Dr. Feynman on Climatologists

[Quasar44]

Dr Feynmann never experienced current weather ; thus, what he said decades ago is empty

 

[Quasar44]

Dr Feynmann never experienced current weather ; thus, what he said decades ago is

Fucking scientists grant-writers etc. get all the money for their "research" from George Soros and the usual crew of secular white Jewish DEMOCRATs.

Not all deniers are anti-semetic, but most are, to some extent. Most try to hide it by saying "globalists" instead of "Jews". But everyone knows what they mean.

There's an obvious reason why you can only whimper out anti-semetic conspiracy theories. It's because all the science says you and all deniers are open frauds. Being honest about the science is not an option to you, because your fascist political party forbids it. Thus, you see telling really big and really dumb lies as being your only viable option.

Richard Feynman was talking conceptually about pseudo-science. He wasn't talking politics, he wasn't specifying climate science, but all of you AGW types leaped into action throwing anti-Semitism, political parties and and anything else you can toss into the air as a distraction. What did Mr. Feynman say that was wrong, or made you uncomfortable? Be specific.

Feynmann was the most influential Quantum physics genius since the days of Max Plank and Heisenberg

 

[Natural Citizen]

The very nature of the natural sciences is about asking more questions.

Political science, as he said, or social science, is not science in the same sense. As he said, you don't have to prove anything. You basically jot whatever you want down and run with it for the purpose of polluting reality and minds or runing a political or social narrative.

Genuine science isn't permitted the luxury to contend that they have all of the answers and that no further research is needed. That's what he meant when he talked about what it means to actually know something.

Definitely a great guy, though, very intelligent, and a great speaker. I did several papers on his work in my college days.

 

[mamooth]

Richard Feynman was talking conceptually about pseudo-science. He wasn't talking politics, he wasn't specifying climate science, but all of you AGW types leaped into action throwing anti-Semitism, political parties and and anything else you can toss into the air as a distraction. What did Mr. Feynman say that was wrong, or made you uncomfortable? Be specific.

It's your side here that's crying about Feynmann, not mine. I'm cheerfully pointing out how Feynman backs me up, and that he defines your side to be pseudoscience cranks.

It's not my side faking everything. It's yours. That's how we know you're pseudoscience cranks, and Feynman agrees. People who have data backing them up don't have to fake data. Your side does have to fake data, because the actual data contradicts you, and because your cult forbids you from being honest about that.

I do see why it upsets deniers to have that highlighted, so you don't need to expound upon it. This is another reason why it's so good to be on the rational side. We don't have an authoritarian political cult ordering us to espouse reality-defying positions, so we don't look ridiculous and dishonest. If reality ever contradicts our beliefs, we simply change our beliefs.

 

[Sunsettommy]

The results always contradict denier psuedoscience claims. Hence, according to Feynmann, denier pseudoscience claims are wrong, no matter how elegant deniers cultists think those theories are.

It really is that simple. Deniers are bitter pseudoscience cultists, because that's what the hard data says.

Denialism isn't the actual cult, of course. Right-wing authoritarianism is the cult. Denialism is just one of many reality-defying mantras which that cult's acolytes are ordered to chant.

The two sides are total opposites.

Denialism is entirely about politics. If right-wing authoritarianism vanished, denialism would instantly vanish along with it.

The real science is only about the science, and crosses all political boundaries all across the world. If left-wing politics vanished, climate science wouldn't change at all.

Your childish rant is so boring and irrational, here is a video that might help you realize your partisan smearing bullcrap against people, is evidence of your lack of critical thinking ability, you write like a Charlatan.

Richard Feynman on Scientific Method (1964)

 

[mamooth]

Your childish rant is so boring and irrational,

So by showing Feynman saying how you're a psuedoscience cultist yet another time, what were you hoping to accomplish?

 

[Sunsettommy]

Your childish rant is so boring and irrational,

So by showing Feynman saying how you're a psuedoscience cultist yet another time, what were you hoping to accomplish?

Your childish rant is so boring and irrational, here is a video that might help you realize your partisan smearing bullcrap against people, is evidence of your lack of critical thinking ability, you write like a Charlatan.

