Feynman's 'Cargo Cult Science' to Caltech

[SSDD]

The joke, were it in the least bit funny, would be your 6-year old's interpretation. Tell us why you think you're the expert - that you're right when the entire rest of the world is wrong - when you've never even gotten within a half a mile of a thermodynamics classroom.

Stop being such a blitheringly ignorant fool.

Sorry skid mark...I am not interpreting anything at all...I take that statement at face value...you and yours, on the other hand don't...which requires interpretation.

I accept the statement as worded because I am not an expert...perhaps you could provide the observed results of the various experiments that have been performed repeatedly which make you believe that the statement is incorrect.

What experiments have been performed, observed, and recorded which make you think that energy...even a small amount can spontaneously move from cool to warm? Or are you simply relying on unobservable, untestable, unmeasurable mathematical models?

 

[SSDD]

You are calling him (IanC) a snow flake ? He is not a liberal like you. And safe spaces are exclusively for liberal snow flakes like you to avoid "micro aggressions" by conservatives who point out how dishonest liberals are from the top down and sideways throughout the media that invents ever wilder conspiracy theories to "explain" why your lying chief bitch got clobbered.
There is no denying the evidence IanC posted therefore you resort to the usual smears and insults much like the sorry sacks of shit who suck up to get Hollywood approval.
No wonder he put you on his ignore list and I think I'll follow suit because you post nothing but the same garbage day in day out in every thread.
What about that carport for your solar roof and EV you bragged about building? As if,...! all you'll ever `do is bullshit and pip-squeak from your safe space because you are too chicken to stand your ground in public.

I personally think mamooth is a dangerously smart guy. He is a master at creating strawmen and avoiding difficult questions that would take him off his talking points. And he recognizes and learns good techniques. It is unnerving to see your own bon mots turned against someone else in a different thread.

The hairball's technique is terrible...her lies, and attempts at diversion are as transparent as spring water. She is just such a bald faced liar that she can do it with a straight face...just like any other sociopath. There is nothing clever, or intelligent in her technique...just lies told without guilt.

 

[IanC]

You are calling him (IanC) a snow flake ? He is not a liberal like you. And safe spaces are exclusively for liberal snow flakes like you to avoid "micro aggressions" by conservatives who point out how dishonest liberals are from the top down and sideways throughout the media that invents ever wilder conspiracy theories to "explain" why your lying chief bitch got clobbered.
There is no denying the evidence IanC posted therefore you resort to the usual smears and insults much like the sorry sacks of shit who suck up to get Hollywood approval.
No wonder he put you on his ignore list and I think I'll follow suit because you post nothing but the same garbage day in day out in every thread.
What about that carport for your solar roof and EV you bragged about building? As if,...! all you'll ever `do is bullshit and pip-squeak from your safe space because you are too chicken to stand your ground in public.

I personally think mamooth is a dangerously smart guy. He is a master at creating strawmen and avoiding difficult questions that would take him off his talking points. And he recognizes and learns good techniques. It is unnerving to see your own bon mots turned against someone else in a different thread.

The hairball's technique is terrible...her lies, and attempts at diversion are as transparent as spring water. She is just such a bald faced liar that she can do it with a straight face...just like any other sociopath. There is nothing clever, or intelligent in her technique...just lies told without guilt.

You are letting personal dislike cloud your judgement. mamooth the sociopath is a much better liar than you. You believe your bullshit, mamooth just wants to win his case no matter what. He would crush you in a debate.

 

[mamooth]

It is unnerving to see your own bon mots turned against someone else in a different thread.

Indeed. I've noticed that you copy me a lot.

Don't worry, I take your imitation as flattery. And it speaks well of you, that at least you're smart enough to copy someone smart.

My material is good, so of course people should copy it. It's what I do. Most of my material here is not original. I pick it up from various blogs. All by liberals, of course, since a clever comment from a conservative or libertarian rarely happens anywhere.

