AGWCult finally self destructs

[flacaltenn]

General consensus that pi r squared equals the area of a circle.

Those empirical constants were never hypotheses or theories. They are just empirical FACTS.

UNTIL --- MAYBE SOMEDAY --- someone proposes a REASON for PI to be PI and it's possible relationship to other EMPIRICAL constants. THEN there's a theory about it..

Would be awesome if God left us his password to understanding the universe scattered among these strange and famous constants. --- Oh wait -- Sagan already did that movie !!!!!

1. Scientists in Carl Sagan’s novel Contact are able to unravel enough of pi to find hidden messages from the creators of the human race, allowing humans to access deeper levels of universal awareness.d

 

[jc456]

Your understanding of science has equal validity to your predictions of the 2012 election.

So, you got nothing!

 

[flacaltenn]

That you reject the basic views of mainstream science regarding AGW based solely on the contention that a nearly universal conspiracy exists among climate scientists = THAT's what's "silly".

Don't try to explain me or my motives or rationale.. You can barely FOLLOW and absorb any of the details here.
The obvious and transparent bias towards finding man-made causes of Climate Change is just ONE of the reasons. And I don't reject "the basic science". PLEASE don't attempt to understand this, you might hurt yourself, but the BASIC SCIENCE is very sound. The entire argument is whether the MAGIC MULTIPLIERS exist and HOW much of the warming is due to anthropogenic influence.

The newly borne science of climate has been perverted and hijacked by this focus on proving an impending man-made disaster. And that corrupt influence is the largest I can remember since the beginnings of nuclear science and the race for armaments.

EVERY BIT of the empirical evidence since this politicized circus began 30 years ago points to the BASIC science analysis. The one that GoldiRocks loves to point out from the 19th Century -- which is that CO2 has LIMITED ABILITY to warm the planet and does not possess the superpowers given to it by the witchdocs of Climate Science with their attempts to scare the natives..

 

[westwall]

That you reject the basic views of mainstream science regarding AGW based solely on the contention that a nearly universal conspiracy exists among climate scientists = THAT's what's "silly".

No, we reject them based on the fact that they are not based on observations and are instead based on computer models alone. Furthermore the models are so poor that to date they have a ZERO percent accuracy rate. Add in the failure to follow the scientific method, the corruption of the peer review process and there is zero credibility in the climatology world.

They ONLY speak in political terms and ignore actual science.

 

[Old Rocks]

I see. The area of over 1000 square miles on fire at present in Oregon and Washington are just computer models. The ongoing drought in the West that is the cause of those fires is just a computer model. The fact that we are in the final third of what will be the warmest year on record, globally, after 14 years which included all but one of the 10 warmest years on record, is just a computer model. The rapid recession of the alpine glaciers are just computer models. The melting of the permafrost is just a computer model.

My, my, Mr. Westwall is just a computer model.

 

[jc456]

I see. The area of over 1000 square miles on fire at present in Oregon and Washington are just computer models. The ongoing drought in the West that is the cause of those fires is just a computer model. The fact that we are in the final third of what will be the warmest year on record, globally, after 14 years which included all but one of the 10 warmest years on record, is just a computer model. The rapid recession of the alpine glaciers are just computer models. The melting of the permafrost is just a computer model.

My, my, Mr. Westwall is just a computer model.

Huh? So you have proof a drought and CO2 caused a forest fire. Interesting. But just more made up little boy fantasy.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Old rocks, global warming or not these fires are very serious and for these people to cut, slash and burn our ability to fight them...Well, is just plain dumb.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

A consensus still exists among mathematicians - an almost universal one. Whether or not it can be determined (and not knowing the exact value of Pi makes that determination a little tricky) has no bearing on whether or not a consensus exists.

Folks can agree for all manner of reasons. But once again, you lummox, it is NOT the consensus that controls.

 

[Crick]

In this case, I said nothing about what the consensus did, I simply said it existed.

In regards to science, what is or is not an accepted theory or a widely accepted theory or a rejected theory or a controversial theory - is determined SOLELY by the level of consensus.

You lummox.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

In this case, I said nothing about what the consensus did, I simply said it existed.

Yes, Virginia, there IS such a thing as consensus. And although you happened to mention it here -- again -- you NOW wish to be heard to say that you didn't attribute anything of any particular value to that term in relation to "science."

It is irrelevant.

Yes. NOW your "point" makes more sense You poor pathetic dishonest shithead.

In regards to science, what is or is not an accepted theory or a widely accepted theory or a rejected theory or a controversial theory - is determined SOLELY by the level of consensus.

You lummox.

Holy shit you have a MASSIVE case of butthurt, *****. Yes, you flatulent dipshit, "agreement" or lack of agreement DOES have something to do with "consensus." But since consensus in science has nothing to do with the validity of a "theory," agreement or lack of agreement has nothing to do with the SCIENCE of the matter.

Go get some Preparation H. You are in dire need.

 

[Crick]

1. In this case, I said nothing about what the consensus did, I simply said it existed.

   
   

   Yes, Virginia, there IS such a thing as consensus. And although you happened to mention it here -- again -- you NOW wish to be heard to say that you didn't attribute anything of any particular value to that term in relation to "science."
   
   It is irrelevant.
   
