A Warmist has Declared the Science settled, He Lost

[westwall]

I know you want science, history adn facts to go away.

Bad info in = bad decisions out

So says the intellectually dishonest truthiness person. I categorise you along with the rest of the detritus. You can leave as well. You bring nothing useful to the discussion.

 

[edthecynic]

BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Phil Jones: Yes

BBC News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

Same lie, Different thread!

You are a perfect example of how CON$ know they are lying and only pretend to be too stupid to know they are lying. You are why no honest person trusts CON$. I nailed you on this same lie on several other threads, so you know he was saying the period of TIME from 1995 to the present was not a LONG ENOUGH PERIOD OF TIME to be STATISTICALLY-SIGNIFICANT not that there was not enough warming to be statistically-significant.

B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

JONES - Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

Ahh but edthecynic this was addressed. The only posters so far PROVEN on this thread are old fraud and konrad, the others, and yes of course we are guilty of it as well from time to time, are merely making errors. konrad and old fraud are proven to intentionally lie. There is a huge difference.

Now as far as this little quote, any statistician will tell you a CL of 95% is not usable in any way by an exact science. It would be an acceptable CL for making a bet in the stock market or at the poker table, but in science....not one bit.

By the way that means it is not accurate enough to make any kind of decision that lives could depend on.

So you think lives were sent in to space with a CL greater than 95%?

You deniers just make this crap up out of thin air and it is insulting that you think no one will see through it!

 

[Truthmatters]

I know you want science, history adn facts to go away.

Bad info in = bad decisions out

So says the intellectually dishonest truthiness person. I categorise you along with the rest of the detritus. You can leave as well. You bring nothing useful to the discussion.

You dont get to decide who answers your threads.

Tell me if you ever plan to address the facts presented you with anything but a petty personal insult.

 

[westwall]

Same lie, Different thread!

You are a perfect example of how CON$ know they are lying and only pretend to be too stupid to know they are lying. You are why no honest person trusts CON$. I nailed you on this same lie on several other threads, so you know he was saying the period of TIME from 1995 to the present was not a LONG ENOUGH PERIOD OF TIME to be STATISTICALLY-SIGNIFICANT not that there was not enough warming to be statistically-significant.

Ahh but edthecynic this was addressed. The only posters so far PROVEN on this thread are old fraud and konrad, the others, and yes of course we are guilty of it as well from time to time, are merely making errors. konrad and old fraud are proven to intentionally lie. There is a huge difference.

Now as far as this little quote, any statistician will tell you a CL of 95% is not usable in any way by an exact science. It would be an acceptable CL for making a bet in the stock market or at the poker table, but in science....not one bit.

By the way that means it is not accurate enough to make any kind of decision that lives could depend on.

So you think lives were sent in to space with a CL greater than 95%?

You deniers just make this crap up out of thin air and it is insulting that you think no one will see through it!

Yes they were. For any project such as the space program they had to have a CL of 99%.

The same goes for surgical procedures.

 

[westwall]

I know you want science, history adn facts to go away.

Bad info in = bad decisions out

So says the intellectually dishonest truthiness person. I categorise you along with the rest of the detritus. You can leave as well. You bring nothing useful to the discussion.

You dont get to decide who answers your threads.

Tell me if you ever plan to address the facts presented you with anything but a petty personal insult.

You wouldn't know the truth if it bit you on the ass. Truthiness is the perfect way to describe your petty ignorant diatribes. Colbert looked at your posts and said to himself "Wow, I can use this!"

You are so blind that when the evidence is presented you are either so ignorant to understand the evidence or too locked up in your "faith" that no amount of evidence will sway you.

Below is the link to wikipedia which I am beginning to believe is the limit of your types comprehensive capabilities so here you go.

Truthiness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Show me in a Laboratory how a 200PPM increase in CO2 does all the things you claim it does.

 

[edthecynic]

Ahh but edthecynic this was addressed. The only posters so far PROVEN on this thread are old fraud and konrad, the others, and yes of course we are guilty of it as well from time to time, are merely making errors. konrad and old fraud are proven to intentionally lie. There is a huge difference.

Now as far as this little quote, any statistician will tell you a CL of 95% is not usable in any way by an exact science. It would be an acceptable CL for making a bet in the stock market or at the poker table, but in science....not one bit.

By the way that means it is not accurate enough to make any kind of decision that lives could depend on.

So you think lives were sent in to space with a CL greater than 95%?

You deniers just make this crap up out of thin air and it is insulting that you think no one will see through it!

Yes they were. For any project such as the space program they had to have a CL of 99%.

The same goes for surgical procedures.

.

