Popular Science Comments Closed Forever

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Post Reply
Schneibster
Posts: 1805
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 5:21 am
Location: Monterey, CA, USA

Re: Popular Science Comments Closed Forever

Post by Schneibster »

rj40 wrote:Schneib-meister,

Do you ever work with kids and young folks about AGW? I don't think you can change most people's minds here (including mine, but then again, for a variety of reasons, I think AGW is real, so you probably don't want to change my mind - or the effect it has on how I vote and where I donate my money and time); but can you recommend any books or even websites appropriate for kids? Who is that guy that said, "get'em while they're young and ya' got'em for life!? Arrre me hearties!" Ok, that pirate part isn't part of the phrase, but it seems to fit.
I'm actually pretty pleased with the NOAA and NASA. One of their problems, however, is they handle the extremely technical, and the extremely young, very well, but when you get to young adults you need both interest on their parts and accurate information in detail. The second is trivial; the first is priceless.

Kindergarteners cannot understand the principles behind global warming. Neither can mentalities that attain no more calculating power than such children, and these make up nearly half of the population.
We need a directorate of science, and we need it to be voted on only by scientists. You don't get to vote on reality. Get over it. Elected officials that deny the findings of the Science Directorate are subject to immediate impeachment for incompetence.

Stubby
Posts: 877
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2012 4:05 pm

Re: Popular Science Comments Closed Forever

Post by Stubby »

Diogenes wrote:
Stubby wrote:14000 to 26

:P (yes i know it is not a ratio of people but of papers)

Still pretty long odds that his interpretation of the data is more correct than the hundreds (or is it thousands) of similarly qualified scientists who think he is wrong.

At what ratio would of pro/con would you folks need in order to entertain the possibility that climate change/global warming is happening?
140 000 to 26?
1 400 000 to 26?
14 000 000 to 26?

any higher than that and you might as well start believing in Rossi ffs.




No ratio of people's opinions is acceptable evidence of anything to me. The idea that opinions have any evidentiary value is nonsense. This is a fallacy so old it has a Latin name; "Argumentum ad populum."

That is as it should be. Argument without falsifiable evidence is pretty useless.
But we are not talking about opinions here. Why would you think that 14 000 peer reviewed, published, scientific papers are the equivalent of 14 000 opinions?



A Valid argument would consist of Data and theory which supports their contention. Computer models are not good enough unless you can demonstrate conclusively that every possible factor has been accounted for and is accurately modeled. We have sufficient experience to date to know that this hasn't been the case.

It is not possible to demonstrate conclusively that every factor is accounted for or modeled for ANY computer model or scientific theory. Why would you deal in such absolutes? Only the Sith deal in absolutes.

Beyond that, anybody who has any familiarity with chaos theory knows that the starting parameters can have disproportionate effects on the output, and that very minor differences in data can produce wildly different results.

Seriously. I consider it childish to believe you can vote on reality. The entire world can BELIEVE something is true, but that won't make it true.
Last sentence absolutely true, perfect example: most people believe that a god (or gods) exists, but that doesn't make it true.
Everything is bullshit unless proven otherwise. -A.C. Beddoe

rj40
Posts: 288
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 2:31 am
Location: Southern USA

Re: Popular Science Comments Closed Forever

Post by rj40 »

Deleted repeat, if I knew how.
Last edited by rj40 on Wed Oct 02, 2013 4:31 am, edited 2 times in total.

rj40
Posts: 288
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 2:31 am
Location: Southern USA

Re: Popular Science Comments Closed Forever

Post by rj40 »

Schneibster,
You most probably have not seen any maps I have worked on. But I have used Tiger files in the past.
I will look through the other stuff you mention. Maybe a bit (oh yeah!) beyond me, but I will see what I can understand.

Have you read "Why People Believe Weird Things," by Michael Shermer?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_People ... ird_Things

A video. From...ewwww...TED. But interesting.
http://www.ted.com/talks/michael_sherme ... ption.html

Finally have you ever heard of the Dunning-Kruger effect?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect
I think many people suffer from this. Including me, at least from time to time.

Diogenes
Posts: 6958
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Re: Popular Science Comments Closed Forever

Post by Diogenes »

Schneibster wrote:
MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen
His last job was testifying for the tobacco companies that tobacco doesn't cause cancer. Gee, so he's a climate scientist, hmm? What's he doing testifying about tobacco then?