I think Feynman has YOU tagged so well, that you are still clueless about it.

It is OBVIOUS that you didn't watch it.

 

[mamooth]

It is OBVIOUS that you didn't watch it.

He was clearly talking how experiment always contradicts your kook theories, making your kook theories pseudoscience. It doesn't matter how elegant you think your kook conspiracy theories are. They're contradicted by reality, therefore they're wrong.

 

[Sunsettommy]

It is OBVIOUS that you didn't watch it.

He was clearly talking how experiment always contradicts your kook theories, making your kook theories pseudoscience. It doesn't matter how elegant you think your kook conspiracy theories are. They're contradicted by reality, therefore they're wrong.

Babble is all you have to offer here, try watching the video with your partisan bigotry set aside,, where he makes clear hypothesis MUST be falsifiable, must meet the testability test to see if it can be followed up, if not, then is should be drooped.

Climate models year 2050, 2100, 3100 are examples of warmist/alarmist pseudoscience as they are not testable/falsifiable at all.

It is obvious you didn't understand his presentation.....

 

[mamooth]

Babble is all you have to offer here, try watching the video with your partisan bigotry set aside,, where he makes clear hypothesis MUST be falsifiable,

AGW theory is falsifiable in multiple ways, making it real science.

Denialism is not falsifiable, so it's pseudoscience.

What is the theory of denialism, and what realistic data could falsify it?

I've asked many times, and I've never gotten a response. If denialsim wasn't pseudoscience, its acolytes could answer, but they can't.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Babble is all you have to offer here, try watching the video with your partisan bigotry set aside,, where he makes clear hypothesis MUST be falsifiable,

AGW theory is falsifiable in multiple ways, making it real science.

Denialism is not falsifiable, so it's pseudoscience.

What is the theory of denialism, and what realistic data could falsify it?

I've asked many times, and I've never gotten a response. If denialsim wasn't pseudoscience, its acolytes could answer, but they can't.

Your latest vapid and dishonest reply overlooked my simple statement completely:

Climate models year 2050, 2100, 3100 are examples of warmist/alarmist pseudoscience as they are not testable/falsifiable at all.

How come you ignored this factual statement completely?

AGW isn't a theory at all, why continue to post such nonsense?

 

[mamooth]

Your latest vapid and dishonest reply overlooked my simple statement completely:

I addressed it by pointing out is was irrelevent, since there are so are many ways in which AGW theory can be falsified. That's because it's real science. Let's list some. I'll throw out a quick ten.

1. Failing to see a long term increase in global average temperature.
2. Failing to see a long term increase in sea level
3. Long term global expansion of ice caps and glaciers.
4. Not seeing OLR decrease in the GHG bands.
5. Not seeing an increase in backradation
6. Not seeing stratospheric cooling
7. Showing CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas
8. Showing CO2 levels aren't rising
9. Demonstrating a decrease in specific humidity
10. Demonstrating conclusively that a specific natural factor is causing the fast warming.

Climate models year 2050, 2100, 3100 are examples of warmist/alarmist pseudoscience as they are not testable/falsifiable at all.

If that was the entireity of climate science, you'd have a point. But since it's not, you're just flailing.

You're also ignoring the stellar behavior of past models. The models were tested and passed with flying colors. I hope you don't humiliate yourself now by lying about the models.

Now, let's get back to what you keep running from, over and over. What is the theory of denialism, and what could falsify it? The fact that every single denier refuses to answer demonstrates that, by your own standards, denialism is a pseudoscience cult.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Your latest vapid and dishonest reply overlooked my simple statement completely:

I addressed it by pointing out is was irrelevent, since there are so are many ways in which AGW theory can be falsified. That's because it's real science. Let's list some. I'll throw out a quick ten.

1. Failing to see a long term increase in global average temperature.
2. Failing to see a long term increase in sea level
3. Long term global expansion of ice caps and glaciers.
4. Not seeing OLR decrease in the GHG bands.
5. Not seeing an increase in backradation
6. Not seeing stratospheric cooling
7. Showing CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas
8. Showing CO2 levels aren't rising
9. Demonstrating a decrease in specific humidity
10. Demonstrating conclusively that a specific natural factor is causing the fast warming.