 

[SSDD]

You are letting personal dislike cloud your judgement. mamooth the sociopath is a much better liar than you. You believe your bullshit, mamooth just wants to win his case no matter what. He would crush you in a debate.

I never let personal feelings cloud anything. And mammoth could never win a debate with me precisely because she is a liar...

And I don't have any bullshit.....which is why you can't win against me either. I don't take a position that I can't win...there is no point in it. If you could demonstrate that you are correct in your beliefs, then I would hold your position...but you can't. All you can do is claim that you are right and the best evidence you can come up with is an appeal to authority.

Mamooth has nothing but lies and bitterness...sorry, but lies and bitterness will never win out over rational thinking...when someone tells a lie, you ask them to provide actual evidence in support of it...when someone makes a claim, you ask for evidence in support and then point out the logical fallacies you get in response...mamooth couldn't debate her way out of a disposable plastic bag....

 

[SSDD]

It is unnerving to see your own bon mots turned against someone else in a different thread.

Indeed. I've noticed that you copy me a lot.

Don't worry, I take your imitation as flattery. And it speaks well of you, that at least you're smart enough to copy someone smart.

My material is good, so of course people should copy it. It's what I do. Most of my material here is not original. I pick it up from various blogs. All by liberals, of course, since a clever comment from a conservative or libertarian rarely happens anywhere.

Your material is bullshit...nothing more...nothing less...and none of it is defensible.

 

[mamooth]

SSDD, if you're going to claim not to be bitter and miserable, then spending your days here weeping bitter miserable tears about everyone and everything definitely isn't your best strategy. Don't worry, we do understand what actually motivates you. After all, anyone would be permanently butthurt if they had been spanked as often as you.

Now, listen to how Feynman sums up the way deniers find "contradictions" in real science.

"The “paradox” is only a conflict between reality and your feeling of what reality “ought to be.”
~Richard Feynman

That's the wonderful thing about Feynman. Some of his his quotes are so general, anyone can use them, like I just did.That's why deniers and other types of conspiracy cranks point to Feynman a lot. It's their attempt to deflect from the actual science with an Appeal to Authority, even though their authority doesn't actually support them.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD, if you're going to claim not to be bitter and miserable, then spending your days here weeping bitter miserable tears about everyone and everything definitely isn't your best strategy. Don't worry, we do understand what actually motivates you. After all, anyone would be permanently butthurt if they had been spanked as often as you.

Projecting is no solution for your issues hairball...but just to demonstrate my superior position, I will ask you yet again for a single shred of observed, measured, quantified data that supports AGW over natural variability.

Now is where I sit back and watch you either make the false claim that such evidence has been provided rather than simply post it and slap me down with it...or make some other excuse for not posting any such data...

The bottom line though, is that you won't post it because no such data exists.

That's the wonderful thing about Feynman. Some of his his quotes are so general, anyone can use them, like I just did.That's why deniers and other types of conspiracy cranks point to Feynman a lot. It's their attempt to deflect from the actual science with an Appeal to Authority, even though their authority doesn't actually support them.

Sorry hairball, but alas, it is you and yours who deflect from actual science with appeals to authority. When I ask for observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports AGW over natural variability...actual science would provide the data...and not just the single piece I ask for, but data of that sort in overwhelming abundance...

What do you guys provide?...nothing but excuses, or links to web sites where you hope that I might find something that fools me...or false claims that you have already posted it with the excuse that you can't be bothered to post it again...or appeals to authority claiming that every scientists in the world is convinced while at the same time, not being able to provide even a single shred of the observed, measured, quantified evidence that supposedly convinced every scientists in the world....anything and everything except that single piece of data that I keep asking for.

 

[Sunni Man]

 

[Old Rocks]

I like the one to the right of 2006. LOL Public nudity is going to be a more accepted trend in the future. For certain religions, that is going to be a problem. LOL

 

[IanC]

Back to the topic.

