Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

The Problem With Science: It's Not Credible

cinepro

By cinepro
in General Discussions

Recommended Posts

thesometimesaint Grand Master

thesometimesaint

Posted
Posted

So you don't want me to read or watch your links and videos to amateurs and bloggers that misrepresent or cherry pick the data?  Well, I have already committed to you that I won't watch any more of your videos, so why do you keep pushing them on us if you don't want us to watch them?

 

Considering that 99.9% of your arguments come from amateurs and bloggers, I have no doubt that  99.9% of what you read is coming from the sources that you are asking us not to read. 

 

Then go to the scientists.

 

AAAS on Global Warming.

SEE http://whatweknow.aaas.org/get-the-facts

 

NAS on Global Warming

SEE http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/

 

Woods Hole Institute on Global Warming

SEE http://www.whoi.edu/main/topic/global-warming

 

NASA on Global Warming

SEE http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

 

Scepticalscience

SEE http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

 

NOAA on Global Warming

SEE http://cpo.noaa.gov/warmingworld/

 

List of scientific organization that accept global warming

SEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

pogi Grand Master

pogi

Posted
Posted (edited)

Then go to the scientists.

 

AAAS on Global Warming.

SEE http://whatweknow.aaas.org/get-the-facts

 

NAS on Global Warming

SEE http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/

 

Woods Hole Institute on Global Warming

SEE http://www.whoi.edu/main/topic/global-warming

 

NASA on Global Warming

SEE http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

 

Scepticalscience

SEE http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

 

NOAA on Global Warming

SEE http://cpo.noaa.gov/warmingworld/

 

List of scientific organization that accept global warming

SEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

 

 

Ummmm, where's the scientific literature?   Show me the scientific literature that states that 2014 was the hottest year on record.  Show me the falsifiable methods (scientific method) used in the literature to determine the future climate of the world.  How is it falsifiable?

Edited by pogi
ERayR Grand Master

ERayR

Posted
Posted

Which advice was a total waste of time. "Listen to the experts"

Brilliant. I am so glad I watched a video telling me to listen to the experts.

You owe me 5 minutes of my life back.

 

Definition of an expert:

 

ex = has been

 

(s)pert = big drip under pressure.

pogi Grand Master

pogi

Posted
Posted

 

You don't have to, but the video in post 868 cites scientific papers, and you can verity the info yourself. The video in post 868 was made by a geologist. 

 

 

Really? Here is a small sample 

 

 

Isolated research which does not take in the big picture.  No falsifiable evidence that the globe will continue to warm to life-threatening levels and that it is caused by man. 

1
ERayR Grand Master

ERayR

Posted
Posted

read the scientific literature, not stuff from amateurs or bloggers that misrepresent or cherry pick the data. Why? because "We live in remarkable times. Miraculous advances in medicine, science, and technology have improved the quality of life for many. Yet there is also evidence of great human suffering and distress. In addition to wars and rumors of wars, an increase in natural disasters—including floods, fires, earthquakes, and disease—is impacting the lives of millions worldwide...Caring for the poor and needy is a fundamental gospel doctrine and an essential element in the eternal plan of salvation." - Oct 2014 General Conference 

 

So now anybody who disagrees with GW is not a good church member?  First we are too stupid to understand and now you call our faithfulness into question.

ERayR Grand Master

ERayR

Posted
Posted

Well, there is a 62% chance that all MFT has done is read bloggers and amateurs. So I ask this, is it more probable or less probable that he has gone to the experts?

 

Let me see.  that is a tough one.  Oh what am I to do. The sky is falling.

TheSkepticChristian Veteran

TheSkepticChristian

Posted
Posted (edited)

Isolated research which does not take in the big picture.  No falsifiable evidence that the globe will continue to warm to life-threatening levels and that it is caused by man. 

 

 

Ummmm, where's the scientific literature?   Show me the scientific literature that states that 2014 was the hottest year on record.  Show me the falsifiable methods (scientific method) used in the literature to determine the future climate of the world.  How is it falsifiable?

 

2014 is certainly one of the top 4 hottest years on record, 2010 is certainly one of the top 4 too. 

Edited by TheSkepticChristian
pogi Grand Master

pogi

Posted
Posted (edited)

 

 

 

 

2014 is certainly one of the top 4 hottest years on record, 2010 is certainly one of the top 4 too. 

 

 

Wrong.  2014 is only certainly (as in 100%) one of the 20 warmest years on record from 1880.

 

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/13/supplemental/page-1

 

Note that this link admits that 2014 is "more unlikely than likely" the hottest year on record.  Why wasn't that included in their "2014 was the hottest year on record" press release?

 

More literature on isolated regions that show no falsifiable scientific studies to demonstrate man-made global warming: Muscles in California, infrastructure in Australia, fresh water in western North America, water shortage in Crete, penguins in Antartica, etc. etc.  

Edited by pogi
TheSkepticChristian Veteran

TheSkepticChristian

Posted
Posted (edited)

Wrong.  2014 is only certainly (as in 100%) one of the 20 warmest years on record from 1880.