Climate models year 2050, 2100, 3100 are examples of warmist/alarmist pseudoscience as they are not testable/falsifiable at all.

If that was the entireity of climate science, you'd have a point. But since it's not, you're just flailing.

You're also ignoring the stellar behavior of past models. The models were tested and passed with flying colors. I hope you don't humiliate yourself now by lying about the models.

Now, let's get back to what you keep running from, over and over. What is the theory of denialism, and what could falsify it? The fact that every single denier refuses to answer demonstrates that, by your own standards, denialism is a pseudoscience cult.

These modeling scenarios dates were from the warmist bible the IPCC reports.

Climate models year 2050, 2100, 3100 are examples of warmist/alarmist pseudoscience as they are not testable/falsifiable at all.

You keep ducking the excellent example of pseudoscience modeling bullcrap, over and over.

=====

Your continuous lies about MY position on this makes clear you are profoundly dishonest person, my reply in red:

1. Failing to see a long term increase in global average temperature. I have posted many times in this forum and elsewhere that it has been warming for over 150 years and sometimes as long as 325 years. Warming rates are similar back to the 1850's, posted the BBC interview with Dr. Jones. Warming rates never lines up with CO2 changes. Warming trend likely started over 150 years BEFORE CO2 started rising.

2. Failing to see a long term increase in sea level I have posted published papers showing it was HIGHER than now earlier in the interglacial period with no CO2 effect behind it, you ignored them, Sea level began to rise in the early 1800's, long before CO2 started rising.

3. Long term global expansion of ice caps and glaciers. Antarctica SEA ice cover has expanded greatly in recent decades, negligible over all change in Greenland ice since 1900. Arctic sea ice cover is a minor percentage of the total ice mass of the planet.

4. Not seeing OLR decrease in the GHG bands. We are seeing a significant INCREASE in OLR, which is evidence that CO2 isn't stopping much of it, outgoing Longwave Radiation increase is running greater than postulated warm forcing effect of CO2 in the same time frames, a trends going on for several decades.

5. Not seeing an increase in backradation. AGW based Backradiation claim is a perfect distraction to the utterly failed CO2 warm forcing powers, which is small decades ago, now negligible today. You have forgotten the basic concept of logarithmic change over time.....

6. Not seeing stratospheric cooling It cools every time we have a big volcanic eruption plume penetrate the stratosphere, otherwise negligible trend either way.

7. Showing CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas It is a weak IR absorbing, trace greenhouse gas, most of the postulated warm forcing is done in the first 150 ppm, now down to negligible today. No one here says it doesn't absorb IR. Additional CO2 warm forcing is now negligible today....

8. Showing CO2 levels aren't rising No one here disputed it is rising, but it doesn't match with temperature changes and it a proven weak IR absorber, absorbs only a small bit of the OLR band.

9. Demonstrating a decrease in specific humidity Yawnnnn

10. Demonstrating conclusively that a specific natural factor is causing the fast warming. Nearly ALL warming trends match well with El-Nino phases, it has been cooling since 2016, with a forecast of a deeper cooling in the months ahead as La-Nina deepens. CO2 monotonic change doesn't remotely match with temperature changes on many time frames.

=====

You write:

You're also ignoring the stellar behavior of past models. The models were tested and passed with flying colors. I hope you don't humiliate yourself now by lying about the models.

Your lies are boring, by the way why does the AGW conjecture rely so much on climate models? there are HUNDREDS of them, new ones posted in every new IPCC report, if they were so good 20 years ago, why are they still making a whole bunch of new ones?

But rational people KNOW why science illiterates like YOU ignore rational science research that employs the scientific method.

Here is my parting shot for you to scream against with your typical dodging, lying baloney pseudoscientific bullcrap. I predict this chart will zoom right over your head, since it is 100% based on real data. You will dodge it like Crick did a few days ago, from c3headlines:

This first chart shows the temperature change plots of the IPCC's gold-standard global temperature dataset, along with the monthly cumulative growth of atmospheric CO2 levels (ppm) since June 1, 1988 through June 2020. Multiple periodicities of temperature change include 1-year (twelve month); 5-year (60 months); 10-year (120 months); 15-year (180 months); and, 20-year (240 months).

