The next time some idiot tells you, "But the real science says....."

[westwall]

This is what we get when "science" gets into the business of working rearward from the result that they want to get.

That is scientific method ... state your hypothesis which is what you want to find ... then do an experiment to demonstrate what you want to find ... so in your conclusions you can say what you want is what you found ... I'm not saying this is right or wrong, just that this is how it is ... and it's better than having to get Church approval ...

Not quite...What you do is look at the phenomenon and eliminate what didn't make it happen...What remains are theories that you seek to find evidence for....We know this as "falsification".

You don't look at the result, then account for all the possibilities that could make it happen, while ignoring all that doesn't fit your pre-arrived upon conclusion, and/or the agendas of those funding your research....That's how all too much "science" is being done these days.

View attachment 384048

The scientific method has not changed. It is hard to experiment on the globe since we only have one subject and no control.

Correct, the scientific method has not changed. But climatologists ignore it because it interferes with their grant proposals.

Should this be in the Conspiracy room or do you have some back up?

Sure look up Trenberth declaring repeatability of his experiments isn't necessary.

Climate Scientist Kevin Trenberth, Distinguished Senior Scientist, National Center for Atmospheric Research has insisted that Climate Science does follow the scientific method.

No, he doesn't. he specifically has stated multiple times that repeatability doesn't apply to climatology. I agree. Climatology is a pseudo science, so the scientific method no longer applies. That is reserved for ACTUAL science.


As an aside he also demanded that climatology be exempted from the Null Hypothesis which is another foundational principle of the scientific method. He got laughed out of the room with that touch of absurdity.


“The proponents of reversing the null hypothesis should be careful of what they wish for,” concluded Curry. “One consequence may be that the scientific focus, and therefore funding, would also reverse to attempting to disprove dangerous anthropogenic climate change, which has been a position of many sceptics.”

“I doubt Trenberth’s suggestion will find much support in the scientific community,” said Professor Myles Allen from Oxford University, “but Curry’s counter proposal to abandon hypothesis tests is worse. We still have plenty of interesting hypotheses to test: did human influence on climate increase the risk of this event at all? Did it increase it by more than a factor of two?”

###

All three papers are free online:

Trenberth. K, “Attribution of climate variations and trends to human influences and natural variability”: Error - Cookies Turned Off

Curry. J, “Nullifying the climate null hypothesis”: Error - Cookies Turned Off

Allen. M, “In defense of the traditional null hypothesis: remarks on the Trenberth and Curry opinion articles”: Error - Cookies Turned Off

 

[alang1216]

This is what we get when "science" gets into the business of working rearward from the result that they want to get.

That is scientific method ... state your hypothesis which is what you want to find ... then do an experiment to demonstrate what you want to find ... so in your conclusions you can say what you want is what you found ... I'm not saying this is right or wrong, just that this is how it is ... and it's better than having to get Church approval ...

Not quite...What you do is look at the phenomenon and eliminate what didn't make it happen...What remains are theories that you seek to find evidence for....We know this as "falsification".

You don't look at the result, then account for all the possibilities that could make it happen, while ignoring all that doesn't fit your pre-arrived upon conclusion, and/or the agendas of those funding your research....That's how all too much "science" is being done these days.

View attachment 384048

The scientific method has not changed. It is hard to experiment on the globe since we only have one subject and no control.

Correct, the scientific method has not changed. But climatologists ignore it because it interferes with their grant proposals.

Should this be in the Conspiracy room or do you have some back up?

Sure look up Trenberth declaring repeatability of his experiments isn't necessary.

Climate Scientist Kevin Trenberth, Distinguished Senior Scientist, National Center for Atmospheric Research has insisted that Climate Science does follow the scientific method.

No, he doesn't. he specifically has stated multiple times that repeatability doesn't apply to climatology. I agree. Climatology is a pseudo science, so the scientific method no longer applies. That is reserved for ACTUAL science.


As an aside he also demanded that climatology be exempted from the Null Hypothesis which is another foundational principle of the scientific method. He got laughed out of the room with that touch of absurdity.


“The proponents of reversing the null hypothesis should be careful of what they wish for,” concluded Curry. “One consequence may be that the scientific focus, and therefore funding, would also reverse to attempting to disprove dangerous anthropogenic climate change, which has been a position of many sceptics.”

