I cite experts from the vast majority. The vast majority state that Earth is warming and that humans are the primary cause. If the vast majority stated something else, then that would need to be given credence. This board is not set up to allow for attempts to disprove the vast majority of experts in the field - no matter how smart you or anyone else might be. You can make claims, but with no representation from the vast majority of experts it really doesn't make ANY difference.
No, you cherry pick things and generally do not actually reference anything. Generally just repeating the same things over and over again, like some religious fanatic reciting a prayer. You see, this is why I find your "arguments" so damned funny. Because you come across like one of the loony "Young Earth Creationists" that infest many of the Geology and Anthropology threads in here. You cherry pick the hell out of your references, most times do not even say who they are, and babble on about how critical that it is we believe somebody else. That really is the exact same argument, you know? It is all based upon faith, and nothing else. "Minister XXXX and the Bible says this, so it must be true! All others must be burned at the steak as heretics!" "The majority of scientists (that I agree with) say this is the absolute truth! So stop thinking and do what they tell you!" It really is the exact same thing. Which is what brings us full-circle to the very reason why this thread was created. You are anti-science. Almost all of your "arguments" are obviously from that side of belief, as you almost never cite anything and just scream we must "believe" what you say. And you fit in perfectly well with the one that said that "Newton's theories were superseded and nobody follows them. That some philosopher (bullshit artist) says that science should be without rules, therefore there are no rules! And the amazing thing is, you actually try to support that bullshit! That also condemns you as really being anti-science. You scream over and over that we have to believe that the majority of "scientists" believe something, therefore it must be true! You know, sounds a lot to me like an inquisition. And your behavior to any like me that do not fawningly accept what you are shoveling shows that it is all based on belief and fanaticism, and not actual science. No, I said before and will say it again, all you inflict upon us over and over again is nothing but your beliefs. We can discuss a ton of things that apparently go right over your head and mean nothing, as you simply ignore them. You scream your beliefs all the time, but what you lack is actual science and understanding of the scientific principal. The fact that you scream over and over again that they are 100% perfect and never wrong screams that you are coming from the side of a religious mania. And I find trying to discuss anything with the likes of you as pointless as trying to discuss actual hard science with a "Young Earth Creationist", that believes the planet is only 6,000 years old, and dinosaurs walked with humans. The funny thing is, I frequently destroy them also, and they also still believe what they want. Just like in other threads here I have busted gravity batteries, solid hydrogen, and so many others over the years. One not long ago was going on and on about an asteroid causing the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Simply posting some nutcase theory from a questionable source as "fact". But here is the thing, it also had in it two complete contradictions. That the asteroid was a high air-burst, which is why there was no crater left on the scene. But that they had proof, because of the presence of shocked quartz. And here is the thing, because of my background in geology, I know that is not possible. Because a high airburst that would leave no crater, also would leave no shocked quartz. Of course, I am sure most completely missed that contradiction in the article and claim, as they know about as much about shocked quartz as they do anything else past Junior High science. And I saw how completely off the rails you are in a thread about two years ago. Where one of our braniacs made a claim that farms are creating pandemics. And that it would be best if it killed all Republicans. And you jumped in on a rant about President Trump. What in the hell did those political rants have to do about science? Not a freaking thing, because you do not really understand science. Unless it just happens to follow with some of your beliefs, then you jump in with both feet and your eyes closed, not even thinking about it. And you see, I reject political screams in science threads just as much as I do religious ones. It is meaningless, pointless, and not applicable. The very fact you bring it up over and over screams that the science means nothing to you, unless it intersects your beliefs.
no people who are falling for the alarmist crap are In a religion. They are the ones denying science. No it's just logic. no that's what believers do a skeptic is the opposite of a believer
This coming from somebody so illiterate in science that called a solar eclipse a "solar system phenomenon". Then did not even say a thing when I corrected you. You see, this is the largest difference between us. I admitted quite a while back I made a mistake, and quite openly said so, and apologized for it to you. Like you do most other things, you ignore anything that is not 100% in agreement with what you say, and will never comment when you are proven to be wrong. Would it have been so freaking hard to say "Yes, Einstein was proved by a Lunar-Solar Eclipse and as such only affects the Earth. My bad." But no, you absolutely ignore it as admitting such would have shown you are not perfect. And as part of "fanatical belief", you have to be 100% correct and perfect. Myself, I do not have that problem, and quite frequently admit when I am wrong or make a mistake. Like if you go into the oldest of threads here you might find one where I scoffed at the idea of Neanderthal breeding with Homo Sapiens. Of course, that was based on what was known at that time, and much speculation was on the fact that they were so different genetically that no children were possible (no more than a human and chimp, even though they share 99% of the same genome). And any children born of such a pair might even be sterile. However, later through DNA sequencing that was proven wrong, and I recanted that. A great example of where I was believing what scientists of the time of my post believed, and was later proven wrong. In fact, technically those from "Africa" are the closest to "true Homo Sapiens" as they have the least amount of Neanderthal DNA in their genome. Unlike those of Caucasian and Mongoloid descent, which have a lot of other genomes mixed in. Including Neanderthal and Denisovan among others. But here is he thing, you do the opposite. Your belief is so fanatical that you can absolutely never be "wrong". You will stick with anything you believe is absolute truth. And that is not "science", that is close to religious fanaticism. You just pretend it is "science".