For example, the chart's 15-year temperature change ending June 2020 is almost identical to the 15-year temperature change ending June 1988. Respectively, those changes were +0.13°C and +0.11°C.

That tiny difference certainly confirms that over the past 30 years there has not been an extreme impact on longer-term temperature change despite some 850 billion tonnes of CO2 being emitted into the atmosphere since 1988.

And the chart absolutely reflects an up/down pattern of temperature change for all periodicities, but clearly it does not demonstrate any significant relationship to the very substantial, monotonous linear growth of CO2 levels.

LINK

=====

Watch how Mamooth and other science illiterates will not understand this chart, they will either go silent (Crick) or scream, like Mamooth will.

 

[Dick Foster]

The results always contradict denier psuedoscience claims. Hence, according to Feynmann, denier pseudoscience claims are wrong, no matter how elegant deniers cultists think those theories are.

It really is that simple. Deniers are bitter pseudoscience cultists, because that's what the hard data says.

Denialism isn't the actual cult, of course. Right-wing authoritarianism is the cult. Denialism is just one of many reality-defying mantras which that cult's acolytes are ordered to chant.

The two sides are total opposites.

Denialism is entirely about politics. If right-wing authoritarianism vanished, denialism would instantly vanish along with it.

The real science is only about the science, and crosses all political boundaries all across the world. If left-wing politics vanished, climate science wouldn't change at all.

It would not only change it would cease to exist altogether

 

[mamooth]

These modeling scenarios dates were from the warmist bible the IPCC reports.

Which is completely irrelevant to the point that AGW theory is falsifiable in many ways, while your religion is not.

Climate models year 2050, 2100, 3100 are examples of warmist/alarmist pseudoscience as they are not testable/falsifiable at all.

Which is completely irrelevant to the point that AGW theory is falsifiable in many ways, while your religion is not.

You keep ducking the excellent example of pseudoscience modeling bullcrap, over and over.

According to your idiot standard, any branch of science that uses any model for any reason is pseudoscience. Your theory is plainly profoundly stupid, not to mention widly hypocritical, being that you don't apply it consistently.

Your continuous lies about MY position on this makes clear you are profoundly dishonest person, my reply in red:

A fine brazen goalpost shift on your part. The topic was how AGW theory could be falsified. I provided ten examples, thus conclusively disproving your cult fable that it couldn't be falsfied. You didn't even attempt to refute that. Instead, you went off into diversion/delusion mode with each point.

1. Failing to see a long term increase in global average temperature. I have posted many times in this forum and elsewhere that it has been warming for over 150 years and sometimes as long as 325 years. Warming rates are similar back to the 1850's, posted the BBC interview with Dr. Jones. Warming rates never lines up with CO2 changes. Warming trend likely started over 150 years BEFORE CO2 started rising.

Which is not relevant to the point that AGW theory predicted a temperature rise, and that prediction came true.

2. Failing to see a long term increase in sea level I have posted published papers showing it was HIGHER than now earlier in the interglacial period with no CO2 effect behind it, you ignored them, Sea level began to rise in the early 1800's, long before CO2 started rising.

Which is not releavent to the point that AGW theory predicted fast sea level rise, and that prediction came true.

3. Long term global expansion of ice caps and glaciers. Antarctica SEA ice cover has expanded greatly in recent decades,

Nope, wrong. Antartic sea ice levels have crashed in the past few years, after initially growing, just as AGW theory predicted.

negligible over all change in Greenland ice since 1900.

The massive ice loss measured by GRACE says the opposite. You seem to have trouble with the concept of "volume".

Arctic sea ice cover is a minor percentage of the total ice mass of the planet.

Not relevant to the point that AGW predicted a big ice loss, and that prediction came true.

4. Not seeing OLR decrease in the GHG bands. We are seeing a significant INCREASE in OLR,

Where do you come up with this stuff? Why would you think OLR would increase? That would cause cooling, which is very certainly not happening.

which is evidence that CO2 isn't stopping much of it, outgoing Longwave Radiation increase is running greater than postulated warm forcing effect of CO2 in the same time frames, a trends going on for several decades.