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?ti ... S._Lindzen

Turns out he has an Associate Degree in physics. He's a mathematician and a meteorologist. Meteorology is not oceanic and atmospheric geophysics. He doesn't know shit about atmospheric and oceanic geophysics. He only knows about weather. Climate, as you have been told a billion times, is not weather.

http://www.desmogblog.com/richard-lindzen


And THIS boys and girls, is another fallacy so old it has a Latin name. It's called "Argumentum ad Hominem. "

The notion that he has a PHD in Mathematics from Harvard of course has absolutely no bearing on his ability to critique a mathematics based computer model of a chaotic system.
Idiot Climate blog wrote: According to Dr. Lindzen, the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are problematic and limited because they are based on computer models which Lindzen says are "generally recognized as experimental tools whose relation to the real world is questionable."
Tell me, do you have any arguments which are NOT fallacies? Or have you always remained a child in the area of logic and reason?


Schneibster wrote: Last but not least, he's against "computer models." Guess what meteorology is all completely 100% chock full of? Computer models. Know why 5 day forecasts became 10 day forecasts? (Subtext: are you old enough to remember 5 day forecasts?)


Once again, i'm completely surprised (not really) that such a super scientific genius/advocate/prick is not aware of the limitations of chaotic models. Sure, 5 days, ten days, whatever. Years? Decades? If you believe that, then you sir, are a simpleton, as well as being full of sh*t.


Schneibster wrote:
Duh ummm.

Don't even bother lying. You're wasting everyone's time. I've already done all this a million times over. I've seen every lie you can tell and I have the sources that prove them lies.

If anyone took you seriously we might be offended. Instead we regard you more as a ranting little cartoon character who provides us with amusement.

(Artist's rendition of Schneibster depicted below)
Image
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

Diogenes
Posts: 6958
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Re: Popular Science Comments Closed Forever

Post by Diogenes »

Schneibster wrote:
Diogenes wrote:No ratio of people's opinions is acceptable evidence of anything to me.
You're making a logical error: you're claiming there are no experts. Claiming the votes of experts in a field are equivalent to the votes of the generally informed is a logical fallacy; if you want to claim the fallacy of http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie ... ority.html Appeal to Authority, you have to be prepared to prove it's false authority. And you're not. Here's why:

Not really. I'm not making the ridiculous argument that someone can predict chaotic systems decades in advance. The Burden of proof lies on those who make such wild claims.

Schneibster wrote: In this case, the authority is all the climate scientists in the world. They are the only available authority. Just that simple. This is the process of science. Peer-reviewed papers are the votes of the experts. If you don't believe in science, your criticisms of it all fall hollow. If you disagree with the mainstream your claims are extraordinary. Just like a Darwin or Einstein denier. And extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence which you do not have.

Not at all. Your "experts" are claiming the gift of prophecy. Evidence so far is that they don't have it. You are, in fact, a religious nut. You just don't realize it.


Schneibster wrote: Using this logic, try telling the mechanic you know more about fuel injection than he does.

But not if you care about the car he's fixing.

It would be a rare mechanic that might know more about fuel injection than do I. For that matter, I seldom meet any that even know as much as do I about mechanics in general.

I dare say I can't think of a single aspect of a vehicle that I am not familiar with and can repair.
I have to constantly turn away folk that seek me out for this sort of stuff. (which is just a hobby for me.)

:)
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

Schneibster
Posts: 1805
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 5:21 am
Location: Monterey, CA, USA

Re: Popular Science Comments Closed Forever

Post by Schneibster »

(I replied to the second one so you can delete the first. Looks like a doubletap probably due to the site problems.)
rj40 wrote:Schneibster,
You most probably have not seen any maps I have worked on. But I have used Tiger files in the past.
I will look through the other stuff you mention. Maybe a bit (oh yeah!) beyond me, but I will see what I can understand.
My belief is that Feynman was wrong and you can understand particle physics without the esoteric math. You can't work with it or make calculations, but you can understand, or come to understand by analogy, all of it. Come ask questions, the more I explain to others the better I understand it myself. I can do some of the math. I won't make you do any.
rj40 wrote:Have you read "Why People Believe Weird Things," by Michael Shermer?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_People ... ird_Things

A video. From...ewwww...TED. But interesting.
http://www.ted.com/talks/michael_sherme ... ption.html

Finally have you ever heard of the Dunning-Kruger effect?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect
I think many people suffer from this. Including me, at least from time to time.
I've made a fair study of Dunning-Kruger; it strikes me very much as the same thing as my cat licking his shoulder when he has just done something dumb and got laughed at, to make himself feel better. For example leaping after a flying insect and coming down in the middle of a pile of books that all slip and slide everywhere as he's scrambling and trying to land.

