HOLY CRAP!! IPCC violates all 8 criteria for following scientific method!!

[BuckToothMoron]

Even if one is not familiar with the scientific method, anthropogenic climate change does not pass the smell check.

So what's the reason for this observed climb in temperature?

Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: Analysis Graphs and Plots

Ah, since you have no other explanation it has to be man caused. Explain what caused the Little Ice Age. Tell me why the Sahara desert was a wet grassland 10,000 years ago. You know what you'll find? Theories, no absolute scientific consensus. That's right, major climate events that we all know occurred in recent climate history and all the research and data of these events, yet no consensus. But ignorant observers and dishonest scientist pretend they know what is coming. Does it really make sense to predict the future when you can't absolutely understand the past?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Says the one that wants to ban all science and thinks the method is a tool of satan...Fuck you skooks.

 

[SSDD]

Even if one is not familiar with the scientific method, anthropogenic climate change does not pass the smell check.

So what's the reason for this observed climb in temperature?

Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: Analysis Graphs and Plots

Which altered version of the global record is that one? They keep changing.

 

[Muhammed]

They don't needs to test their theories, they have consensus

Nor do they need to publish their data or methodology because their work does not need to be replicable in order to be accepted as official dogma.

 

[skookerasbil]

Says the one that wants to ban all science and thinks the method is a tool of satan...Fuck you skooks.

View attachment 119318

Yep......you always know when you touch a nerve with a progressive......the whole emotional hemophilia is immediately on display.. Its what keeps me coming back into this forum......the head explosions.

 

[skookerasbil]

You know......you read this article and say to yourself, "What a disgrace!".......that this, they have the balls to call "science".

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

And get this...........only 1% of science journals articles follow the scientific method.

In other words........."climate science" is a fraud s0ns!!


J Scott Armstrong: Fewer Than 1 Percent Of Papers in Scientific Journals Follow Scientific Method

Fewer than 1 percent of papers published in scientific journals follow the scientific method, according to research by Wharton School professor and forecasting expert J. Scott Armstrong

According to Armstrong, forecasts from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) violate all eight criteria.

“Why is this all happening? Nobody asks them!” said Armstrong, who says that people who submit papers to journals are not required to follow the scientific method. “You send something to a journal and they don’t tell you what you have to do. They don’t say ‘here’s what science is, here’s how to do it.'”


J Scott Armstrong: Fewer Than 1 Percent Of Papers in Scientific Journals Follow Scientific Method - Breitbart




Of course, the alarmist k00ks will kneejerk on the source of the article.........a typical stunt pulled by snowflakes these days. Highly ghey btw..........

But check the link and see the 8 criteria........climate change science doesn't give a shit about them.

B Students Jealous of A Students

Climatologists are minor-league scientists. You might as well be talking about ping-pong players in a tennis forum or checkers players in a chess forum.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

And get this...........only 1% of science journals articles follow the scientific method.

In other words........."climate science" is a fraud s0ns!!


J Scott Armstrong: Fewer Than 1 Percent Of Papers in Scientific Journals Follow Scientific Method

Fewer than 1 percent of papers published in scientific journals follow the scientific method, according to research by Wharton School professor and forecasting expert J. Scott Armstrong

According to Armstrong, forecasts from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) violate all eight criteria.

“Why is this all happening? Nobody asks them!” said Armstrong, who says that people who submit papers to journals are not required to follow the scientific method. “You send something to a journal and they don’t tell you what you have to do. They don’t say ‘here’s what science is, here’s how to do it.'”


J Scott Armstrong: Fewer Than 1 Percent Of Papers in Scientific Journals Follow Scientific Method - Breitbart




Of course, the alarmist k00ks will kneejerk on the source of the article.........a typical stunt pulled by snowflakes these days. Highly ghey btw..........

But check the link and see the 8 criteria........climate change science doesn't give a shit about them.

I knew this was the case from the beginning. Even if one is not familiar with the scientific method, anthropogenic climate change does not pass the smell check. But it makes some people feel good I guess. I really have no idea why otherwise intelligent and reasonable humans would be all in on man-made climate change, it's truly baffling.

Wolfgang Science

They may have started with High IQs, but years of childish absolute obedience to some academic father figure stunted their intellectual growth.

 

[mamooth]

Ah, since you have no other explanation it has to be man caused.

Nobody here said or implied that. Try debating what people say, instead what you wished they'd said.

We see the direct evidence for human-caused global warming. We see the stratospheric cooling, the increase in backradiation, the decrease in outgoing longwave in the GHG bands. There are not natural explanations for those direct measurements, and they are smoking guns for human-caused global warming.

We also know the natural cycles should have the earth in a slow cooling phase. That's how it had been for 6000 years, and the cooling should have continued into the next ice age. The current fast warming is going totally against the natural cycle, so it's not natural.

Explain what caused the Little Ice Age.

High vulcanism at the start, and then plunging CO2 levels.

Tell me why the Sahara desert was a wet grassland 10,000 years ago.

Because the earth was coming out of an ice age.

You know what you'll find? Theories, no absolute scientific consensus. That's right, major climate events that we all know occurred in recent climate history and all the research and data of these events, yet no consensus. But ignorant observers and dishonest scientist pretend they know what is coming. Does it really make sense to predict the future when you can't absolutely understand the past?

We do understand the past. The fact that you don't is not a problem for the science.

 

[mamooth]

This look like lies to you?

Some of them certainly have nothing to do with the scientific method.

For example. look at #1. Test multiple hypothesis in every paper?

Is it your claim that every paper on spaceflight, for example, must question whether the earth is round? Your rules say they have to. Those rules are profoundly stupid.

Look at #4. Comprehensive review of the prior knowledge? In every paper? That's absurd. Why rewrite the past centuries of science in every paper? Again, it's a stupid rule.

Yes, there are some good rules there. And climate science papers follow them. Liars claim otherwise, but that's because they're liars.

As expected, all the deniers were completely bamboozled by a political hack piece. Deniers just aren't very smart, because they work so hard at being stupid. If a bad propaganda piece tells them what they want to believe, they instantly turn their brain off and BELIEVE it purely on faith.

 

[mamooth]

Oh, J Scott Armstrong is the guy who just declared deniers are like the first responders who gave their lives on 9/11. He's the craziest sort of political hack imaginable.

Heartland Institute Award Winner Compares Work of Climate Science Deniers to 9/11 Firefighters

He also has no science experience at all, much less climate science.

House Skeptic Fest Kind of a Let Down for Deniers
---
At one point, J. Scott Armstrong, the University of Pennsylvania marketing professor, actually responded to a question on the science, "I actually try not to learn a lot about climate change."
---

Oh, he also read none of the papers he decided weren't scientific. How did he decide they weren't scientific? He's a denier. He just skimmed chapter one of IPCC and decided he knew.

 

[skookerasbil]

Notice the substance in the rebuttals from the alarmist k00ks? Check it out.......no substance......just personal attacks. Why? Because they cant say dick about the content, which is indisputable.

1%....think about that.......only 1% of these "real scientists" give a fuck about scientific method in their work.

Indeed......this is why in recent years, many scientists refer to "climate science" as "designer science". And if you have half a brain you realize.........climate science is agenda driven for political gain. Has ZERO to do with the environment. As I have been saying for 20 years.

 

[skookerasbil]

I have to say.....[... alarmist regulars...] come in here and spend hours and hours a day slamming their keyboards, angry, miserable as they go. I come in here for a cup of coffee a day and make a couple of posts and dominate the thread by making the regulars look stoopid to the casual observer. Hysterical s0ns.....

[Edit Notes: General criticisms, about the nature of arguments lacking scientific basis,
can slide as related to the topic and debate. But NOT "personal attacks" trying to
single out "specific people" where that distracts from or derails the discussion itself.
Please include scientific content especially since that's the very point of your criticism.]

 

[percysunshine]

.
Science is a process. A process of reconciling constructive guesses with measurable experiments.

Political interest in the results, tends to fuck up the process.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Ah, since you have no other explanation it has to be man caused.

Nobody here said or implied that. Try debating what people say, instead what you wished they'd said.

We see the direct evidence for human-caused global warming. We see the stratospheric cooling, the increase in backradiation, the decrease in outgoing longwave in the GHG bands. There are not natural explanations for those direct measurements, and they are smoking guns for human-caused global warming.

We also know the natural cycles should have the earth in a slow cooling phase. That's how it had been for 6000 years, and the cooling should have continued into the next ice age. The current fast warming is going totally against the natural cycle, so it's not natural.

Explain what caused the Little Ice Age.

High vulcanism at the start, and then plunging CO2 levels.

Tell me why the Sahara desert was a wet grassland 10,000 years ago.

Because the earth was coming out of an ice age.

You know what you'll find? Theories, no absolute scientific consensus. That's right, major climate events that we all know occurred in recent climate history and all the research and data of these events, yet no consensus. But ignorant observers and dishonest scientist pretend they know what is coming. Does it really make sense to predict the future when you can't absolutely understand the past?

