Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I posted sources from NOAA and Science you posted Watts as a source.
End of story.
You posted sources that speculate using modeled assumption as a means to establish a position (or pay walled research with vague improper abstract formats)
I recognized that, but also pointed out why.
As for posting Watts as a source, on issues specifically dealing with a particular paper such as Menne et al, of course? Why wouldn't I? I mean, Menne's paper was specifically concerning Watts work. Are you saying Watts, to which that paper specifically referred to is not qualified to talk about his own research?
In other issues, I may use a cite from Watts, because there is already a very in-depth analysis by another researcher or someone with knowledge and understanding on his site. Also note they cite all of their mention (including giving you the data they used so you can check it).
As for the Heartland issue, it is the best source for the entire issue as they documented the development of the issue by the hour, linking to all sources and material to which they obtained. Also, being that Watt's has dealt with Heartland and the fact that he was a target in the issue, I think it is relevant that his defense of himself be considered, especially when he provides evidence to support his case.
As for the other cites you used concerning GISS and the like. If you are asking me to accept their models as evidence, sorry... no can do. Having a solid mathematics background and having written my fair share of complex programs, I can tell you I am not impressed by models. That is not to say they are not useful in limited fashions, but they certainly are not grounds for validation and nobody in any traditional science field will accept them as such.
So you go ahead and "believe" what you like, it seems to be how your "Science™" works, I however will stick with the traditional version.
The actual agency designated to study climate? Why are those scientists, experts in the actual field, who actually publish peer reviewed lit on the subject less qualified than the people in NASA?
not talking about climate change, as the planet has been going through climate change since the planet was born. we are talking about man made global warming.
climate change will be here until the planet explodes.
The actual agency designated to study climate? Why are those scientists, experts in the actual field, who actually publish peer reviewed lit on the subject less qualified than the people in NASA?
Just noticed this.
Have you honestly, and I mean HONESTLY, read the climategate 1/2 emails?
Not the commentary on political sites, but the actual emails, code files, and excel files? Have you looked at them with any real evaluation or did you simply dismiss them?
They answer a lot of the questions concerning aspects of those agencies. Not all of NASA, CRU, etc... is bad, there are a lot of good and honest scientists there, but there are few who have the power and political position in those agencies and they call the shots. They direct the policy and that policy is the problem. It is political, not scientific. That is what the emails point out about a lot of the individuals within them.
BTW, none of them have published anything proving a link between man's activities and Global Whatever, either.
And until they do, your talk about whether this source is "better" than that source, is kind of pointless, isn't it?
In their mind they have provided definitive proof. They think modeled suppositions are validation. They think peer review is merely a formality of presentation. This discussion can never reach a conclusion because it operates with two different set of rules.
So I guess you are right, but keep in mind that this whole issue got out of hand because people kept their head down rather than saying something about it.
You posted sources that speculate using modeled assumption as a means to establish a position (or pay walled research with vague improper abstract formats)
See this is why I know you know almost nothing about the subject beyond what you have read on Watts site.
Both papers used models that were not MAKING PREDICTIONS. And the models had been tested using historic climatic conditions before being applied to current (not future) climate measurements.
There are perfectly valid times to use and while modeling maybe limited in its use in future predictions (especially do to known problems with things like albedo) that does not remotely mean it isn't a valid tool at all.
Quote:
I recognized that, but also pointed out why.
As for posting Watts as a source, on issues specifically dealing with a particular paper such as Menne et al, of course? Why wouldn't I? I mean, Menne's paper was specifically concerning Watts work. Are you saying Watts, to which that paper specifically referred to is not qualified to talk about his own research?
In other issues, I may use a cite from Watts, because there is already a very in-depth analysis by another researcher or someone with knowledge and understanding on his site. Also note they cite all of their mention (including giving you the data they used so you can check it).