Which is the 'right' one? 97, 00, or 08? Which two are similar, which one is the odd man out?

None of the warmers here have commented on this specific example of 'settled science'.

Did you believe in each paper at the time? Do you find it suspicious that carefully chosen subsets of the data give wildly differing results?

Antarctic warming is another example of wildly changing results. Do you believe in every paper, in turn, or just the ones that concur with your opinion? Have the varying results changed your perception of the certainty of the results? Is there a crossover effect? Does the uncertainty of boreholes or Antarctica give you pause about sea level rise which jumped from 2mm/yr to 3mm/yr EXACTLY at the time when satellites started to do the measuring?

 

[SSDD]

Who said anything about heat?

We're talking about radiation.

How dishonest is it to cut off part of someone's statement in an effort to make a point? It demonstrates a terribly flawed character.

The statement was:
Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heatto flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

Is radiation energy?...,if so then it doesn't move spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object either.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Who said anything about heat?

We're talking about radiation.

How dishonest is it to cut off part of someone's statement in an effort to make a point? It demonstrates a terribly flawed character.

The statement was:
Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heatto flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

Is radiation energy?...,if so then it doesn't move spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object either.

It is important to note that when it is stated that energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold object to a hot object, that statement is referring to net transfer of energy. Energy can transfer from the cold object to the hot object either by transfer of energetic particles or electromagnetic radiation, but the net transfer will be from the hot object to the cold object in any spontaneous process. Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object.

Second Law of Thermodynamics

 

[Old Rocks]

Who said anything about heat?

We're talking about radiation.

How dishonest is it to cut off part of someone's statement in an effort to make a point? It demonstrates a terribly flawed character.

The statement was:
Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heatto flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

Is radiation energy?...,if so then it doesn't move spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object either.

LOL Ol' SSo DDumb at it again with his smart photons. LOL

 

[SSDD]

It is important to note that when it is stated that energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold object to a hot object, that statement is referring to net transfer of energy. Energy can transfer from the cold object to the hot object either by transfer of energetic particles or electromagnetic radiation, but the net transfer will be from the hot object to the cold object in any spontaneous process. Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object.

Science and the language of science is exacting and precise...had they meant net transfer they would have said net transfer. The claim of net transfer is the result of an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model...nothing more. Let me know when there are actual observations, and measurements of net transfer...and the second law is changed to state as much.

 

[SSDD]

Who said anything about heat?

We're talking about radiation.

How dishonest is it to cut off part of someone's statement in an effort to make a point? It demonstrates a terribly flawed character.

The statement was:
Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heatto flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

Is radiation energy?...,if so then it doesn't move spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object either.

LOL Ol' SSo DDumb at it again with his smart photons. LOL

Tell me about your smart particles rocks...you are a believer in QM...tell me how particles know that they are being observed...and tell me why they would behave differently when being observed, than when they are not being observed...and tell me why the more they are observed, the more differently they behave...tell me all about those smart particles that you believe in.

Since you are clearly a believer in such things, I am not surprised that you would suggest that photons are smart rather than that they simply behave as they must if in fact photons actually exist.

Very hypocritical of you though to make your claim that I believe in smart photons an appeal to ridicule when you so wholeheartedly believe that particles are intelligent enough to know that they are being observed...and that they are belligerent enough that they would want to behave differently when they are aware that they are being observed.

 

[mamooth]

None of the warmers here have commented on this specific example of 'settled science'.

So you still haven't look at the actual papers. And you won't. After all, you've got your blogs with their botched plots. As the scientists have looked at the actual science, your alternate reality version of reality won't impress them.

Antarctic warming is another example of wildly changing results. Do you believe in every paper, in turn, or just the ones that concur with your opinion? Have the varying results changed your perception of the certainty of the results? Is there a crossover effect? Does the uncertainty of boreholes or Antarctica give you pause about sea level rise which jumped from 2mm/yr to 3mm/yr EXACTLY at the time when satellites started to do the measuring?