And it's funny, once again you completely miss a major part of my post. Care to explain why farms create pandemics? And what a long running diatribe about President Trump had to do with that at all? You already in your posts made huge claims that show your beliefs are based on politics. Care to explain what in the hell President Trump has to do with the stupid belief that farms create pandemics, and that President Trump had anything to do with it? Because surely somebody as brilliant as you can give us lots of "proof" to show how you were right.
At the same time as Einstein's relativity predicted that eclipse, physicists were creating quantum mechanics. Today one of the larger problems in physics is that quantum mechanics and Einstein gravity have great credence, but don't work well together. We know there are problems with some of our most fundamental theories. I see this as an example of the difficulty in stating that a theory has been proven. Newton made significant advances in his theory of time and motion. It really looked solid. But, as time progressed scientists learned the problems with that, finally leading to relativity. We need to have the humility to recognize that we're in a similar state. It's not like math, where theorems can be proven, because in the natural world we don't have the complete knowledge that proofs depend on.
I'm not really sure how to reply to this. My interest in creating this thread was to discuss the meaning of what I believe to be science versus what other people here believe it to be. You obviously seem to have a different belief about what science is than what I believe it to be, but you have declined to describe not only just what exactly that is, but what it is to just about any extent at all. Therefore I have been left with combing through some of your statements here to try and see if I could find a few points that seem to support my opinion that your science is not my science: No reply to that post. Why is that? Well, you've made it clear haven't you? Yet you actually manage to put forth a bit of effort when you believe you have found a gotcha in my assertion that climate is not predictable according to what my science teaches me to believe about its ability to predict the future state of any chaotic system. No problem. Like I've been saying, my science is not your science. My science refutes the ability of every single other scientist on Earth that claims to be able to predict the weather or the climate decades from now. That's what my science does for me. My science refutes the ability of anyone to ever construct a perpetual motion machine too. That's another thing my science does for me. I don't even need my science to ask what I consider to be a straight-forward and highly relevant question: if the UN and the IPCC believes this is such a threat to the planet then why do they not fund working groups to develop alternative energy sources? *** I've pointed out that my science doesn't exist without math. I'm not that great at it in practice, but I understand some fairly fancy concepts about differential equations and how they are used to model physical systems. I am pretty savvy with a spreadsheet though. In fact it's probably my only real skill, hahaha..... If you were actually interested in discussing the topic of this thread then I think I'd enjoy this conversation more, however, I'll proceed anyway knowing that others may be interested in reading this, or not, either way, I like the exercise of developing my position and I wouldn't mind it a bit to have it destroyed. Unfortunately it's going to take a lot more than references from you to Big Oil and, I'm not sure, I think this is the first time now I've seen you assert that Darpa had proof of AGW as well. Anyway, let's suppose that someone cares to make an argument that even though climate is a non-predictable chaotic system, its average annual global temperature is subject to prediction. It's 2022 and what are the results of these predictions? How well has the average annual global temperature matched up with the predictions? I'll eat a crow sandwich when you show me that the models have this nailed down. *** Let's look at another system that I mentioned previously as having the same mathematical character which makes it impossible to predict: the stock market. You may be familiar with the simple heuristic that on average the stock market can be depended upon to return 7% over every sliding window of investment activity that spans 20 years. If this is true then I accept that there is a key parameter of this dynamic and chaotic system that is actually predictable. So I decided to test this with this data source: https://www.macrotrends.net/1319/dow-jones-100-year-historical-chart Now, this isn't the best data source since it doesn't actually publish the value of the DJI index, only its YoY change on Dec First. Ideally, I'll need to verify this data with at least a couple of other sources. However, I have been able to take this data and run a series of 20 year investments to test the validity of the 7% rule. According to this data and the method I used to run the test, the DJI does not in fact return a dependable 7% over every 20 year sliding window from 1915 to 2002. Supposing that one were to invest 1 dollar a year for 20 years in a basket of stocks that followed the behaviour reported by the returns in the macrotrends data then some 20 year windows return better than 7% and some return less. The average return for the 88 years of sliding 20 year windows is 108% and the ln of this is 7.75%. This is pretty close to matching the heuristic using the formula for continuously compounded interest. But it is a misuse of the formula and if this is the basis for the heuristic then the heuristic is bunk. What's interesting about what my science reveals about this heuristic is that this lumped average return is super sensitive to the length of the window. On either side of the twenty year span it varies from -1.8% at 19 years to 16% at 21 years going by the misapplication of the continuously compounded interest formula to the 20 year window returns averaged over 88 years of windows. The basis for the continuously compounded interest formula, Pt = Po * e ^ rt, is putting in Po at year zero and then the equivalent annual rate of return after t years is ln(Pt/Po)/t. This formula doesn't work for investing a dollar a year over 20 years, but a closer use to its application is to take the final value of an investment series like I've described, divide it by the total $20 invested as though that were all put in at year 1, take the ln of that ratio and divide that by 20 years. This results in showing that the DJI on average is 3% a year for a 20y period taken over 88 20y spans. Looks to me a bit like it might be nothing more than the basis of an inflation index. Anyhoo, seems to me that there isn't any such thing as a 7% guaranteed return from the stock market. It's just as much bullshit as your guaranteed x % increase in the global average temperature: not predictable.
