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.
The basics of string theory involve knowing manifold theory at an advanced level (like, actually being able to work with manifolds, not just knowing what one is), algebraic geometry, Riemannian geometry, complex geometry, algebra, functional analysis, and even category theory (which is something that surprised me when I found it out). These are needed to begin studying the subject, sort of like how someone beginning to study my specialty needs to know most of these things, and such a person needs to know a few other topics in some depth, such as several complex variables. The famous book by Griffiths and Harris is the intro textbook. The other intro textbook is the famous one by Robin Hartshorne. This stuff takes years of dedicated study. I put in those years.
In an attempt to appear to superior, you decided to list academic credentials that did not include these items. You tried to make up for it by saying that you had a few conversations with a guy who knows more than you do (which is basically something that every undergraduate every has done -- if you had a PhD, then you would have actually published papers with your academic heroes, like I did). You're in league with famous physicists in the same way I'm an expert at acting because I once stayed at the same hotel as David Hyde Pierce.
In short, your approach to math is the same as your approach to climate science. You know nothing, Jon Snow. You think you know more than the experts because you have no clue how much more the experts know.
I took calculuis, advanced calculus, differential equations, partial differential equations, introduction to smooth manifolds, stats I and II, and matrices for mathematics courses at the U of I.
In physics, I took physics I and II, electrogmagnetism, optics, quantum mechanics I and II, and plasma physics.
What did you take?:sm ack:
Typical liberal example of the Dunning Kruger effect. EVERY LIBERAL presumes academic superiority in nearly every arena, with little or no understanding of the subject matter in which they claim "expertise"!
James Van Allen was one of my professors and I used to chat periodically with him in his office (he had photos of Werner Von Braun with him when they cooperated on projects in the space program).
And with all that chest beating, your posts show that you still know less than nothing about climate science, yet demand that your less than informed opinions should be taken seriously. Ironically, that's a classic example of the Dunning Kruger effect.
And with all that chest beating, your posts show that you still know less than nothing about climate science, yet demand that your less than informed opinions should be taken seriously. Ironically, that's a classic example of the Dunning Kruger effect.
What are your credentials in Climate Science besides just believing what you are told.
What are your credentials in Climate Science besides just believing what you are told.
The people who aren't claiming to be able to overturn virtually every result in the field aren't the ones making extraordinary claims.
This isn't a matter of two equally plausible views with equally idealistic proponents.
Side A, those who do not deny anthropogenic climate change, consists of people who point to the experts. The experts are people who have put in thousands of hours of work, gathered and analyzed data, and almost unanimously concluded the same thing. Side A doesn't claim to have any expertise in this particular field; it just consists of people who have respect for the work others have done.
Side B, the deniers, consists of people who also know nothing about climate change but who claim to be able to disprove virtually all results ever done in the field without going through any training or doing any work.
That's why there's a credibility gap. Side A simply accepts the findings of those who have done the legwork. Side B claims to have some sort of superhuman ability to do an amazing amount of science in no time at all and reach a conclusion that is different from every other conclusion reached, all while knowing about as much about climate science as I know about Chinese poetry.
Again, the famous quote from Carl Sagan is, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." That's reasonable, right? It's not, "Extraordinary claims require evidence forwarded to me by my crazy uncle whose hero is Dale Gribble."
The people who aren't claiming to be able to overturn virtually every result in the field aren't the ones making extraordinary claims.
This isn't a matter of two equally plausible views with equally idealistic proponents.
Side A, those who do not deny anthropogenic climate change, consists of people who point to the experts. The experts are people who have put in thousands of hours of work, gathered and analyzed data, and almost unanimously concluded the same thing. Side A doesn't claim to have any expertise in this particular field; it just consists of people who have respect for the work others have done.
Side B, the deniers, consists of people who also know nothing about climate change but who claim to be able to disprove virtually all results ever done in the field without going through any training or doing any work.
That's why there's a credibility gap. Side A simply accepts the findings of those who have done the legwork. Side B claims to have some sort of superhuman ability to do an amazing amount of science in no time at all and reach a conclusion that is different from every other conclusion reached, all while knowing about as much about climate science as I know about Chinese poetry.
And with all that chest beating, your posts show that you still know less than nothing about climate science, yet demand that your less than informed opinions should be taken seriously. Ironically, that's a classic example of the Dunning Kruger effect.
Hilarious-
I can, however read and understand the methods, statistical analysis, and conclusions of scientific papers, having published over twenty papers in the scientific literature.
You, on the other hand, have published nothing, have no advanced degrees in science, have never presented papers at national meetings, nor taught at a major university.