As for the Heartland issue, it is the best source for the entire issue as they documented the development of the issue by the hour, linking to all sources and material to which they obtained. Also, being that Watt's has dealt with Heartland and the fact that he was a target in the issue, I think it is relevant that his defense of himself be considered, especially when he provides evidence to support his case.
As for the other cites you used concerning GISS and the like. If you are asking me to accept their models as evidence, sorry... no can do. Having a solid mathematics background and having written my fair share of complex programs, I can tell you I am not impressed by models. That is not to say they are not useful in limited fashions, but they certainly are not grounds for validation and nobody in any traditional science field will accept them as such.
So you go ahead and "believe" what you like, it seems to be how your "Scienceâ„¢" works, I however will stick with the traditional version.
Your crush on Watts is evident. He speaks, you repeat. We get it really. But his attempts at the science are pathetic and his representing himself as a "weather" expert are dishonest at best and fraud at worst.
His initial gushing of Mueller and Rohdes as experts in both the science and stats and then disavowal when they disagreed with his paid opinion is the only proof we need of Watts credibility.
And please, we get it, you took math classes. Again more hypocrisy, YOU claim to understand the math because of some undergrad math courses but then whine about appeals to authority?? So what? I took more physics than you did, does that make my opinion more valuable?
BTW, none of them have published anything proving a link between man's activities and Global Whatever, either.
And until they do, your talk about whether this source is "better" than that source, is kind of pointless, isn't it?
At least the other guy has some understanding of science as a whole, you don't even have that. You think we definitively know what causes gravity? Really? Show us that single paper is that definitively showed the cause of gravity. Take your time.
And fyi, genius, gen rel is a THEORY. Still working on spooky at a distance, superposition, entanglement etc, but that doesn't stop anyone from accepting it. Same would go for anthropogenic climate change if politics was taken out of the equation.
Because it is literally as stupid to demand that there be a single paper definitively show the cause of climate change.
See this is why I know you know almost nothing about the subject beyond what you have read on Watts site.
Both papers used models that were not MAKING PREDICTIONS. And the models had been tested using historic climatic conditions before being applied to current (not future) climate measurements.
I didn't say "predictive" evaluation, I said "speculate using modeled assumption". Models are used for more than predictive evaluation, they also make speculations on the past through signal patterns. Are you sure you are a scientist or were you simply moving the pea again?
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714
There are perfectly valid times to use and while modeling maybe limited in its use in future predictions (especially do to known problems with things like albedo) that does not remotely mean it isn't a valid tool at all.
Never said they were not useful in analysis, just that they are not a proper means of validation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714
Your crush on Watts is evident. He speaks, you repeat. We get it really. But his attempts at the science are pathetic and his representing himself as a "weather" expert are dishonest at best and fraud at worst.
Are you implying that Watts is the only one who does commentary on his site? You do realize he has numerous guest posts by authors from many different related disciplines and positions within the field do you not?
The problem is that you have a disconnect in understanding. You see, you appeal to authority as a means of validity, so someone being noted as an expert is paramount to evaluating their argument. For those of us who do not hold such a puppet mentality, we understand that ones "academic pedigree does not invalidate the strength of ones argument". That is, we think that even a laymen can have a valid point and are willing to evaluate it, providing they are upfront with their data/methodology. The same can not be said with those you worship at the feet of. They think such practice is beneath them, but then arrogance is the seed of stupidity, so no surprise there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714
His initial gushing of Mueller and Rohdes as experts in both the science and stats and then disavowal when they disagreed with his paid opinion is the only proof we need of Watts credibility.
Your lack of logic is astounding. What your above argument implies that someone should either agree fully with someone or they shouldn't. The fact that Anthony was excited that they were going to be putting attention to a much needed issue has no merit on the actions they took with such. Again, your education of the issue is obviously that of the half-truths to the issue and shows you are strongly politically motivated to "a cause".