I've just been reading O'Brian's Aubrey and Maturin novels, and just happened across the part where Stephen remarks that he has never known anyone to admit either to having been asleep, or to being rich.
We need a directorate of science, and we need it to be voted on only by scientists. You don't get to vote on reality. Get over it. Elected officials that deny the findings of the Science Directorate are subject to immediate impeachment for incompetence.

Schneibster
Posts: 1805
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 5:21 am
Location: Monterey, CA, USA

Re: Popular Science Comments Closed Forever

Post by Schneibster »

Diogenes wrote:
Schneibster wrote:
MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen
His last job was testifying for the tobacco companies that tobacco doesn't cause cancer. Gee, so he's a climate scientist, hmm? What's he doing testifying about tobacco then?

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?ti ... S._Lindzen

Turns out he has an Associate Degree in physics. He's a mathematician and a meteorologist. Meteorology is not oceanic and atmospheric geophysics. He doesn't know shit about atmospheric and oceanic geophysics. He only knows about weather. Climate, as you have been told a billion times, is not weather.


And THIS boys and girls, is another fallacy so old it has a Latin name. It's called "Argumentum ad Hominem. "
No it's not.

It's impeachment of a witness, a perfectly allowable procedure in court. Means you show the witness lied. They do that you know.

You're lying again.

Let me put it quite simply: you are claiming he's an authority on climate science. He's not. He's an authority on meteorology. Climate is not weather.

Then let me add that meteorology today is done with computer models. It seems his abilities are in an obsolete type of meteorology that is no longer even used. So not only is he not qualified to make any statement at all on climate science, he's not even qualified to teach modern meteorology being as how he opposes computer models.

Simple as that.
We need a directorate of science, and we need it to be voted on only by scientists. You don't get to vote on reality. Get over it. Elected officials that deny the findings of the Science Directorate are subject to immediate impeachment for incompetence.

Schneibster
Posts: 1805
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 5:21 am
Location: Monterey, CA, USA

Re: Popular Science Comments Closed Forever

Post by Schneibster »

Diogenes wrote:
Schneibster wrote:
Diogenes wrote:No ratio of people's opinions is acceptable evidence of anything to me.
You're making a logical error: you're claiming there are no experts. Claiming the votes of experts in a field are equivalent to the votes of the generally informed is a logical fallacy; if you want to claim the fallacy of http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie ... ority.html Appeal to Authority, you have to be prepared to prove it's false authority. And you're not. Here's why:

Not really. I'm not making the ridiculous argument that someone can predict chaotic systems decades in advance.
Ummm, the point of chaos math is exactly that: predict what is predictable. You don't even seem to understand the entire point of complex systems theory. And if you don't you have no business arguing about it with a systems engineer.
We need a directorate of science, and we need it to be voted on only by scientists. You don't get to vote on reality. Get over it. Elected officials that deny the findings of the Science Directorate are subject to immediate impeachment for incompetence.

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Re: Popular Science Comments Closed Forever

Post by GIThruster »

Is the troll attacking Lindzen now? Saying he knows nothing about climate? That's just nutty.

"Lindzen is a recipient of the American Meteorological Society's Meisinger and Charney Awards, American Geophysical Union's Macelwane Medal, and the Leo Prize from the Wallin Foundation in Goteborg, Sweden. He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), and the Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters, and was named Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Meteorological Society. He is a corresponding member of the NAS Committee on Human Rights, and a member of the United States National Research Council Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate. He was a consultant to the Global Modeling and Simulation Group at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, and a Distinguished Visiting Scientist at California Institute of Technology's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Lindzen is an ISI highly cited researcher,[66] and his biography has been included in American Men and Women of Science.[67]. . ."