 

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/13/supplemental/page-1

 

 

Your link says, 

Taking into account the uncertainty and assuming all years (1880-2014) in the time series are independent, the chance of 2014 being

  • Warmest year on record: 48.0%
  • One of the five warmest years: 90.4%
  • One of the 10 warmest years: 99.2%
  • One of the 20 warmest years: 100.0%
  • Warmer than the 20th century average: 100.0%
  • Warmer than the 1981-2010 average: 100.0%

 

So it means that other years together are less than 1 percent; So it means that 2014, 2010, 2005 are almost 100%

Edited by TheSkepticChristian
pogi Grand Master

pogi

Posted
Posted

[*]Warmest year on record: 48.0%

[*]One of the five warmest years: 90.4%

[*]One of the 10 warmest years: 99.2%

[*]One of the 20 warmest years: 100.0%

[*]Warmer than the 20th century average: 100.0%

[*]Warmer than the 1981-2010 average: 100.0%

So it means that other years together are less than 1 percent; So it means that 2014, 2010, 2005 are almost 100%

Take a second look and try again

TheSkepticChristian Veteran

TheSkepticChristian

Posted
Posted (edited)

Take a second look and try again

 

Yes,  2014 ( 48.0%) out of 2010, 2005, 2013, 1998. Other years are insignificant. 

It is hard to get 100% certainty on anything in science, so your argument is not relevant. 

A scientific 90% (and above) is 100% for general public

 

 

 

 

Taking into account the uncertainty and assuming all years (1880-2014) in the time series are independent, the chance of 2014 being

  • Warmest year on record: 48.0%
  • One of the five warmest years: 90.4%
  • One of the 10 warmest years: 99.2%
  • One of the 20 warmest years: 100.0%
  • Warmer than the 20th century average: 100.0%
  • Warmer than the 1981-2010 average: 100.0%

 

RankingProb.png

Edited by TheSkepticChristian
pogi Grand Master

pogi

Posted
Posted (edited)

 

  • One of the five warmest years: 90.4%

So it means that other years together are less than 1 percent; So it means that 2014, 2010, 2005 are almost 100%

 

 

Want to take another shot?  Here, let me narrow it down for you.

 

 It says the chances of being one of the 5 warmest years is 90.4%, not the 3 warmest years.  That would probably be in the 60 percentile if you were to calculate the 3 warmest years.  

 

Yes,  2014 ( 48.0%) out of 2010, 2005, 2013, 1998. Other years are insignificant. 

It is hard to get 100% certainty on anything in science, so your argument is not relevant. 

A scientific 90% (and above) is 100% for general public

 

Wrong it is 48% probability that it was the warmest year in RECORDED HISTORY from 1880.  They listed those other years for reference and comparison only.  

 

90% is 100% for the general public?  Is that what they are teaching in school these days?  If you were to believe the headlines that NASA and NOAA told the media, you would also think that 38% is 100% for the general public.  Get real!

 

Even if 2014 was indeed the warmest year from 1880, so what?  There have been lots and lots of warmest years over a 150 year time period, so what?  What would be significant if it was the warmest year in the past 600 million years.  Of course the probability of that will be near 0% when you have to account for all the years back that far and not just the last 150 years, but they don't tell you that do they.  They take small snippets of time and make huge headlines out of improbable data without putting it in context of history.  That is so wrong!  

 

The significant point is that 38-48% probability is really really low.  If their probability of being right is that low with all of the data right before their eyes, the probability of being right in predicting future unseen data drops to around 0%.  The other significant fact is that the scientists are clearly misleading America, having us believe that 38% is near 100% by stating factually that "2014 was the hottest year in recorded history" when clearly that statement is more unlikely than likely true, but they were getting desperate to spark an interest in global warming after the stall in warming for almost two decades.  Desperate and dishonest, that's what they are. 

Edited by pogi
mfbukowski Grand Master

mfbukowski

Posted
Posted (edited)

So you don't want me to read or watch your links and videos to amateurs and bloggers that misrepresent or cherry pick the data? Well, I have already committed to you that I won't watch any more of your videos, so why do you keep pushing them on us if you don't want us to watch them?

Considering that 99.9% of your arguments come from amateurs and bloggers, I have no doubt that 99.9% of what you read is coming from the sources that you are asking us not to read.

Dang it.

You beat me to it!Every one of his posts are in the category he does not want us to read, sine he himself is an amateur and a blogger.

I hereby grant him his wish.

Tick tick tick.

Edited by mfbukowski
2
TheSkepticChristian Veteran

TheSkepticChristian

Posted
Posted (edited)

Want to take another shot?  Here, let me narrow it down for you.

 

 It says the chances of being one of the 5 warmest years is 90.4%, not the 3 warmest years.  That would probably be in the 60 percentile if you were to calculate the 3 warmest years.  

 

 

I said one of the top four according to NASA. 90% for being one of the top 5 is pretty high. 

Still, that does not help your so called pause

 

 

90% is 100% for the general public?  Is that what they are teaching in school these days? 