You also aren't even addressing what I said, which was IN THE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION BANDS. OLR will rise a bit outside of those bands, but total OLR falls a bit, as the earth system absorbs some heat instead of emitting it.

5. Not seeing an increase in backradation. AGW based Backradiation claim is a perfect distraction to the utterly failed CO2 warm forcing powers, which is small decades ago, now negligible today.

Delusional, being that we directly measure the backradation and its increase. And not relevant to the point that AGW theory predicted it, and it happened.

You have forgotten the basic concept of logarithmic change over time.....

You have forgotten that CO2 emissions have been exponential. A log of an exponent is linear.

6. Not seeing stratospheric cooling It cools every time we have a big volcanic eruption plume penetrate the stratosphere, otherwise negligible trend either way.

Absolutey false. AGW theory predicted the stratospheric cooling, and we measure it directly. There are no natural explanations for that, so the stratospheric cooling debunks any "It's natural!" claims.

7. Showing CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas It is a weak IR absorbing, trace greenhouse gas, most of the postulated warm forcing is done in the first 150 ppm, now down to negligible today. No one here says it doesn't absorb IR. Additional CO2 warm forcing is now negligible today....

Delusional, and not relevant to the point that AGW theory predicted the greenhouse effect of increasing CO2, and was proven to be correct.

8. Showing CO2 levels aren't rising No one here disputed it is rising, but it doesn't match with temperature changes and it a proven weak IR absorber, absorbs only a small bit of the OLR band.

Not relevant to the point that AGW theory predicted increasing CO2 levels, and was proven to be correct.

9. Demonstrating a decrease in specific humidity Yawnnnn

Evasion, and not relevant to the point that AGW theory predicted increasing specific humidity, and was proven to be correct.

10. Demonstrating conclusively that a specific natural factor is causing the fast warming. Nearly ALL warming trends match well with El-Nino phases,

Debunked by 2020 being the second warmest year ever, happening in a La Nina phase.

it has been cooling since 2016,

No. That's noise on a clear upward trend.

with a forecast of a deeper cooling in the months ahead as La-Nina deepens. CO2 monotonic change doesn't remotely match with temperature changes on many time frames.

The linear trend is a very good fit, due to the exponential growth of emissions matching the logarithmic effect of CO2. That's obvious from looking at any termperature graph.

Anyways, all not relevant to the fact that AGW theory predicted an upward trend underneath all the natural cycles, and was proven to be correct.

Your lies are boring, by the way why does the AGW conjecture rely so much on climate models? there are HUNDREDS of them, new ones posted in every new IPCC report, if they were so good 20 years ago, why are they still making a whole bunch of new ones?

Because the new ones are a little better.

I can't believe I had to explain that to a supposed grownup. You literally don't have the brainpower to be in this conversation.

But rational people KNOW why science illiterates like YOU ignore rational science research that employs the scientific method.

Despite being asked multiple times, you _still_ haven't told us what the theory of denialism is, and how it can possibly be falsified. You don't have a theory. You just have religious fanaticism.

Here is my parting shot

And a hilarious faceplant it was.

For example, the chart's 15-year temperature change ending June 2020 is almost identical to the 15-year temperature change ending June 1988. Respectively, those changes were +0.13°C and +0.11°C.

So the chart shows that the AGW predictions have been spot on. The prediction was 0.20C/decade, and the actual result was 0.19C/decade.

That tiny difference certainly confirms that over the past 30 years there has not been an extreme impact on longer-term temperature change despite some 850 billion tonnes of CO2 being emitted into the atmosphere since 1988.

You do realize that AGW theory did not predict accelerating warming, right? Apparently not. You're kind of clueless about the basics.

And the chart absolutely reflects an up/down pattern of temperature change for all periodicities, but clearly it does not demonstrate any significant relationship to the very substantial, monotonous linear growth of CO2 levels.

Congrats on disproving your dopey strawman. Next time, you might want to try addressing what the science actually says.

Watch how Mamooth and other science illiterates will not understand this chart, they will either go silent (Crick) or scream, like Mamooth will.

That was a fine "declare victory and run away crying" speech. And I think everyone expected it, based on your history here.