You aren’t fooling anyone. By your choice of words you do give away your age though.

It is nice to see that your posts are shorter and shorter with even less substance. Seems like you have tired out.

Team Ray; A rude person, no one agrees with anything you say, thinks your posts are graffiti, your understanding of science is wrong, guilty of random illogical statements, you have not had any success in turning anyone here to your Faith. Score 0 (could be even -4)

Team forum; Made a series of cogent arguments you could not and would not effectively debate, Questions you would not answer, defended the observations and positions of the Skeptic, All present remain skeptical of AGW. Score +100

Great job Ray! go ask for a raise.

Oh, that’s called (named, described): Sarcasm.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Like or Dislike: 0  0

I might jusy agree to disagree on the science, except for Ann-Kit, maybe i can be your doctor – I am a great amateur. Who needs science eh?

Next I might have a go at avoiding the going-nowhere talk of science, and talk of observation. I reckon Lionell was right before about observation. it can tell us a lot.

Like or Dislike: 0  1

And:

“I disagree with your contention that every amateur who thinks they know basic chemistry can come up with review or science of a comparable nature.”

It is interesting to note that Ray’s understanding of what makes a scientist is a relatively new one in terms of human history. As late as the 19th century most scientists were amateurs and very few (if any) were the “institutionalized” creature we have today. Frank Furedi wrote a brilliant expose of the ‘tyranny of the expert’ in The Australian earlier this year:

Specialist Pleading

Excerpt:
“THE status of experts requires that their knowledge and skill is recognised as authoritative by the public. As historian Thomas Haskell points out, by the mid-19th century the man of science gave way to the scientist, representing a shift from gentlemanly vocation to profession. Haskell’s book, The Emergence of Professional Social Science (2000), provides a convincing account of the campaign “to establish professional authority on a firmer base and to extend professional performance into new areas”. He writes that the “word scientific then seemed to epitomise the very essence of professional idea: expert authority, institutionally cultivated and certified”.

Like or Dislike: 1  0

It is a sequence of investigation that begins with identifying what it is you wish to learn. A promising hypothesis is then formulated and that hypothesis must square with the knowledge which already exists. If it does not you start over and reformulate your hypothesis you don’t go hunting for the ‘one’ tree that fits the hypothesis.

You then infer some testable consequences of the hypothesis and design empirical tests to search for both FAVORABLE and UNFAVORABLE evidence supporting or disproving the hypothesis.

Examination of the observed data is central to this process. This does involve statistical processing of the data to arrive at confidence levels and to REMOVE outlying data. Again this does not mean searching for the outlying data in order to include it.

This process is repeated as many times as it takes to either prove or disprove the theory.
Disproving the theory is considered just as valuable is proving it. Knowledge was gained, you were WRONG; you don’t need to expend anymore effort going down that blind ally anymore.

There is no place in this process for:
Consensus, I don’t give a damn how you, climate scientists, or any UN body wants to define it. It’s not relevant. So give up on that will you?

Computer models as a substitute for observed data.

Reporting results without the data used to support the results.

Statements like “The science is settled”, “If you don’t agree you’re just a denier”.

More than once I have seen people become married to a theory. They would run experiment after experiment each time trying the limits of credulity in support of their pet theory. They were to close the problem. They became the problem. Eventually a third party took them aside and pointed it out to them. They took a step back and realized they needed to go back revaluate what they knew so far and start again down a more promising path.

Like or Dislike: 1  0

It is a sequence of investigation that begins with identifying what it is you wish to learn. A promising hypothesis is then formulated and that hypothesis must square with the knowledge which already exists. If it does not you start over and reformulate your hypothesis you don’t go hunting for the ‘one’ tree that fits the hypothesis.

You then infer some testable consequences of the hypothesis and design empirical tests to search for both FAVERABLE and UNFAVERABLE evidence supporting or disproving the hypothesis.
Examination of the observed data is central to this process. This does involve statistical processing of the data to arrive at confidence levels and to REMOVE outlying data. Again this does not mean searching for the outlying data in order to include it.

This process is repeated as many times as it takes to either prove or disprove the theory.
Disproving the theory is considered just as valuable is proving it. Knowledge was gained, you were WRONG; you don’t need to expend anymore effort going down that blind ally anymore.