“I doubt Trenberth’s suggestion will find much support in the scientific community,” said Professor Myles Allen from Oxford University, “but Curry’s counter proposal to abandon hypothesis tests is worse. We still have plenty of interesting hypotheses to test: did human influence on climate increase the risk of this event at all? Did it increase it by more than a factor of two?”

###

All three papers are free online:

Trenberth. K, “Attribution of climate variations and trends to human influences and natural variability”: Error - Cookies Turned Off

Curry. J, “Nullifying the climate null hypothesis”: Error - Cookies Turned Off

Allen. M, “In defense of the traditional null hypothesis: remarks on the Trenberth and Curry opinion articles”: Error - Cookies Turned Off

"repeatability doesn't apply to climatology"

There are plenty of sciences that don't depend on repeatability: archeology, astronomy, geology, and anthropology come to mind.

 

[westwall]

This is what we get when "science" gets into the business of working rearward from the result that they want to get.

That is scientific method ... state your hypothesis which is what you want to find ... then do an experiment to demonstrate what you want to find ... so in your conclusions you can say what you want is what you found ... I'm not saying this is right or wrong, just that this is how it is ... and it's better than having to get Church approval ...

Not quite...What you do is look at the phenomenon and eliminate what didn't make it happen...What remains are theories that you seek to find evidence for....We know this as "falsification".

You don't look at the result, then account for all the possibilities that could make it happen, while ignoring all that doesn't fit your pre-arrived upon conclusion, and/or the agendas of those funding your research....That's how all too much "science" is being done these days.

View attachment 384048

The scientific method has not changed. It is hard to experiment on the globe since we only have one subject and no control.

Correct, the scientific method has not changed. But climatologists ignore it because it interferes with their grant proposals.

Should this be in the Conspiracy room or do you have some back up?

Sure look up Trenberth declaring repeatability of his experiments isn't necessary.

Climate Scientist Kevin Trenberth, Distinguished Senior Scientist, National Center for Atmospheric Research has insisted that Climate Science does follow the scientific method.

No, he doesn't. he specifically has stated multiple times that repeatability doesn't apply to climatology. I agree. Climatology is a pseudo science, so the scientific method no longer applies. That is reserved for ACTUAL science.


As an aside he also demanded that climatology be exempted from the Null Hypothesis which is another foundational principle of the scientific method. He got laughed out of the room with that touch of absurdity.


“The proponents of reversing the null hypothesis should be careful of what they wish for,” concluded Curry. “One consequence may be that the scientific focus, and therefore funding, would also reverse to attempting to disprove dangerous anthropogenic climate change, which has been a position of many sceptics.”

“I doubt Trenberth’s suggestion will find much support in the scientific community,” said Professor Myles Allen from Oxford University, “but Curry’s counter proposal to abandon hypothesis tests is worse. We still have plenty of interesting hypotheses to test: did human influence on climate increase the risk of this event at all? Did it increase it by more than a factor of two?”

###

All three papers are free online:

Trenberth. K, “Attribution of climate variations and trends to human influences and natural variability”: Error - Cookies Turned Off

Curry. J, “Nullifying the climate null hypothesis”: Error - Cookies Turned Off

Allen. M, “In defense of the traditional null hypothesis: remarks on the Trenberth and Curry opinion articles”: Error - Cookies Turned Off

"repeatability doesn't apply to climatology"

There are plenty of sciences that don't depend on repeatability: archeology, astronomy, geology, and anthropology come to mind.

You are wrong in every case. I am a geologist. if an experiment isn't repeatable it isn't valid. Period. Full Stop. The same goes for astronomy, and anthro, and archeology. The fact that you made this claim shows how scientifically illiterate you truly are.

 

[alang1216]

There are plenty of sciences that don't depend on repeatability: archeology, astronomy, geology, and anthropology come to mind.

You are wrong in every case. I am a geologist. if an experiment isn't repeatable it isn't valid. Period. Full Stop. The same goes for astronomy, and anthro, and archeology. The fact that you made this claim shows how scientifically illiterate you truly are.

Fascinating. Then you can tell me what repeatable experiments were conducted that proved continental drift?

 

[ReinyDays]

You are wrong in every case. I am a geologist. if an experiment isn't repeatable it isn't valid. Period. Full Stop. The same goes for astronomy, and anthro, and archeology. The fact that you made this claim shows how scientifically illiterate you truly are.