Peer-Reviewed Papers
Lindzen, Richard Siegmund (1981). "Turbulence and Stress Owing to Gravity Wave and Tidal Breakdown". Journal of Geophysical Research 86 (C10): 9707–14. Bibcode:1981JGR....86.9707L. doi:10.1029/JC086iC10p09707.
———; Nigam, Sumant (1987). "On the Role of Sea Surface Temperature Gradients in Forcing Low-Level Winds and Convergence in the Tropics". Journal of Atmospheric Sciences 44 (17): 2418–36. Bibcode:1987JAtS...44.2418L. doi:10.1175/1520-0469(1987)044<2418:OTROSS>2.0.CO;2.
——— (1990). "Some Coolness Concerning Global Warming". Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 71 (3): 288–99. Bibcode:1990BAMS...71..288L. doi:10.1175/1520-0477(1990)071<0288:SCCGW>2.0.CO;2.
——— (1997). "Can increasing carbon dioxide cause climate change?". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 94 (16): 8335–42. Bibcode:1997PNAS...94.8335L. doi:10.1073/pnas.94.16.8335.
———; Chou, Ming-Dah; Hou, Arthur Y. (2001). "Does the Earth Have an Adaptive Infrared Iris?". Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 82 (3): 417–32. Bibcode:2001BAMS...82..417L. doi:10.1175/1520-0477(2001)082<0417:DTEHAA>2.3.CO;2.
———; Choi, Yong-Sang (2009). "On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data". Geophysical Research Letters 36 (16). Bibcode:2009GeoRL..3616705L. doi:10.1029/2009GL039628.
———; Choi, Yong-Sang (2011). "On the observational determination of climate sensitivity and its implications". Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences 47 (4): 377–90. Bibcode:2011APJAS..47..377L. doi:10.1007/s13143-011-0023-x.
——— (2011). "Climate physics, feedbacks, and reductionism (and when does reductionism go too far?)". The European Physical Journal Plus 127 (5): 1–15. Bibcode:2012EPJP..127...52L. doi:10.1140/epjp/i2012-12052-8."


So this guy who teaches at one of the best science schools in the world, who has won all these awards in climate science, and who is published in all the world's most prestigious peer review journals on climate science, is a fraud with an associates degree who knows nothing about climate?

I swear this new troll is just completely out of his mind to lie the way he does.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

Schneibster
Posts: 1805
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 5:21 am
Location: Monterey, CA, USA

Re: Popular Science Comments Closed Forever

Post by Schneibster »

GIThruster wrote:Is the troll attacking Lindzen now? Saying he knows nothing about climate? That's just nutty.
No, it's not. He's a professor of meteorology not climate geophysics.

Says so right there.

We keep telling you, "climate is not weather" and you keep trying to ignore it and pretend it's not true.

Meteorology is not climate geophysics. <- clue type A quantity one.

If your butt-buddy were actually interested in real climatology he wouldn't be denying for simoleons.
We need a directorate of science, and we need it to be voted on only by scientists. You don't get to vote on reality. Get over it. Elected officials that deny the findings of the Science Directorate are subject to immediate impeachment for incompetence.

ladajo
Posts: 6204
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Re: Popular Science Comments Closed Forever

Post by ladajo »

Well, almost there for a banning. Second guy ever to be booted from Talk Polywell.

Keep pressing Jackass. You are almost there. You can win the prize.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)

Schneibster
Posts: 1805
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 5:21 am
Location: Monterey, CA, USA

Re: Popular Science Comments Closed Forever

Post by Schneibster »

ladajo wrote:Well, almost there for a banning. Second guy ever to be booted from Talk Polywell.

Keep pressing Jackass. You are almost there. You can win the prize.
Threats are always amusing. Tells me I'm hitting hard where it hurts the worst and I should keep it up.
We need a directorate of science, and we need it to be voted on only by scientists. You don't get to vote on reality. Get over it. Elected officials that deny the findings of the Science Directorate are subject to immediate impeachment for incompetence.

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Re: Popular Science Comments Closed Forever

Post by GIThruster »

All you've done is annoy and anger people with your elementary school level debate tactics and lies. Disgusting behavior for anyone who pretends to be an adult.

Lindzen is an atmospheric physicist with a very long career, easily reaching back before there were such titles as "climatologist". He has however, almost a quarter century of climatology under his belt and only a liar would say he is not a climatologist.

You're a lair.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

Schneibster
Posts: 1805
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 5:21 am
Location: Monterey, CA, USA

Re: Popular Science Comments Closed Forever

Post by Schneibster »

GIThruster wrote:All you've done is annoy and anger people
Well, that's what usually happens when people are lying and someone comes around and points it out.
GIThruster wrote:You're a lair.
I'd be more impresed if you culd spel it.

You're a nocturnal igneous basalt.
We need a directorate of science, and we need it to be voted on only by scientists. You don't get to vote on reality. Get over it. Elected officials that deny the findings of the Science Directorate are subject to immediate impeachment for incompetence.

Post Reply