I don't understand the very idea of having "your science" and "my science". We have a gigantic body of scientists working around the world, following the same precepts. Claiming they don't know science is preposterous. I think it's clear that we have THEIR science, and we have pretend science.
Well, I am pretty sure you did not either. You tried to go on about "preparedness". Warning systems to detect them. Building up resilience to pandemics. "Remedial action" and a bunch of other nonsense. Pretty much all quasi-quack new-age nonsense. That is all typically stuff spun either to make people feel better, or somebody with something to sell. Replace "pandemic" with "gunshot" in each of your claims, and realize how silly they sound. You can't predict a virus. You can't build up resilience to pandemics. And how "weak" the virus is has nothing to do with a pandemic. An outbreak becomes a pandemic when the virus is highly virulent. In other words, it spreads incredibly fast. In truth, COVID was no more deadly than the "Common Flu". The same as the Spanish Flu a century before. But the sucker spread like crazy, with some estimates now believing that as much as 90% of the US population got infected by it. That causes an exponential death rate in relation to the numbers infected. In other words, COVID was not deadly because it was a "deadly virus", it was deadly simply because it spread to so damned many people. Far more than any other virus in recent history. Once again, you fail to understand basic science concepts. But that's OK, I remained out of that thread because nobody in it was discussing things in a scientific manner. As were most threads in here based on COVID. I can always tell when a discussion of a virus is involving serious science if people discuss things like vectors and asymptomatic carriers.
You are failing to read my posts. You are CONTINUALLY claiming I've said stuff that I have not said - which is a board violation. You dodge by switching topics. I'm tired of your total BS.
Wrong. But please, feel free to report me. And meanwhile, I am going to sit back and laugh once again. As I know you will not retract yet another claim that I made up quotes you said. You know, this is getting really freaking old. You make a claim or statement, I repeat it, then at some future date you claim you never said it. It is so freaking predictable, and you then rant and rave, and never apologize for your accusation when I show that you are wrong, and you did indeed say that. Now I am going to sit back yet again, and listen to the silence as you try and explain how you did not say what I said you did.
Wait, no apology for screaming that I posted something you did not say? Gee, why am I not surprised. You scream (once again) that you did not say something. I freaking quote it right back to you and highlight where you did in fact say that. And once again, you ignore that. Now please tell me how what I posted was BS? Why are you incapable of retracting anything, ever? You make outright false claims you can not back up, then scream at others that actually back up their claims with actual proof. Some even going back well over 100 years. As I said, you simply reject anything you do not like and call it "BS". And I meanwhile continue to laugh at your silly actions. Can you not even admit you were wrong, and did indeed say what I claimed? Because you did, the quote above is proof that you did indeed say exactly what I said you did.
You make claims. You make up stuff you claim I said, but didn't say. You spout ad hom. But, you don't cite anything and you discount that vast number of experts who believe you are full of crap. So, please stop posting. I'm not interested.
So you are saying my last quote of yours was a lie and I made it up? That you did not actually say that? You are absolutely unbelievable.
