 2.

    The last 4 years have all been the 4 hottest years in the temperature record and 2019 is likely warmer than 2018 so we will have 5 consecutive years (2015-2019)

    as the hottest on record. July 2019 was the hottest month on record and we have had record heat this year in Europe and in Alaska.


    I

  10. #19
    Senior Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class50000 Experience Points1 year registered
    Overall activity: 5.0%

    freethinker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    227
    Thanks
    21
    Thanked: 75
    Rep Power
    429501
    What I have observed on various forums and responses to news articles on climate is that many people uncritically accept nonsense that they have picked up from right-wing and antiAGW sources. The subject matter of the OP is one example of poor science being accepted. The idea that climate scientists are manipulating data in order to produce scary results is not supported by any evidence. The idea that the "hockey stick" graph was modified by Michael Mann or others in order to exaggerate the recent warm period is a baseless claim. The idea that all predictions made by climate scientists have been wrong is totally false. Climate scientists have been mostly right.
    The Skeptical Science website covers about 200 false claims made by climate skeptics that have been debunked. I can only conclude that deniers want to believe that AGW science is wrong and that they will latch on to one or more of these bogus arguments rather than face reality.
    Last edited by freethinker; 08-14-2019 at 05:54 PM.

  11. #20
    Games People Play Forum Donor
    V.I.P
    Achievements:
    OverdriveSocial50000 Experience PointsVeteranCreated Blog entryTagger First Class
    Overall activity: 68.0%

    JustPassinThru's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    New California
    Posts
    55,104
    Thanks
    11,246
    Thanked: 42,212
    Rep Power
    21474897
    Quote Originally Posted by freethinker View Post
    I haven't posted here in a long time and I forgot how to reply with the source highlighted in blue. My post is in brackets and everything else is your statement.
    Try posting in a normal way, and then your blather is separate from the quoted text.

    I take it that by my acceptance of the scientific consensus on AGW that I am therefore a non-thinker and someone who doesn't want to be free because by accepting the consensus that involves more government. If that is true then just about every well educated person on this subject is a non-thinker and the

    Science has nothing to do with consensus. Science is about theories and proven hypotheses.

    non-educated deniers are "thinkers". Every relevant scientific organization in the world accepts the science and by your reasoning all of these organizations
    It's obvious you are confusing education, intelligence, critical thinking - and credentializing. A sheet of engraved parchment and a student-loan bill doesn't make one educated.

    Often it suggests the person is a fool.

    are either corrupt or composed of non-thinkers or some combination of the 2.

    The last 4 years have all been the 4 hottest years in the temperature record and 2019 is likely warmer than 2018 so we will have 5 consecutive years (2015-2019) as the hottest on record. July 2019 was the hottest month on record and we have had record heat this year in Europe and in Alaska.


    I


    No they haven't.

    The Glow Bull Warmers have moved reporting stations - to the center of flat-building roofs, or to parking lots. GIN UP THE STATS.

    We've been on a COOLING trend. It's becoming undeniable except to the agenda driven, and their tools and fools. This is to panic people into growing government - to "doing something." Basically, taking control of the uses of energy.

    NON-compromised scientists, who do NOT take government money, have figured that the "carbon" emissions regulations will have ZERO effects. Especially since China, India and Russia will not abide.

    But that's not the point - because the problem is false. The point is to make government the choke point of ALL Americans' activities.
    Last edited by JustPassinThru; 08-14-2019 at 06:14 PM.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •