Pseudoscience And Conspiracy Theory Are Not Victimless Crimes Against Science

[Crick]

I have used this method of troubleshooting for a very long time..............very similar to the OP's process except for one very important thing........................

The equipment I use this method on is REALITY NOT A THEORY.............

Dear Mr Eagle, were you aware that you don't understand the very basics of science? Is there a bottom somewhere down the well of your ignorance?

 

[eagle1462010]

That's your response to an article advocating greater awareness of the scientific method?

Wow.... you should show that to your graduate advisor and see what they think.

Teachable moment as CrickHam gets all indignant about abuse of the scientific method..

Check the chart of the scientific method in the OP and explain to everyone why the GWarming circus STOPPED at "Formulate Hypotheses" and skipped over the next block to what they thought was "Alter Historical Data and Perceptions"

This chart?

The problem here is not how AGW has been treated as a hypothesis and a theory, it is that you and yours have chosen to reject all supporting evidence, not because of its merit, but because it supports a hypothesis you have chosen, prejudicially, to reject out of hand.

Your side Cherry picks data................playing little on other factors that make your conclusions suck.......................and going RAH RAH RAH on those that support your THEORY.............................

Then when you are in danger of losing funds.......................CHANGE THE DATA TO MATCH..............

Which has no place in the OP and it's step by step process.............

 

[Old Rocks]

I have used this method of troubleshooting for a very long time..............very similar to the OP's process except for one very important thing........................

The equipment I use this method on is REALITY NOT A THEORY.............

Well, perhaps if you ever bother to learn what theory means in science, you would cease posting such nonsense.

 

[eagle1462010]

I have used this method of troubleshooting for a very long time..............very similar to the OP's process except for one very important thing........................

The equipment I use this method on is REALITY NOT A THEORY.............

Dear Mr Eagle, were you aware that you don't understand the very basics of science? Is there a bottom somewhere down the well of your ignorance?

LOL

So says the CULT MEMBER OF GLOBAL WARMING.....................

When your theories don't work out as proposed in the EVALUATING SOLUTION your SUPPOSED TO START THE PROCESS OVER and try different ideas and NEW THEORIES.................

Your side just changes the DATA to say SEE WE WERE RIGHT.................Change the playing field...........and the overall equation.

 

[eagle1462010]

I have used this method of troubleshooting for a very long time..............very similar to the OP's process except for one very important thing........................

The equipment I use this method on is REALITY NOT A THEORY.............

Well, perhaps if you ever bother to learn what theory means in science, you would cease posting such nonsense.

It is not nonsense.....................it is almost identical to the SCIENTIFIC METHOD of this OP.................

Why does the fuse blow..............when does it blow.............what are the possibilities of why this machine is broken..................

Look a time delay in the circuit.................lift wires, check with meter...............oh look a grounded circuit.............................

blowing the fuse.......................inspect element.......................OOPS WATER AND ELECTRICITY DON'T MIX WELL TOGETHER.....................fix it and install new gasket.....................

ROLL....................

 

[Old Rocks]

That's your response to an article advocating greater awareness of the scientific method?

Wow.... you should show that to your graduate advisor and see what they think.

Teachable moment as CrickHam gets all indignant about abuse of the scientific method..

Check the chart of the scientific method in the OP and explain to everyone why the GWarming circus STOPPED at "Formulate Hypotheses" and skipped over the next block to what they thought was "Alter Historical Data and Perceptions"

This chart?

The problem here is not how AGW has been treated as a hypothesis and a theory, it is that you and yours have chosen to reject all supporting evidence, not because of its merit, but because it supports a hypothesis you have chosen, prejudicially, to reject out of hand.

Your side Cherry picks data................playing little on other factors that make your conclusions suck.......................and going RAH RAH RAH on those that support your THEORY.............................

Then when you are in danger of losing funds.......................CHANGE THE DATA TO MATCH..............

Which has no place in the OP and it's step by step process.............