Smarter people tend to go the deepest down into the rabbit hole. They start out emotionally convinced that there has to be a conspiracy, and so they devote their considerable intellects to proving their predetermined conclusion with some rather elaborate conspiracy theories. And they get very upset when nobody pays attention to them.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It is important to note that when it is stated that energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold object to a hot object, that statement is referring to net transfer of energy. Energy can transfer from the cold object to the hot object either by transfer of energetic particles or electromagnetic radiation, but the net transfer will be from the hot object to the cold object in any spontaneous process. Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object.

Science and the language of science is exacting and precise...had they meant net transfer they would have said net transfer. The claim of net transfer is the result of an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model...nothing more. Let me know when there are actual observations, and measurements of net transfer...and the second law is changed to state as much.

had they meant net transfer they would have said net transfer.

They said net transfer.

It is important to note that when it is stated that energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold object to a hot object, that statement is referring to net transfer of energy.

Second Law of Thermodynamics


Let me know when there are actual observations, and measurements of net transfer...

Tell GSU there are no actual observations or measurements and that they should correct their error.

Be sure to post their response.

 

[IanC]

Who said anything about heat?

We're talking about radiation.

How dishonest is it to cut off part of someone's statement in an effort to make a point? It demonstrates a terribly flawed character.

The statement was:
Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heatto flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

Is radiation energy?...,if so then it doesn't move spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object either.

LOL Ol' SSo DDumb at it again with his smart photons. LOL

Tell me about your smart particles rocks...you are a believer in QM...tell me how particles know that they are being observed...and tell me why they would behave differently when being observed, than when they are not being observed...and tell me why the more they are observed, the more differently they behave...tell me all about those smart particles that you believe in.

Since you are clearly a believer in such things, I am not surprised that you would suggest that photons are smart rather than that they simply behave as they must if in fact photons actually exist.

Very hypocritical of you though to make your claim that I believe in smart photons an appeal to ridicule when you so wholeheartedly believe that particles are intelligent enough to know that they are being observed...and that they are belligerent enough that they would want to behave differently when they are aware that they are being observed.

Photons are measured by detectors made of matter. Photons only interact with matter, not other photons.

One of the oddities of light is that can be polarized by a magnet. Does that disprove my previous statement? Not at all. An experiment was performed that tested the polarization by magnetic field. If the magnet was close to the emission source then the light became polarized. If the magnet was close to the detector, the light was polarized. But if the magnet was placed between the emitter and the detector then no polarization happened. The presence of matter was needed to affect the light beam.

Light has properties of both a particle and waves, so obviously it is neither. Photons are considered a probability function until they interact with matter. 'Put to the test'. Become real.

If you perform a double slit experiment but try to 'peek' at the photons the photons will condense from a probability wave into a particle like entity, and no longer act like a wave. Because of the interaction with matter in the detector.

Is this where you say no experiments have been done? No real observations? Hahahaha

 

[IanC]

Back to the topic.

Which is the 'right' one? 97, 00, or 08? Which two are similar, which one is the odd man out?

None of the warmers here have commented on this specific example of 'settled science'.

Did you believe in each paper at the time? Do you find it suspicious that carefully chosen subsets of the data give wildly differing results?

Antarctic warming is another example of wildly changing results. Do you believe in every paper, in turn, or just the ones that concur with your opinion? Have the varying results changed your perception of the certainty of the results? Is there a crossover effect? Does the uncertainty of boreholes or Antarctica give you pause about sea level rise which jumped from 2mm/yr to 3mm/yr EXACTLY at the time when satellites started to do the measuring?

So no warmers want to tackle this conondrum?

I don't blame you. It would be hard to remain certain of the claims of CAGW if you faced up to the obvious weaknesses.

Of course you could just call me names, that is a very popular response. I see there is ignored content here so perhaps mamooth or rolling thunder already have.