The reliability of Atlas V and Delta IV rockets is not precisely known because they are too new. Given insufficient flight data, one method for predicting reliability is to assume that a new system is about as reliable as a similar, existing system. The OSP-ELV Human Flight Safety Certification Study Team1 used the flight record of Atlas, Delta, and Titan rockets developed under U.S. Government contracts and launched since 1990 to predict the reliability of the Atlas V and Delta IV. These rockets have been launched 236 times and reached safe orbits 230 times. The resulting reliability estimate is 0.950 or better with 95% confidence. The boosters’ potentially low reliability would place excessive burden on abort mechanisms to save the crew. The abort or escape system would need a reliability near 0.980 for the complete launch system to meet the Astronaut Office crew survivability target. Proposed abort and escape systems were judged to be incapable of rescuing the crew from stack detonations occurring with little or no warning.1 These failures occur often enough to prevent even a high-reliability abort or escape system from meeting its safety requirement.1
1 OSP-ELV Human Flight Safety Certification Study Team Report (2004).

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So you think lives were sent in to space with a CL greater than 95%?

You deniers just make this crap up out of thin air and it is insulting that you think no one will see through it!

Yes they were. For any project such as the space program they had to have a CL of 99%.

The same goes for surgical procedures.

.

The reliability of Atlas V and Delta IV rockets is not precisely known because they are too new. Given insufficient flight data, one method for predicting reliability is to assume that a new system is about as reliable as a similar, existing system. The OSP-ELV Human Flight Safety Certification Study Team1 used the flight record of Atlas, Delta, and Titan rockets developed under U.S. Government contracts and launched since 1990 to predict the reliability of the Atlas V and Delta IV. These rockets have been launched 236 times and reached safe orbits 230 times. The resulting reliability estimate is 0.950 or better with 95% confidence. The boosters’ potentially low reliability would place excessive burden on abort mechanisms to save the crew. The abort or escape system would need a reliability near 0.980 for the complete launch system to meet the Astronaut Office crew survivability target. Proposed abort and escape systems were judged to be incapable of rescuing the crew from stack detonations occurring with little or no warning.1 These failures occur often enough to prevent even a high-reliability abort or escape system from meeting its safety requirement.1
1 OSP-ELV Human Flight Safety Certification Study Team Report (2004).

You realize you just destroyed your argument that 95% is good enough, right?

 

[edthecynic]

Yes they were. For any project such as the space program they had to have a CL of 99%.

The same goes for surgical procedures.

.

The reliability of Atlas V and Delta IV rockets is not precisely known because they are too new. Given insufficient flight data, one method for predicting reliability is to assume that a new system is about as reliable as a similar, existing system. The OSP-ELV Human Flight Safety Certification Study Team1 used the flight record of Atlas, Delta, and Titan rockets developed under U.S. Government contracts and launched since 1990 to predict the reliability of the Atlas V and Delta IV. These rockets have been launched 236 times and reached safe orbits 230 times. The resulting reliability estimate is 0.950 or better with 95% confidence. The boosters’ potentially low reliability would place excessive burden on abort mechanisms to save the crew. The abort or escape system would need a reliability near 0.980 for the complete launch system to meet the Astronaut Office crew survivability target. Proposed abort and escape systems were judged to be incapable of rescuing the crew from stack detonations occurring with little or no warning.1 These failures occur often enough to prevent even a high-reliability abort or escape system from meeting its safety requirement.1
1 OSP-ELV Human Flight Safety Certification Study Team Report (2004).

You realize you just destroyed your argument that 95% is good enough, right?

From the same report:

To ensure that a new system will achieve or surpass its safety requirement, it should be designed and tested to do so with a statistical confidence level of 95%.

 

[westwall]

.

You realize you just destroyed your argument that 95% is good enough, right?

From the same report:

To ensure that a new system will achieve or surpass its safety requirement, it should be designed and tested to do so with a statistical confidence level of 95%.

Why ED, you snivelling little bastard, you cherry pick your sources just like old fraud. Here is the WHOLE reference you twit. I highlighted the part you chose not to include to illustrate your pisstardedness. You will notice fellow readers that edthecynic, lying POS,
deleted the section that says

"at least as high as the Space Shuttle’s, yielding a predicted probability of 0.999 or better for crew survival during ascent"

That my dear edthecynic lying pisstard is a 99%CL.


The Columbia accident, the selection of a booster for the Orbital Space Plane (OSP), and NASA’s recently renewed interest in exploring beyond low Earth orbit have led the Astronaut Office to reexamine its views on launch system safety. Although flying in space will always involve some measure of risk, it is our consensus that an order-of-magnitude reduction in the risk of loss of human life during ascent, compared to the Space Shuttle, is both achievable with current technology and consistent with NASA’s focus on steadily improving rocket reliability, and should therefore represent a minimum safety benchmark for future systems. To reach that target, the Astronaut Office offers the following recommendations.