   Yes. NOW your "point" makes more sense You poor pathetic dishonest shithead.

It always surprises me when someone gets so stupid they can't follow a two sentence conversation. I said nothing about the consensus REGARDING PI. And, by the way, shove it up your ass and jump, asshole.

1. In regards to science, what is or is not an accepted theory or a widely accepted theory or a rejected theory or a controversial theory - is determined SOLELY by the level of consensus.
   
   You lummox.

   
   

   Holy shit you have a MASSIVE case of butthurt, *****. Yes, you flatulent dipshit, "agreement" or lack of agreement DOES have something to do with "consensus." But since consensus in science has nothing to do with the validity of a "theory," agreement or lack of agreement has nothing to do with the SCIENCE of the matter.

So... you think a majority consensus of the world's scientists could develop for a theory that fails to pass the validity checks of the scientific method. So we're back to the vast global conspiracy. You are worthless.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I see. The area of over 1000 square miles on fire at present in Oregon and Washington are just computer models. The ongoing drought in the West that is the cause of those fires is just a computer model. The fact that we are in the final third of what will be the warmest year on record, globally, after 14 years which included all but one of the 10 warmest years on record, is just a computer model. The rapid recession of the alpine glaciers are just computer models. The melting of the permafrost is just a computer mode l.

My, my, Mr. Westwall is just a computer model.

Was the CO2 that ignited the fires the same that caused the Texas floods?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

In this case, I said nothing about what the consensus did, I simply said it existed.

In regards to science, what is or is not an accepted theory or a widely accepted theory or a rejected theory or a controversial theory - is determined SOLELY by the level of consensus.

You lummox.

The only real consensus is that AGW is a wealth distribution scheme

 

[Crick]

Just for you Frank

CONSENSUS:
1) majority of opinion:
The consensus of the group was that they should meet twice a month.
2) general agreement or concord; harmony.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

1. In this case, I said nothing about what the consensus did, I simply said it existed.

   
   

   Yes, Virginia, there IS such a thing as consensus. And although you happened to mention it here -- again -- you NOW wish to be heard to say that you didn't attribute anything of any particular value to that term in relation to "science."
   
   It is irrelevant.
   
   Yes. NOW your "point" makes more sense You poor pathetic dishonest shithead.

It always surprises me when someone gets so stupid they can't follow a two sentence conversation. I said nothing about the consensus REGARDING PI. And, by the way, shove it up your ass and jump, asshole.

1. In regards to science, what is or is not an accepted theory or a widely accepted theory or a rejected theory or a controversial theory - is determined SOLELY by the level of consensus.
   
   You lummox.

   
   

   Holy shit you have a MASSIVE case of butthurt, *****. Yes, you flatulent dipshit, "agreement" or lack of agreement DOES have something to do with "consensus." But since consensus in science has nothing to do with the validity of a "theory," agreement or lack of agreement has nothing to do with the SCIENCE of the matter.

So... you think a majority consensus of the world's scientists could develop for a theory that fails to pass the validity checks of the scientific method. So we're back to the vast global conspiracy. You are worthless.

Your massive butthurt is on public display, pricky.

Your vapidity is astounding.

Let's try to get your pathetic delusions corrected, shall we?

Ok.

In science it is emphatically NOT the case that consensus governs. A scientific theory is subject to the rules of science. If you can postulate it and formulate meaningful tests for it and if the tests confirm it, and if it is repeatable and falsifiable then you might have yourself a solid valid scientific theory.

If however a scientist proposes a scientific theory that is not falsifiable and not subject to being tested or verified via the scientific method, then it is of no significance in this universe if a bunch of other scientists form a consensus saying "yeah, that's good, we happen to like that 'theory.'"

Your butthurt notwithstanding, and your entire argument notwithstanding, you have yet to refute any part of the foregoing and you certainly haven't supported your own position.

Consensus is not a part of the scientific method.

If a proposed theory is valid and true and all that good stuff, then it simply doesn't matter whether the scientific community says "we have a consensus about it" or not. Of course if the theory is invalid and false, consensus still has no power to make it anything other than invalid and false.

In short, prickster, you have been -- and you remain -- quite flatly wrong.

 

[Billy_Bob]

That you reject the basic views of mainstream science regarding AGW based solely on the contention that a nearly universal conspiracy exists among climate scientists = THAT's what's "silly".

No, we reject them based on the fact that they are not based on observations and are instead based on computer models alone. Furthermore the models are so poor that to date they have a ZERO percent accuracy rate. Add in the failure to follow the scientific method, the corruption of the peer review process and there is zero credibility in the climatology world.

They ONLY speak in political terms and ignore actual science.

You just described Crick and Old Fraud to a T!

 

[Old Rocks]

A consensus in science develops by a theory being tested using evidence from experiments and observations. A consensus can be developed strictly from observational evidence, such as the theory of plate tectonics. Or it can have both observational and experimental evidence, such as the theory of AGW. The consensus develops when there is no other theory that fits the evidence, and no one has presented evidence that falsifies the present theory. Thus far, for both the plate tectonic theory and the AGW theory, no one has presented evidence that has falsified either theory.

Now if you can do that, you can destroy the consensus on either theory. Until you do that, you are just a flap-yap artist with, apparently from your posts, no knowledge or training in any kind of science.