There is no place in this process for:
1:Consensus, I don’t give a damn how you, climate scientists, or any UN body wants to define it. It’s not relevant. So give up on that will you?

2:Computer models as a substitute for observed data.

3:Reporting results without the data used to support the results.

4:Statements like “The science is settled”, “If you don’t agree you’re just a denier”.

More than once I have seen people become married to a theory. They would run experiment after experiment each time trying the limits of credulity in support of their pet theory. They were to close the problem. They became the problem. Eventually a third party took them aside and pointed it out to them. They took a step back and realized they needed to go back revaluate what they knew so far and start again down a more promising path.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Twisting consensus is what YOU have done. Corrupting the respected methods of science is what YOU have done. The perversion of consensus is the key to your Faith. Without the perversion, you loose the foundation of your Faith. Consensus amongst biased scientists…..really you should be ashamed.

You say my questions are stupid but in reality it’s your answers that would be stupid so you don’t answer. You know that if you answer any of them I’ll call you out. I’ll expose your flawed thinking. I can see you squirm.

So you resort to name calling…wow your intelligence bleeding out….you must be feeling faint. I noitce name calling is specialty of your side.

I’m sure now you couldn’t be a “plant” from the other side. You are much to simple to fit even in their world.

I rather enjoy exposing your side to the world though. You are good for business! Polling data here in my country shows a definite trend. Less and less people are buying into the AGW crap. Your inane arguments certainly won’t hurt.

I think I’ll keep it up just for you.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

I do and yes. Also, its not that difficult to sort the good from the crap.

1. Is it consistent with everything else that passes the smell test? If not, its crap.
2. Are the details available for public review and replication? If not. its crap.
3. Is it communicated clearly and succinctly in language appropriate for the task? If not, its crap.
4. If its proponents use one or more logical fallacies in its defense, it contains crap that is easy to find. Look for one or more of the above three

AGW fails on all three. We know this before we get to the issue of what is science and what is good science.

It is also before we get to its overwhelming reliance on computer models as “proof” which makes AGW “science” invalid to its core. Its Models clearly don’t include the details of factors that can be demonstrated to overwhelm any possible effect of man emitted CO2. \

All models can do is produce the results of the model. How good the results are depends greatly how well the analog of reality being used actually models reality. That is not determined simply by having it so complex, so hidden, and written so obscurely it cannot be understood even by its creators.

Its not so easy to do good computer programming nor is it easy to create good computer models. THIS has been my profession for over 40 years. By your standards, I AM qualified to judge the models and the quality of their use. They produce numbers but the numbers are not data about actual climate. You can experiment with the models but said experiments are not experiments with actual climate. The models are just models and imitate the reality of actual about as well as the movie Toy Story.

Its easy to do good science. I do it routinely for fun and profit. Try it sometime. You might like it.

Like or Dislike: 2  0

Stop twisting consensus…!

Are you capable of understanding consensus? I just wrote what it is a couple of lines up.

On the rest, I don’t agree, and your questions are just stupid. I don’t care for them – let someone else here do it. In closing, I suggest that you don’t bother addressing anything I say again, pompous tool.

Lionell, your stuff is more interesting, and if Mark D will allow you to reply, I would comment that yes, science is just science. And yes, just because someone is a scientist, it doesn’t make them a good one. But a non-scientist is not a scientist either, and certainly they do not even meet the basic criteria for performing science.

I don’t agree that any figures have been tampered with, and just because climate science justifies the theory of climate change, that does not mean it is wrong.

I disagree with your contention that every amateur who thinks they know basic chemistry can come up with review or science of a comparable nature.

If you think you understand climate science as an amateur, you must understand almost every branch of science you read!

Conversely to your point about it not necessarily being science just because someone says it is, just because someone says it isn’t doesn’t hold this to be the case either.

And thats all you seem to do: you just say it isn’t, and thats enough for you.

So when you supply your authority figures, these people that have done no science of their own in almost any field, thats when I begin to wonder.

I would ask you: would you trust these people with the things that are important to you? I know I wouldn’t.

Like or Dislike: 0  2

Like or Dislike: 0  0