Damn, you are one dumb ass. I have seen most of the Cascade range. Over a period of 45 years, and have seen the rapid retreat of the glaciers there. Not from pictures or satellite photos, but close up and personal. That is what you call cherry picking. I know geologists that have seen many other mountain ranges in the world, and they are saying that is also what they are seeing. That, according to you is cherry picking.

Now we can go right down the list, and at every item, you will call out cherry picking. You refuse to see reality, it does not fit your political agenda, therefore you are not going to acknowledge it. Until it bites you in the ass.

 

[Crick]

That's your response to an article advocating greater awareness of the scientific method?
Wow.... you should show that to your graduate advisor and see what they think.

You missed the root core of their argument. Not surprising at all.

Still waiting. What do you believe to be the core of their argument that I (and I presume others) have missed?

 

[eagle1462010]

That's your response to an article advocating greater awareness of the scientific method?

Wow.... you should show that to your graduate advisor and see what they think.

Teachable moment as CrickHam gets all indignant about abuse of the scientific method..

Check the chart of the scientific method in the OP and explain to everyone why the GWarming circus STOPPED at "Formulate Hypotheses" and skipped over the next block to what they thought was "Alter Historical Data and Perceptions"

This chart?

The problem here is not how AGW has been treated as a hypothesis and a theory, it is that you and yours have chosen to reject all supporting evidence, not because of its merit, but because it supports a hypothesis you have chosen, prejudicially, to reject out of hand.

Your side Cherry picks data................playing little on other factors that make your conclusions suck.......................and going RAH RAH RAH on those that support your THEORY.............................

Then when you are in danger of losing funds.......................CHANGE THE DATA TO MATCH..............

Which has no place in the OP and it's step by step process.............

Damn, you are one dumb ass. I have seen most of the Cascade range. Over a period of 45 years, and have seen the rapid retreat of the glaciers there. Not from pictures or satellite photos, but close up and personal. That is what you call cherry picking. I know geologists that have seen many other mountain ranges in the world, and they are saying that is also what they are seeing. That, according to you is cherry picking.

Now we can go right down the list, and at every item, you will call out cherry picking. You refuse to see reality, it does not fit your political agenda, therefore you are not going to acknowledge it. Until it bites you in the ass.

No shit Sherlock........................The ICE has been melting since the last ICE AGE DUMB ASS................

Where we disagree is the extent of how much HUMANS ARE CAUSING or NOT CAUSING..................

Your side goes MAN DID IT ALL.............YOU DENIERS......................CO2 IS EVIL...............WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE AND THE WORLD IS GOING TO BE UNDER WATER....................BY LIFE JACKETS...................BUILD AN ARC...........

You fuckers have the FEAR MONGERING DOWN WELL...................and the THEORIES and COMPUTER MODELS aren't coming true..............

You just turn the page on INCONVENIENT TRUTHS...................Then when caught in LYING you DIVERT THE TOPIC.

 

[Crick]

I have used this method of troubleshooting for a very long time..............very similar to the OP's process except for one very important thing........................

The equipment I use this method on is REALITY NOT A THEORY.............

Well, perhaps if you ever bother to learn what theory means in science, you would cease posting such nonsense.

It is not nonsense.....................it is almost identical to the SCIENTIFIC METHOD of this OP.................

Why does the fuse blow..............when does it blow.............what are the possibilities of why this machine is broken..................

Look a time delay in the circuit.................lift wires, check with meter...............oh look a grounded circuit.............................

blowing the fuse.......................inspect element.......................OOPS WATER AND ELECTRICITY DON'T MIX WELL TOGETHER.....................fix it and install new gasket.....................

ROLL....................

That wasn't what prompted my comment. Your application of such a method to problem solving is entirely appropriate; even commendable. It was your final comment about theory and reality.