The Astronaut Office recommends that the next human-rated launch system add abort or escape systems to a booster with ascent reliability at least as high as the Space Shuttle’s, yielding a predicted probability of 0.999 or better for crew survival during ascent. The system should be designed to achieve or exceed its reliability requirement with 95% confidence.

The Astronaut Office recommends that new human-rated launch vehicle programs follow guidelines, such as those given in the Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB) Report and NASA’s Human Rating Requirements (NPG 8705), for safety-conscious management, requirements definition, concept development, and design selection.

The Astronaut Office recommends that NASA specify and maintain a set of formal, standardized, complete methods and processes to be used in predicting the reliability of human-rated spacecraft, and identify or create an independent body to verify those analyses.

The Astronaut Office recommends that the test program for the next human-rated launch system demonstrate its reliability through vigorous ground and flight testing of components and systems. The value of each test should be leveraged by proving a safe envelope larger than that expected during operations and by using flight data to validate system reliability models. After completion of the formal test program, the vigilance applied during testing to data gathering, analysis, and flight constraints should continue to be applied during operations. Reliability should be continuously reassessed.

The Astronaut Office believes that the next human-rated spacecraft must include a robust full-envelope abort or escape system. The safety of the overall system depends on the reliability of both the booster and the abort or escape system. As with the rocket itself, the abort or escape system reliability must be proven through flight testing.

 

[rdean]

What do conservatives know about science? They believe that "Samson" grew weaker from a "haircut".

The Flintstones is a documentary.

Noah's Ark was a true historical event and the "Grand Canyon" is "proof".

Republicans teaching "Little Known Facts".

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqkA3HtsUx4[/ame]

 

[rdean]

Show me in a Laboratory how a 200PPM increase in CO2 does all the things you claim it does.

Republicans idea of a "science lab".

 

[westwall]

What do conservatives know about science? They believe that "Samson" grew weaker from a "haircut".

The Flintstones is a documentary.

Noah's Ark was a true historical event and the "Grand Canyon" is "proof".

Republicans teaching "Little Known Facts".

YouTube - Little Known Facts

Well this con knows a whole hell of a lot more about science than you ever will bucko.

 

[rdean]

What do conservatives know about science? They believe that "Samson" grew weaker from a "haircut".

The Flintstones is a documentary.

Noah's Ark was a true historical event and the "Grand Canyon" is "proof".

Republicans teaching "Little Known Facts".

YouTube - Little Known Facts

Well this con knows a whole hell of a lot more about science than you ever will bucko.

Usually, when people brag that they know "so much", it's based on "delusional over confidence".

Recently I went to one of those seminars where they pay you $250 for a couple of hours to sit in front of a two way mirror at a big table with a bunch of engineers and talk about "engineering software, you know, 3d modeling, computational fluid dynamics, stress analysis and heat transfer and dynamic simulation.

It takes about 45 minutes or so to figure out who actually knows what they are talking about. So, how is it possible for half the people there to even be there when they clearly don't know what they are talking about?

It's because half of those people are managers and they don't actually use any of that software. To manage an engineering department, you only have to manage the results, you don't really need to use the tools. They just wanted the 250 bucks and thought they would BS their way through it, and they did.

You see, those that were managers talked about how they imagined the software worked, but they had no real experience. So it took the moderator some time to figure out who actually knew their stuff. You see, the moderator didn't know how to use it either. He was following questions that were given him. Every so often, he left to come back with new questions directed at certain people.

So what's the point? Well, I'm getting there.

That's like Republicans and science. They BS their way though how they "imagine" science to be. I've never met a Republican that you could get into a serious scientific discussion with because their ideas of science are so strange.
And not just science, but also scientists. What it takes to be a scientist, what real peer review means, what scientists actually do or even, "What is the Scientific Method".

So while you "brag" that you know "so much science", and maybe you do, based on other Republicans I've known, I doubt it.

What's especially hilarious are the conservatives on this board who say some bizarre nonsense, ended with, "There, you just got schooled". And then walk away giving themselves "virtual snap".

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Show me in a Laboratory how a 200PPM increase in CO2 does all the things you claim it does.

Republicans idea of a "science lab".

I guess the effect of trace increases in CO2 on the atmosphere is like FDR's Greatness, Progressives can't show us where or how it occurs, they just say it does.

 

[rdean]

Show me in a Laboratory how a 200PPM increase in CO2 does all the things you claim it does.

Republicans idea of a "science lab".

I guess the effect of trace increases in CO2 on the atmosphere is like FDR's Greatness, Progressives can't show us where or how it occurs, they just say it does.