Climatology is eminently repeatable ... the raw data and government-owned software is posted on-line ... crunch the numbers yourself ... you couldn't be much of a geologist if you don't know what "average" means ... you had to say that you're a geologist because absolutely nobody would have believe that if you didn't ...

But please ... explain to us why this paper isn't repeatable ...

 

[Turtlesoup]

This is what we get when "science" gets into the business of working rearward from the result that they want to get.

That is scientific method ... state your hypothesis which is what you want to find ... then do an experiment to demonstrate what you want to find ... so in your conclusions you can say what you want is what you found ... I'm not saying this is right or wrong, just that this is how it is ... and it's better than having to get Church approval ...

You have it wrong-------even when the experiment(s) don't prove your hypothesis, it is a good experiment. Process of elimination can be very useful.

 

[westwall]

There are plenty of sciences that don't depend on repeatability: archeology, astronomy, geology, and anthropology come to mind.

You are wrong in every case. I am a geologist. if an experiment isn't repeatable it isn't valid. Period. Full Stop. The same goes for astronomy, and anthro, and archeology. The fact that you made this claim shows how scientifically illiterate you truly are.

Fascinating. Then you can tell me what repeatable experiments were conducted that proved continental drift?

Sure, J Tuzo Wilson Predicted that transverse faults were what powered the drift. He then described in DETAIL how transverse faults would function, how they would be detected and what they would look like. You really are uneducated aren't you.

 

[westwall]

You are wrong in every case. I am a geologist. if an experiment isn't repeatable it isn't valid. Period. Full Stop. The same goes for astronomy, and anthro, and archeology. The fact that you made this claim shows how scientifically illiterate you truly are.

Climatology is eminently repeatable ... the raw data and government-owned software is posted on-line ... crunch the numbers yourself ... you couldn't be much of a geologist if you don't know what "average" means ... you had to say that you're a geologist because absolutely nobody would have believe that if you didn't ...

But please ... explain to us why this paper isn't repeatable ...

No Model used by the climatologists has ever been accurate. The raw data has been altered, falsified if you will, to conform to the failed climate models. You too seem to be woefully ignorant of science, and the scientific method. If climatology were repeatable you wouldn't have one of the leaders of the AGW movement claiming that the scientific method doesn't apply to them.

 

[ReinyDays]

You have it wrong-------even when the experiment(s) don't prove your hypothesis, it is a good experiment. Process of elimination can be very useful.

I agree ... and this points out one of the bigger problems with our current system ... experiments that don't prove the hypothesis tend to not be submitted for publication ... unsuccessful scientists don't get funded ...

How many people would immediately flush down the toilet the entire body of work by Issac Newton if they knew he studied alchemy? ..

 

[Confounding]

wholesale violations of the scientific method.

I wonder what a climate scientist would say to you if you told them they were doing climate science wrong.

 

[westwall]

You have it wrong-------even when the experiment(s) don't prove your hypothesis, it is a good experiment. Process of elimination can be very useful.

I agree ... and this points out one of the bigger problems with our current system ... experiments that don't prove the hypothesis tend to not be submitted for publication ... unsuccessful scientists don't get funded ...

How many people would immediately flush down the toilet the entire body of work by Issac Newton if they knew he studied alchemy? ..

None. It was a different time. Alchemy wasn't the proven pseudo science that it is now. And no, failed experiments are not "good" experiments. They are failures. However, if the experiment was well thought out, there can be discoveries made. Not by elimination, but by discovering something that happens that was unexpected.

 

[westwall]

wholesale violations of the scientific method.

I wonder what a climate scientist would say to you if you told them they were doing climate science wrong.

Frankly, I don't care. If they violate the scientific method they are nothing more than charlatans. Dr. Feynman says it far better than I ever could.... Listen carefully to what he says here. Especially the end.

 

[alang1216]

There are plenty of sciences that don't depend on repeatability: archeology, astronomy, geology, and anthropology come to mind.

You are wrong in every case. I am a geologist. if an experiment isn't repeatable it isn't valid. Period. Full Stop. The same goes for astronomy, and anthro, and archeology. The fact that you made this claim shows how scientifically illiterate you truly are.

Fascinating. Then you can tell me what repeatable experiments were conducted that proved continental drift?

Sure, J Tuzo Wilson Predicted that transverse faults were what powered the drift. He then described in DETAIL how transverse faults would function, how they would be detected and what they would look like. You really are uneducated aren't you.