Tell me something, when you first come across a broken machine that needs repair, do you know the cause or do you not use this method to determine which possible cause is most likely? And when climate scientists come up with a hypothesis to explain some facet of the behavior of the Earth's climate, what makes you think they are not then dealing with reality?

A misunderstanding and antipathy towards "theory" is fairly commonplace among the scientifically illiterate.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Teachable moment as CrickHam gets all indignant about abuse of the scientific method..

That's your response to an article advocating greater awareness of the scientific method?

Wow.... you should show that to your graduate advisor and see what they think.

Check the chart of the scientific method in the OP and explain to everyone why the GWarming circus STOPPED at "Formulate Hypotheses" and skipped over the next block to what they thought was "Alter Historical Data and Perceptions"

The next step is develop testable predictions, which they have done in spades. Are there any other stupid comments you care to make?

How does the 2 decade long pause in temperature increase fit your predictions

 

[Old Rocks]

I have used this method of troubleshooting for a very long time..............very similar to the OP's process except for one very important thing........................

The equipment I use this method on is REALITY NOT A THEORY.............

Well, perhaps if you ever bother to learn what theory means in science, you would cease posting such nonsense.

It is not nonsense.....................it is almost identical to the SCIENTIFIC METHOD of this OP.................

Why does the fuse blow..............when does it blow.............what are the possibilities of why this machine is broken..................

Look a time delay in the circuit.................lift wires, check with meter...............oh look a grounded circuit.............................

blowing the fuse.......................inspect element.......................OOPS WATER AND ELECTRICITY DON'T MIX WELL TOGETHER.....................fix it and install new gasket.....................

ROLL....................

LOL. You are lecturing a millwright with 50 years experiance, and still working, on how to troubleshoot? LOL.

Just maybe one should also consider the why of the gasket failure in the first place. Unless you want to repeat the process tomorrow.

GHGs in the atmosphere are the reason the oceans are not frozen almost to the equator. There have been times in the Earth's history when rapid weathering removed enough of them that that was the case. And there have been times when the GHGs were added very rapidly, and a series of catastrophes created major extinction events. Now we are already seeing changes from the amount of GHGs we have added in a very short time, and we really don't know what the total affects are going to be. However, with over 7 billion mouths to feed, it doesn't look like the effects will be positive.

 

[orogenicman]

I have used this method of troubleshooting for a very long time..............very similar to the OP's process except for one very important thing........................

The equipment I use this method on is REALITY NOT A THEORY.............

Your problem solving wheel is used starting in kindergarten to teach children how to solve every day problems. And that is great for what it is worth. But it is not the scientific method.

This is the scientific method:

Next.

 

[eagle1462010]

I have used this method of troubleshooting for a very long time..............very similar to the OP's process except for one very important thing........................

The equipment I use this method on is REALITY NOT A THEORY.............

Well, perhaps if you ever bother to learn what theory means in science, you would cease posting such nonsense.

It is not nonsense.....................it is almost identical to the SCIENTIFIC METHOD of this OP.................

Why does the fuse blow..............when does it blow.............what are the possibilities of why this machine is broken..................

Look a time delay in the circuit.................lift wires, check with meter...............oh look a grounded circuit.............................

blowing the fuse.......................inspect element.......................OOPS WATER AND ELECTRICITY DON'T MIX WELL TOGETHER.....................fix it and install new gasket.....................

ROLL....................

That wasn't what prompted my comment. Your application of such a method to problem solving is entirely appropriate; even commendable. It was your final comment about theory and reality.

Tell me something, when you first come across a broken machine that needs repair, do you know the cause or do you not use this method to determine which possible cause is most likely? And when climate scientists come up with a hypothesis to explain some facet of the behavior or the Earth's, what makes you think they are not then dealing with reality?

A misunderstanding and antipathy towards "theory" is fairly commonplace and the scientifically illiterate.

Theories don't make them true................................I replace the fuse and go see IT'S FIXED...................OOPS MISSED SOMETHING......................

There was more than one short circuit..................didn't catch the other.......................