My background, training and career IS SCIENCE. You have no clue as to what constitutes valid science, yet feel empowered to be able to make such evaluations with no training at all! Do you have a business or communications degree and presume infinite knowledge in academic disciplines in which you have never even taken a course???!!! Amazing, yet common among libs.
Now THAT is "Dunning-Kruger" defined. Don't feel bad- every liberal who believes in "global warming" suffers from the same delusion. Just ask them- expertise in science with no degrees or training in science.
Last edited by hawkeye2009; 07-14-2015 at 03:53 PM..
The reason that libs look so absurd in their embracing "global warming" is that they have taken the cornerstone of the scientific method (REFUTING THE NULL HYPOTHESIS) and have turned it upside down.
The "global warming" crowd states a hypothesis with marginal evidence, defines it as "true" and "settled" and demands evidence to refute their contention.
True science formulates a hypothesis and refutes the presumption that the observation (within statistical probability) did not occur due to chance or other factors.
In the "science" of global warming, we can make the assertion that invisible "ethers" in the atmosphere, commanded by aliens from Pluto, and controlling our daily thoughts. As you cannot PROVE IT FALSE, it must be true!
Do you understand how absurd and ridiculous your "global warming" contention appears to anyone with any knowledge of valid science whatsoever?
hawkeye2009, publishing a few papers in one field does not make you an expert in another. I'm an expert in math; that doesn't make me an expert in a branch of science that I haven't studied in-depth.
It certainly doesn't make you an expert, either. Nor does your ridiculous oversimplification of the major results of the field. Not everything runs on a pure Karl Popper model of scientific progress; sometimes, especially when we're dealing with a realm other than particle physics, we have standards of evidence that are, on their own, less overwhelming but that are still convincing when taken in aggregate. Not every branch of science is purely experimental. (Hey, string theory again!)
You're making a bold assertion if you claim that the hundreds of people studying this field (all of whom, by the way, can claim scientific credentials at least as impressive as yours that also happen to be in the right field for this discussion) are all so completely ignorant of the scientific method and statistical analysis as to make arguments that are akin to saying gremlins from Pluto are involved. Ironically, you make that assertion with no evidence, and you expect everyone to believe you.
I mean, it's really easy to say that the scientists studying global warming are making up their conclusion first and then declaring it to be true for no good reason. It's very easy to say that. It's just not easy to believe that so many people, people who are the best of the best in their field, can operate with such a glaring flaw in their logic that a mighty message board warrior can overturn their conclusions by fiat.
I've heard all the same arguments before, merely a decade ago. Back then, they were all about how evolution allegedly defied the scientific method. That strategy didn't really work then, either. It was clever, though. It relied on turning the discussion abstract enough that the actual scientific evidence could be ignored in favor of philosphical quibbles.
The reason that libs look so absurd in their embracing "global warming" is that they have taken the cornerstone of the scientific method (REFUTING THE NULL HYPOTHESIS) and have turned it upside down.
The "global warming" crowd states a hypothesis with marginal evidence, defines it as "true" and "settled" and demands evidence to refute their contention.
True science formulates a hypothesis and refutes the presumption that the observation (within statistical probability) did not occur due to chance or other factors.
In the "science" of global warming, we can make the assertion that invisible "ethers" in the atmosphere, commanded by aliens from Pluto, and controlling our daily thoughts. As you cannot PROVE IT FALSE, it must be true!
Do you understand how absurd and ridiculous your "global warming" contention appears to anyone with any knowledge of valid science whatsoever?
NOAA uses data from these sources to reach there conclusions=
Quote:
The National Centers for Environmental Information contains the instrumental and paleoclimatic records that can precisely define the nature of climatic fluctuations at time scales of a century and longer. Among the diverse kinds of data platforms whose data contribute to NCEI's resources are: Ships, buoys, weather stations, weather balloons, satellites, radar and many climate proxy records such as tree rings and ice cores. The National Oceanographic Data Center contains the subsurface ocean data which reveal the ways that heat is distributed and redistributed over the planet. Knowing how these systems are changing and how they have changed in the past is crucial to understanding how they will change in the future. And, for climate information that extends from hundreds to thousands of years, paleoclimatology data, also available from the National Centers for Environmental Information, helps to provide longer term perspectives.
What scientific methods do you use to refute their claims?
If the science is "settled" then why are we debating it?
For the same reason we are still debating evolution..... There are a lot of people in the world that are willfully ignorant of science, and prefer their myths....I don't think it's a coincidence that many of the climate change deniers here are also fundamentalist Christians who take the bible literally.
You will find many of the same people that post on climate threads posting on the numerous anti-gay threads.
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.