 

Medical doctors are not 100% certain when they say something, but they have to sound 100% certain when they are talking to their patients. 

Scientists are too skeptical, they do not like 100%, even if it is obvious 

 

You beat me to it!Every one of his posts are in the category he does not want us to read, sine he himself is an amateur and a blogger.

 

I just cited the scientific literature. 

Edited by TheSkepticChristian
thesometimesaint Grand Master

thesometimesaint

Posted
Posted

Ummmm, where's the scientific literature?   Show me the scientific literature that states that 2014 was the hottest year on record.  Show me the falsifiable methods (scientific method) used in the literature to determine the future climate of the world.  How is it falsifiable?

 

SEE http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/2014-officially-hottest-year-on-record/

 

Just show that CO2 doesn't trap heat.

 

If average global temperatures steadily decline. 

pogi Grand Master

pogi

Posted
Posted (edited)
Still, that does not help your so called pause

 

 

I have said all along that there has been a pause from 1998.  This data demonstrates that warming over that time period is more unlikely than likely.  The only thing they can say with confidence is that the 5 hottest years are from 1998 to 2014.  It is still more unlikely than likely that 2014 was the hottest year.  In other words, from 1998 to 2014 there has been no appreciable warming to give scientists a high degree of confidence that there is not a pause.  There is only a 34% chance (translation - more unlikely than likely) that 2014 was warmer than 1998 according to the numbers NASA gave, and only a 21% chance that it was warmer than 2005 (Of course that requires some "complex" subtraction skills to figure out).  That is not a high degree of confidence that there is warming by any standard!   However you try to spin it, it is still more unlikely than likely that 2014 was the warmest year, and more unlikely than likely that there has been any warming with those probabilities.  If you are representative of the general public MFT, maybe you are right about their math comprehension level - This is FAR too complex!

 

Medical doctors are not 100% certain when they say something, but they have to sound 100% certain when they are talking to their patients. 

Scientists are too skeptical, they do not like 100%, even if it is obvious 

 

You forget that I am an RN and can see right through your bluff.  Medical doctors NEVER try to sound 100% certain when talking to their patients.  I have explained this to you before, remember?  They are specifically trained not to, and so are RN's.  It is unethical to give a patient false hope.  If there is only a 38% chance of survival, they certainly are not going to tell their patients "guess what, you are going to survive!", but that is essentially what NASA and NOAA did - that was completely unethical.   If MD's know that there is a 10% chance that a patient might not survive surgery, they are going to be upfront with their patient regarding their odds of survival, that is the ethical thing to do.  They are required by law to be upfront with their patients regarding the risks.  If scientists and doctors want to gamble, they need to do it with their own lives and livelihood, but they need to be upfront with us about the odds if it affects us. 

 

I just cited the scientific literature. 

 

And I just rebutted it as being regional and not global data. 

Edited by pogi
3
pogi Grand Master

pogi

Posted
Posted (edited)

SEE http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/2014-officially-hottest-year-on-record/

 

Just show that CO2 doesn't trap heat.

 

If average global temperatures steadily decline. 

 

A news release is not scientific literature.  Remember how NASA and NOAA were not upfront with the media?  I don't trust the media to get it right, and I am now losing confidence in scientists to be upfront.  Show me the scientific literature, not the news release. 

Edited by pogi
ERayR Grand Master

ERayR

Posted
Posted

 

In case you missed it.  (follow the link)

 

I tried, I really tried , but then I came upon this interesting article. Please note that the author is not just a blogger.

http://theconversation.com/wheres-the-proof-in-science-there-is-none-30570

And just a reminder to Zakuska and others; record high temps = climate change

record low temps = climate change

win-win strikes again !

thesometimesaint Grand Master

thesometimesaint

Posted
Posted

The effect of adding man-made CO2 is predicted in the theory of greenhouse gases. This theory was first proposed by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius in 1896, based on earlier work by Fourier and Tyndall. Many scientist have refined the theory in the last century. Nearly all have reached the same conclusion: if we increase the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the Earth will warm up

thesometimesaint Grand Master

thesometimesaint

Posted
Posted

In case you missed it.  (follow the link)

 

That is why I don't speak of "Proof" but of evidence. IE; For thousands of years the evidence was that of a geocentric universe of 5 planets, wandering stars, and fixed stars in the firmament. Galileo had other ideas. 

ERayR Grand Master

ERayR

Posted
Posted

That is why I don't speak of "Proof" but of evidence. IE; For thousands of years the evidence was that of a geocentric universe of 5 planets, wandering stars, and fixed stars in the firmament. Galileo had other ideas. 

 

And has Pogi has pointed out the evidence for man caused GW is less than stellar.

3
pogi Grand Master

pogi

Posted
Posted (edited)

That is why I don't speak of "Proof" but of evidence. IE; For thousands of years the evidence was that of a geocentric universe of 5 planets, wandering stars, and fixed stars in the firmament. Galileo had other ideas. 

 

OK, lets talk about evidence. The evidence that the globe has been warming for the past two decades has a very low probability.  Now what?

Edited by pogi
1
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...