START PROCESS OVER.........................

Your problem is that you have TUNNEL VISION..............that it's ALL MAN MADE................and you set off ALARMS, WHISTLES, and BELLS.........................when the LION'S SHARE IS NATURAL and caused by MOTHER NATURE.............

When we say this you go LOOK DENIER..............they don't believe the ICE IS MELTING..............and we look at your Liberal ass and tell our CHILDREN TO DON'T DO DRUGS are you end up like this lame ass liberal....................

 

[eagle1462010]

I have used this method of troubleshooting for a very long time..............very similar to the OP's process except for one very important thing........................

The equipment I use this method on is REALITY NOT A THEORY.............

Well, perhaps if you ever bother to learn what theory means in science, you would cease posting such nonsense.

It is not nonsense.....................it is almost identical to the SCIENTIFIC METHOD of this OP.................

Why does the fuse blow..............when does it blow.............what are the possibilities of why this machine is broken..................

Look a time delay in the circuit.................lift wires, check with meter...............oh look a grounded circuit.............................

blowing the fuse.......................inspect element.......................OOPS WATER AND ELECTRICITY DON'T MIX WELL TOGETHER.....................fix it and install new gasket.....................

ROLL....................

LOL. You are lecturing a millwright with 50 years experiance, and still working, on how to troubleshoot? LOL.

Just maybe one should also consider the why of the gasket failure in the first place. Unless you want to repeat the process tomorrow.

GHGs in the atmosphere are the reason the oceans are not frozen almost to the equator. There have been times in the Earth's history when rapid weathering removed enough of them that that was the case. And there have been times when the GHGs were added very rapidly, and a series of catastrophes created major extinction events. Now we are already seeing changes from the amount of GHGs we have added in a very short time, and we really don't know what the total affects are going to be. However, with over 7 billion mouths to feed, it doesn't look like the effects will be positive.

LOL

A millwright telling an electrician how to troubleshoot................



If he'd been there to fix it with a lathe he would have known just by looking at the machine that the gasket was bad in the first place causing the fuse to blow..........

 

[eagle1462010]

I have used this method of troubleshooting for a very long time..............very similar to the OP's process except for one very important thing........................

The equipment I use this method on is REALITY NOT A THEORY.............

Your problem solving wheel is used starting in kindergarten to teach children how to solve every day problems. And that is great for what it is worth. But it is not the scientific method.

This is the scientific method:

Next.

BS

It's basically identical to your graph.....................unless you live under a rock.

 

[orogenicman]

I have used this method of troubleshooting for a very long time..............very similar to the OP's process except for one very important thing........................

The equipment I use this method on is REALITY NOT A THEORY.............

Well, perhaps if you ever bother to learn what theory means in science, you would cease posting such nonsense.

It is not nonsense.....................it is almost identical to the SCIENTIFIC METHOD of this OP.................

Why does the fuse blow..............when does it blow.............what are the possibilities of why this machine is broken..................

Look a time delay in the circuit.................lift wires, check with meter...............oh look a grounded circuit.............................

blowing the fuse.......................inspect element.......................OOPS WATER AND ELECTRICITY DON'T MIX WELL TOGETHER.....................fix it and install new gasket.....................

ROLL....................

That wasn't what prompted my comment. Your application of such a method to problem solving is entirely appropriate; even commendable. It was your final comment about theory and reality.

Tell me something, when you first come across a broken machine that needs repair, do you know the cause or do you not use this method to determine which possible cause is most likely? And when climate scientists come up with a hypothesis to explain some facet of the behavior or the Earth's, what makes you think they are not then dealing with reality?

A misunderstanding and antipathy towards "theory" is fairly commonplace and the scientifically illiterate.

Theories don't make them true................................I replace the fuse and go see IT'S FIXED...................OOPS MISSED SOMETHING......................

There was more than one short circuit..................didn't catch the other.......................

START PROCESS OVER.........................