Thanks for the educational attempt but I'm still confused. It sounds like Wilson observed the current state of the earth and developed a model of how the forces operated. I guess I don't see any experiments he carried out that I could repeat. What am I missing?

 

[westwall]

There are plenty of sciences that don't depend on repeatability: archeology, astronomy, geology, and anthropology come to mind.

You are wrong in every case. I am a geologist. if an experiment isn't repeatable it isn't valid. Period. Full Stop. The same goes for astronomy, and anthro, and archeology. The fact that you made this claim shows how scientifically illiterate you truly are.

Fascinating. Then you can tell me what repeatable experiments were conducted that proved continental drift?

Sure, J Tuzo Wilson Predicted that transverse faults were what powered the drift. He then described in DETAIL how transverse faults would function, how they would be detected and what they would look like. You really are uneducated aren't you.

Thanks for the educational attempt but I'm still confused. It sounds like Wilson observed the current state of the earth and developed a model of how the forces operated. I guess I don't see any experiments he carried out that I could repeat. What am I missing?

Watch the Feynman video I just posted for how the scientific method works.

 

[Confounding]

Frankly, I don't care. If they violate the scientific method they are nothing more than charlatans.

Maybe you're out of your depth here.

 

[westwall]

Frankly, I don't care. If they violate the scientific method they are nothing more than charlatans.

Maybe you're out of your depth here.

No, I have a PhD from Caltech. Science matters. The abuse and falsification of science should be a crime. Put another way, the climatologists like to claim that like the High priests of old, only they understand what they are talking about. However, a PhD climatologist is only qualified to teach up to about third year geology classes. That's it. Once you get to fourth year, and forget graduate level courses, they are completely out of their depth. On th other hand i am qualified to teach ANY climatology course that exists on the planet.

 

[Confounding]

No, I have a PhD from Caltech. Science matters. The abuse and falsification of science should be a crime. Put another way, the climatologists like to claim that like the High priests of old, only they understand what they are talking about. However, a PhD climatologist is only qualified to teach up to about third year geology classes. That's it. Once you get to fourth year, and forget graduate level courses, they are completely out of their depth. On th other hand i am qualified to teach ANY climatology course that exists on the planet.

I don't think that qualifies you to contend with the findings of leading scientists. When is the last time you published relevant work?

 

[ReinyDays]

No Model used by the climatologists has ever been accurate. The raw data has been altered, falsified if you will, to conform to the failed climate models. You too seem to be woefully ignorant of science, and the scientific method. If climatology were repeatable you wouldn't have one of the leaders of the AGW movement claiming that the scientific method doesn't apply to them.

Your argument was these studies aren't repeatable ... are you saying the distribution curves aren't accurate? ... apparently you don't know much about computational fluid mechanics ... which is very very strange coming from a geologist ...

We're in CT land if you think the raw data has been tampered with ... show me where this has occurred ... remember, the IPCC reports are not scientific papers and have not passed through the peer-review process ... they are not "scientific literature" ... just the UN's opinion ...

one of the leaders of the AGW movement claiming

Haw haw haw haw ... a leader of the politics of AGW ... sorry, the science is still led by George Stokes ... you're a geologist, you should know this ...

 

[westwall]

No, I have a PhD from Caltech. Science matters. The abuse and falsification of science should be a crime. Put another way, the climatologists like to claim that like the High priests of old, only they understand what they are talking about. However, a PhD climatologist is only qualified to teach up to about third year geology classes. That's it. Once you get to fourth year, and forget graduate level courses, they are completely out of their depth. On th other hand i am qualified to teach ANY climatology course that exists on the planet.

I don't think that qualifies you to contend with the findings of leading scientists. When is the last time you published relevant work?

It absolutely does. ANY scientist can review my work, and if it is found to be wrong, call me out on it. That is the PURPOSE of the scientific method. I have been retired for 20 years. That doesn't suddenly make me non current. I review papers all of the time, and I am constantly keeping up on the various scientific subjects that interest me. Anyone who makes your claim is anti scientific. They refuse to let other review their work because they KNOW it is crap. That is the ONLY reason to refuse to share your work.

 

[Confounding]

I have been retired for 20 years. That doesn't suddenly make me non current.

It kinda does. If you have something that legitimately throws things into question then you should get off this forum and go be famous.