One thing we can ALL agree on, we will never find out anything of importance from "Republican" scientists. Why? Because they are nearly impossible to find.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Republicans idea of a "science lab".

I guess the effect of trace increases in CO2 on the atmosphere is like FDR's Greatness, Progressives can't show us where or how it occurs, they just say it does.

One thing we can ALL agree on, we will never find out anything of importance from "Republican" scientists. Why? Because they are nearly impossible to find.

Yes, clearly only Democrat Scientists are capable of pulling off a Big Lie about CO2, the same way they've pulled off the Big Lie about FDR's economic Greatness

Well done, Comrade!

 

[edthecynic]

You realize you just destroyed your argument that 95% is good enough, right?

From the same report:

To ensure that a new system will achieve or surpass its safety requirement, it should be designed and tested to do so with a statistical confidence level of 95%.

Why ED, you snivelling little bastard, you cherry pick your sources just like old fraud. Here is the WHOLE reference you twit. I highlighted the part you chose not to include to illustrate your pisstardedness. You will notice fellow readers that edthecynic, lying POS,
deleted the section that says

"at least as high as the Space Shuttle’s, yielding a predicted probability of 0.999 or better for crew survival during ascent"

That my dear edthecynic lying pisstard is a 99%CL.


The Columbia accident, the selection of a booster for the Orbital Space Plane (OSP), and NASA’s recently renewed interest in exploring beyond low Earth orbit have led the Astronaut Office to reexamine its views on launch system safety. Although flying in space will always involve some measure of risk, it is our consensus that an order-of-magnitude reduction in the risk of loss of human life during ascent, compared to the Space Shuttle, is both achievable with current technology and consistent with NASA’s focus on steadily improving rocket reliability, and should therefore represent a minimum safety benchmark for future systems. To reach that target, the Astronaut Office offers the following recommendations.

The Astronaut Office recommends that the next human-rated launch system add abort or escape systems to a booster with ascent reliability at least as high as the Space Shuttle’s, yielding a predicted probability of 0.999 or better for crew survival during ascent. The system should be designed to achieve or exceed its reliability requirement with 95% confidence.

The Astronaut Office recommends that new human-rated launch vehicle programs follow guidelines, such as those given in the Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB) Report and NASA’s Human Rating Requirements (NPG 8705), for safety-conscious management, requirements definition, concept development, and design selection.

The Astronaut Office recommends that NASA specify and maintain a set of formal, standardized, complete methods and processes to be used in predicting the reliability of human-rated spacecraft, and identify or create an independent body to verify those analyses.

The Astronaut Office recommends that the test program for the next human-rated launch system demonstrate its reliability through vigorous ground and flight testing of components and systems. The value of each test should be leveraged by proving a safe envelope larger than that expected during operations and by using flight data to validate system reliability models. After completion of the formal test program, the vigilance applied during testing to data gathering, analysis, and flight constraints should continue to be applied during operations. Reliability should be continuously reassessed.

The Astronaut Office believes that the next human-rated spacecraft must include a robust full-envelope abort or escape system. The safety of the overall system depends on the reliability of both the booster and the abort or escape system. As with the rocket itself, the abort or escape system reliability must be proven through flight testing.

See the first quote in my sig.

It clearly says that the higher CL is the GOAL for the NEXT human launch. That means that it was not the standard for all the past human launches. And more importantly, the 99% is not the CL, as it clearly says, it is 99% booster RELIABILITY during ascent with a 95% CL. So it says the goal is a 95% CL that the booster will be 99% reliable.
Learn to read.

 

[editec]

REALITY is NOT SUBJECT to a vote.

If global warming is truly a problem, then what we currently believe on the issue isn't going to matter, much.

We will continue to experience weird weather, the ocieans will rise, the ice caps will melt and so forth.

Time will tell who among us (if anybody) is right.

 

[rdean]

REALITY is NOT SUBJECT to a vote.

If global warming is truly a problem, then what we currently believe on the issue isn't going to matter, much.

We will continue to experience weird weather, the ocieans will rise, the ice caps will melt and so forth.

Time will tell who among us (if anybody) is right.

Even gasping for their last breath in a parched land under the heat of a blazing sun, Republicans will never admit they were wrong.

The science of evolution and using the tools that understanding that science has brought us, among the scientific community, is considered one of the greatest achievement of mankind. Among some, it's considered THE greatest achievement.

But to those on the right, it's less believable than a flying glowing pigeon that makes up a trifecta of supreme magical power with an old bearded man in dirty wizard's robes who prefers underage virgins and his hung son.

So the proof is all around us for one and zero proof for the other. Which one do they prefer to believe? To the point of going to court and trying to force that belief on others?