Your problem is that you have TUNNEL VISION..............that it's ALL MAN MADE................and you set off ALARMS, WHISTLES, and BELLS.........................when the LION'S SHARE IS NATURAL and caused by MOTHER NATURE.............

When we say this you go LOOK DENIER..............they don't believe the ICE IS MELTING..............and we look at your Liberal ass and tell our CHILDREN TO DON'T DO DRUGS are you end up like this lame ass liberal....................

 

[orogenicman]

I have used this method of troubleshooting for a very long time..............very similar to the OP's process except for one very important thing........................

The equipment I use this method on is REALITY NOT A THEORY.............

Your problem solving wheel is used starting in kindergarten to teach children how to solve every day problems. And that is great for what it is worth. But it is not the scientific method.

This is the scientific method:

Next.

BS

It's basically identical to your graph.....................unless you live under a rock.

If it is basically identical to my graph, then your argument would be identical to mine. And yet it is not. Not even close.

 

[Crick]

That's your response to an article advocating greater awareness of the scientific method?

Wow.... you should show that to your graduate advisor and see what they think.

Teachable moment as CrickHam gets all indignant about abuse of the scientific method..

Check the chart of the scientific method in the OP and explain to everyone why the GWarming circus STOPPED at "Formulate Hypotheses" and skipped over the next block to what they thought was "Alter Historical Data and Perceptions"

This chart?

The problem here is not how AGW has been treated as a hypothesis and a theory, it is that you and yours have chosen to reject all supporting evidence, not because of its merit, but because it supports a hypothesis you have chosen, prejudicially, to reject out of hand.

Your side Cherry picks data... playing little on other factors that make your conclusions suck... and going RAH RAH RAH on those that support your THEORY...
Then when you are in danger of losing funds... CHANGE THE DATA TO MATCH...
Which has no place in the OP and it's step by step process...

Our side - that is, mainstream science for the last 30 years, has not been cherry-picking data. Alternative hypotheses: cosmic radiation, clouds, TSI, UHI and a hundred other processes have been examined and found wanting as explanations of the observed warming. You can find those examinations and those conclusions in the IPSS assessment reports were you so inclined.
Adjustments to data, in response to systematic measurement biases and instrument calibrations has been going on since humans first started making measurements of their surroundings. That it is now the new universal denier rallying cry is patent evidence that resistance to AGW is organized. The fossil fuel industry disinformation campaign is real and well-funded and it's operators know enough to realize they are best served by invisibility.

I certainly don't expect you to change your mind - you have repeatedly demonstrated inadequate acumen to see the need. I just want you to realize how little impact such canned and unsupported arguments have in an actual discussion of the merits of any of these ideas.

 

[Crick]

How does the 2 decade long pause in temperature increase fit your predictions

LIKE THIS:

Climate-change ‘hiatus’ disappears with new data

US agency’s updated temperature records suggest that global warming continues apace.

• Jeff Tollefson

04 June 2015

An apparent pause in global warming might have been a temporary mirage, according to recent analysis. Global average temperatures have continued to rise throughout the first part of the 21stcentury, researchers report on 5 June in Science1.

That finding, which contradicts the 2013 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is based on an update of the global temperature records maintained by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The previous version of the NOAA dataset had showed less warming during the first decade of the millennium.

Researchers revised the NOAA dataset to correct for known biases in sea-surface temperature records and to incorporate data from new land-based monitoring stations that extend into the Arctic — an area where observations are sparse. The updated NOAA dataset also includes observations from 2013 and 2014; the latter ranked as the warmest year on record.

“The bottom line is that the IPCC reported that the rate of warming was less in the last 15 years than it was in the previous 30 to 60 years,” says Tom Karl, the study's lead author and the director of the National Centers for Environmental Information in Asheville, North Carolina. “That is no longer valid according to our data.”