Your argument is invalid as it doesn't even deal with the issues concerning Mueller and company. It is an evasion as when the full details of the issue are presented, well... we see the desperation of your actions. Not a surprise, I mean the fact that Mueller took BEST to the public proclaiming his conclusions when it wasn't even through peer review shows you support political tactics, not science.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714
And please, we get it, you took math classes. Again more hypocrisy, YOU claim to understand the math because of some undergrad math courses but then whine about appeals to authority?? So what? I took more physics than you did, does that make my opinion more valuable?
You did? I had 4 semesters of physics (only needed 3, but I took a 4th that normally only the engineers take). Doing a look up of your course requirements for your degree, you only take two semesters of calculus and two semesters of university level physics.
As for the "so what", might I point out to you that people like Steve McIntyre brought up issues concerning the research because it lacked proper mathematical support in its methods? So explain to us all here why a mathematician isn't qualified to evaluate the math in those topics?
The problem with your "cause" is that you have spent so much time arrogantly demanding appeals to authority and spouting off about the "education" and "expertise" of a given person that you worship, that you have failed to realize that when it comes to the disciplines of their study, other people are actually more of an "expert" in the issue than those you praise.
That is why these fallacies always backfire and why your "cause" is suffering greatly and why your "climate science experts" refuse to show their work and spend most of their time chasing phantom signals that they manipulate to fit their perception.
Thrash about all you like, but your movement is dying. Politics was put before science and in politics, it always comes back to bite you.
You think we definitively know what causes gravity? Really? Show us that single paper is that definitively showed the cause of gravity. Take your time.
Tsk tsk. Failed Taoist philosophical arguments that way --->.
You know the issue is never about absolutes. It is about verification, validation, and replication to which all divergence or unexpected results can be explained. That means, even if a hypothesis fails a test, we can show its validity by properly showing why it fails in that given circumstance because we can consistently reproduce that failure according to that circumstance.
You are attempting to claim that because we do not know everything, that we can not absolutely state we know for certain about a given theory or law, that this likens it to unfounded speculation that contains no proper verification to its position.
We can consistently test the suppositions of gravity and show its expected results to be as we established. When it does fail to a given position, we can properly explain it through consistency to its failure.
The problem with theoretical research and more relevant the aspect of climate science is that their hypothesis is not tested, can not be verified or validated to its claims AND it consistently fails to properly explain and show why it fails with unexpected results.
Do not insult scientific process by attempting to claim such approaches are such. It is dishonest and frankly disrespectful to the entire purpose of scientific study. Maybe that is why the null hypothesis is such a thorn in the side of some climate scientists? They don't like the fact that they actually have to follow a process that disallows the acceptance of fantasy as reality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714
And fyi, genius, gen rel is a THEORY. Still working on spooky at a distance, superposition, entanglement etc, but that doesn't stop anyone from accepting it. Same would go for anthropogenic climate change if politics was taken out of the equation.
Theoretical study is not tested. It may have use, it may appear plausible, but it is not validated in its position. It is not like theories to which we explain it properly and test it according to consistency and reproducibility. What is on paper does not always match that of in reality. This is why we test, this is why we have the process of the scientific method. If we did not, many falsehoods we know for certain today could be passed off as fact. CAGW is not properly tested. You can't test for validity using models. It doesn't work like that, especially when those models contain multiple adjustable unknown parameters. Science in its initial approach may be about the best guess, but its process to a result is an exact science. close enough is for horse shoes and hand grenades.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714
Because it is literally as stupid to demand that there be a single paper definitively show the cause of climate change.
And it would be folly to think that correlation = causation, which is what the approach of a bunch of "close enough" unexplained and unverified suppositions achieve. I think the poster was trying to point out to you that in order to establish something as valid, one must use a proper process of scientific means. That is, they must establish their hypothesis through a very strict process to which validates the given supposition and the fact is, CAGW has not followed such a process and can not achieve such through statistical evaluation. Consistency without failure is the requirement and until then, the position is simply a guess as to the explanation of the systems.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