Then go back where you said I misquoted you, and had you say things you did not. For ease of reading, I even highlighted exactly what you said. Prove to me I misquoted you. Then file a complaint, fiving the administrators a reference to your original post so they can tell us all if I misquoted you or not. As usual, you respond to nothing. But I do notice more and more you are simply attacking me constantly. Why? Because you can't prove that there is less rain in the Western US? That you can't prove that mass transit is just as efficient in low density population centers that in high density population centers? I can go on and on, but I know it is pointless. You will never respond to any claim you make, and never provide a reference. And when provided 20 references by real experts or actual meteorological records, you will ignore it, say no reference was ever made, and still insist you gave references and that you are right. And in case you missed it the last dozen or so times I posted it, I will say this yet again. I am not actually even trying to debate with you. I know it is an absolutely lost cause. All I am doing is poking huge gaping holes in your claims, then laughing as you squirm and try to claim you are right, even as all the evidence piles up that says the opposite. But funny, you say I "do not respond to a post", where your claim is that I misrepresented you. Where I had even quoted your post from earlier, and bolded the parts I quoted. But that was not responding? *laugh*
No. I'm absolutely NOT interested in sorting through your posts. I'd like you to please stop posting me. I do not believe it will lead to anything more than more ad hom and crap I did NOT say.
Then prove I quoted you wrongly, when I included your own damned post! If you did not say it, then report me. Go ahead, report me for misquoting you when in fact I did not, and quoted your original post. Here, this is what the definition says about what you claim I do: Funny, that seems much more to me what you are doing, not me. Accusing me of lying, accusing me of making up quotes you did not say. Me, I am challenging you over and over again based exactly on what you say. That there is less water in California, that mass transit efficiency does not rely upon population density, and a ton of other things I challenge you over and over to provide references for. That is not attacking you, that is most definitely challenging your actual position. You are the one that ignores such, and instead attacks me. Hell, I can go back and quote you again the dozens of times I have challenged you to provide references, and the times you outright ignored me and instead attacked me screaming I misquote you. I can even quote my references, which you incorrectly say I did not give. Now, can you stop this silliness and actually discuss the topics. Or are you just going to insist you are right with no references, and accuse me of things I do not do? My position has long been (and backed up by over 150 years of data) that the amount of rain in California has not decreased. You insist it has, but for some reason are not able to provide any proof that it has. As I have been doing, I am challenging you to provide proof, even though I did so showing that it has not. You have provided, nothing. Give us your proof. How exactly is this "ad hominem"?
Amen. But, we do affect our surroundings on this Earth, our environment. We don't control how nature responds to the changes we make. However, we CAN meaningfully predict how nature will respond.
The funniest thing I get from this is that most have no real understanding of what "science" is. To them, it is much more akin to religion. Somebody tells them something, and they believe it. Just this morning on the radio, I listened to a show where they were talking in great alarm at the "shrinking of the Great Salt Lake". And screaming that it is because of "Global Warming". Talking about how it is shrinking, and it needs to be saved now. The problem is, they discussed nothing of the history of the lake. Or the hydrology of it. For example, it takes in about 2.9 million acre feet of water per year, and over 2.2 million tons of salt each year. That it is a "Terminal Lake", which has no outlet. That like many paleolakes, it is the remnants of a once massive lake. As in literally massive, over 20,000 square miles and covering much of Utah, and extending into Idaho and Nevada. And that about 14 kya, it broke through at Red Rock Pass, and scrubbed most of the Snake River clean of topsoil, leaving scablands most of the way through Southern Idaho and huge areas of Washington in a flood that lasted it is believed from 1-3 months. In a flood of almost a million cubic meters per second. To put that into a modern perspective, that is almost five times the discharge of the Amazon. Over 90 times the outflow of the Mississippi. And most of that was ultimately caused by it is believed a volcano a century or more before on the Bear River, where it was believed that a lot of the original water once exited down the Portneuf Rivers to the Snake. But the diversion of the Bear caused all of the Bear River outflow to go to Lake Bonneville, until it overtopped at Red Rock Canyon. Since that flood ended around 14,000 years ago, the lake has been dying. Like the Dead Sea, like Lake Manly did, as Mono Lake is. Even like the Salton Sea (which they brought up, which is really funny as that is not even a "real lake", it was created by accident).Nothing can stop it, that is simply how it is. And to me, trying to demand that "The Great Salt Lake not die", is about as useful as screaming at clouds. That process started well over 1,000 before the oldest evidence of human habitation at Jericho. I so wish that they had bothered to just take the time to do some actual research, instead of just reading an opinion piece from the New York Times. Where they completely missed that the lake started dying well over 14,000 years ago, when a volcanic flow killed the only outlet of the original lake, and started it on the course of drying up. Here is some "real science" for any that are interested in learning about what "The Great Salt Lake" was like, when it was part of one of the largest lakes in the country. And the event and flood that ultimately killed that lake, and only left the small remnant puddle that is drying out today.