The analysis follows a raft of papers that seek to explain why global temperatures seemed to level off around the turn of the millennium. NOAA's updated temperature record still shows cooler observed conditions than those projected by most climate models for the same period. But Karl says that the warming trend is clear up to the end of 2014. That holds true even if researchers choose 1998, which saw extreme heat associated with an El Niño weather pattern in the tropical Pacific Ocean, as the starting point for such an analysis.

“Tom Karl and colleagues have done solid work here, but they’ve mostly just confirmed what we already knew,” says Michael Mann, a climatologist at Pennsylvania State University in University Park. “There is no true ‘pause’ or ‘hiatus’ in warming.”

Hot seat
The biggest change to the NOAA records comes from a correction to ocean-temperature readings, to account for differences in measurements from ships and buoys. Scientists have long known that ships log slightly warmer ocean temperatures than do buoys operating in the same location. The influx of data from an expansion of buoys during the past two decades has reduced the apparent rate of ocean warming. NOAA has now adjusted for this effect, in line with similar changes that the UK Met Office made to its global temperature record.

The NOAA dataset had previously been modified to account for a shift in the way that ships measure ocean temperatures. After World War II, ships began to monitor sea water directly through engine intakes, instead of sampling it with buckets. Karl's team adjusted the data to account for new information suggesting that some ships have continued bucket measurements.

Finally, the researchers made use of a new database of land-based temperature readings, which more than doubled the number of stations available to NOAA. It also extended coverage further into the Arctic, which has warmed faster than the rest of the globe in recent decades.

All told, Karl's team finds that global temperatures increased at a rate of 0.116°C a decade from 2000–2014, compared to a rate of 0.113°C from 1950–1999. And Karl says that rate will probably go up once his team calculates the temperature increase for the entirety of the rapidly warming Arctic. Researchers found in 2013 that gaps in Arctic observations artificially cooled the Met Office temperature record2.

The latest study only resolved part of the question. Climate models used by the IPCC still project warming to continue, but scientists have documented various factors for which the models have not accounted, resulting in suppressed temperatures. These contributors include weak solar irradiation, volcanic aerosols that block sunlight and ocean circulation3.

“Once you take into account the slight forcing errors, the actual occurrence of El Niños, et cetera, there is very little left to explain,” says Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City.
Climate-change hiatus disappears with new data Nature News Comment

The full text of the Karl study is available at:Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus

 

[eagle1462010]

I have used this method of troubleshooting for a very long time..............very similar to the OP's process except for one very important thing........................

The equipment I use this method on is REALITY NOT A THEORY.............

Your problem solving wheel is used starting in kindergarten to teach children how to solve every day problems. And that is great for what it is worth. But it is not the scientific method.

This is the scientific method:

Next.

BS

It's basically identical to your graph.....................unless you live under a rock.

If it is basically identical to my graph, then your argument would be identical to mine. And yet it is not. Not even close.

SPLAIN YOURSELF.........................

I say the Lion's share of the cause of Global Warming is caused by Mother Nature in the Hypotheses phase of the troubleshooting method...............................you call me a denier......................for continuing to say that........................

You harp on the side of the equation that says IT'S MAN MADE................and then we get to the 1%er theory LOL......standard argument for a lib.......................

You say see..............the evidence is clear WESTERN ANTARCTIC is MELTING.................we say Ok..........I see that with data................

What about these volcano's and venting could they cause that..............You scream BLASPHEMY....................YOU SAY MAN DID THIS................................

We say HOW MUCH.......................You SCREAM BLASPHEMY AGAIN............

And then say we are the problem and no nothing about science...................

Your side disregards other possible causes and HARP on the one equation that fits in to the cult of Global Warming............

When we show scientist who say the case is not closed and it is mostly caused by nature..............YOU AGAIN SAY BLASPHEMY...............

And then say we refuse to recognize that the ice is melting when we never said that....................

I say the Eastern Antarctic is getting thicker with Land ICE..................you say NO IT'S NOT YOU DENIER............

You get the point.