We do understand the past. The fact that you don't is not a problem for the science.

Post 16 by Cnm did imply that there was no other explanation when he asked someone to explain the chart he posted.

And you are clearly not a person who is based in science when you essentially made the same argument he did in your statement " There are not natural explanations......". Lack of another theory or answer is not proof of your theory, science is proof.

And BTW- I have read several theories from educated experts about why the Sahara was a grassland 10,000 years ago, and not one even mentioned it having to do with an ice age. It was a trap for uniformed fools like you, and you paraded into like a blind liberal. Very nice!

 

[mamooth]

And you are clearly not a person who is based in science when you essentially made the same argument he did in your statement " There are not natural explanations......". Lack of another theory or answer is not proof of your theory, science is proof.

Then do some science, hypocrite. So far, you and your side have done absolute zilch for science. By your own standards, that means everything you say is crap.

What's the theory of denialism? How do you explain the current fast warming? And no, waving your hands around and screaming "natural causes" is not a theory, it's a cowardly evasion. "Natural cycles!" isn't a theory, any more than "God did it" is a theory. Natural cycles have to have causes. Name them, and show your evidence that those cycles are now causing fast warming.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

And you are clearly not a person who is based in science when you essentially made the same argument he did in your statement " There are not natural explanations......". Lack of another theory or answer is not proof of your theory, science is proof.

Then do some science, hypocrite. So far, you and your side have done absolute zilch for science. By your own standards, that means everything you say is crap.

What's the theory of denialism? How do you explain the current fast warming? And no, waving your hands around and screaming "natural causes" is not a theory, it's a cowardly evasion. "Natural cycles!" isn't a theory, any more than "God did it" is a theory. Natural cycles have to have causes. Name them, and show your evidence that those cycles are now causing fast warming.

Ok, you are clearly a bit slow, so I will say it AGAIN. The lack of another explanation is NOT scientific proof of anthropogenic global warming. Please provide a model which predicted the climate today. All the models that were produced 20 years ago have proven to be wrong.

Climate is extremely complex and complicated. We can't even fully explain known past climate events, as I have already demonstrated, so it is absolutely silly to think we can accurately predict the future.

 

[mamooth]

Ok, you are clearly a bit slow, so I will say it AGAIN. The lack of another explanation is NOT scientific proof of anthropogenic global warming.

That's nice, but as nobody ever said it did, I wonder why you keep bringing up that strawman. After all, the directly measured evidence proves global warming is human caused.

You're setting impossible standards for proof. We haven't absolutely proven that some unknown mystery cause other than smoking can cause the lung cancer so common in smokers. Therefore, by your "well, the lack of another explanation isn't proof" standard, we can't say smoking causes lung cancer. Why aren't you consistent in your philosophy of science?

Please provide a model which predicted the climate today

No problem. Even Hansen's 1988 model pegged it right on.

All the models that were produced 20 years ago have proven to be wrong

Later models were even better. The models have been very good with their predictions. Models are just icing on the cake, of course, being that the directly measured evidence proves the human-caused warming.

 

[skookerasbil]

Ok, you are clearly a bit slow, so I will say it AGAIN. The lack of another explanation is NOT scientific proof of anthropogenic global warming.

That's nice, but as nobody ever said it did, I wonder why you keep bringing up that strawman. After all, the directly measured evidence proves global warming is human caused.

You're setting impossible standards for proof. We haven't absolutely proven that some unknown mystery cause other than smoking can cause the lung cancer so common in smokers. Therefore, by your "well, the lack of another explanation isn't proof" standard, we can't say smoking causes lung cancer. Why aren't you consistent in your philosophy of science?

Please provide a model which predicted the climate today

No problem. Even Hansen's 1988 model pegged it right on.

All the models that were produced 20 years ago have proven to be wrong

Later models were even better. The models have been very good with their predictions. Models are just icing on the cake, of course, being that the directly measured evidence proves the human-caused warming.

"proves the human caused warming"???

Evidently.......hasn't proved dick. Check the news s0n........the EPA, university climate change funding, UN, renewable energy etc.....etc.........all getting whacked with a baseball bat by the government. In other words, the icing never even made it to the cake. "Human caused" is a billboard for the alarmist OCD's........resonates in a few select places like internet message boards but nowhere else. Its a theory that has been rejected by the public.....easily provable. Only the alarmist contingent thinks its mainstream......nobody else. The religion has been posting up these same ghey graphs for 2 decades now and it has moved NOBODY


[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/happy_man_laughing_8.jpg.html][/URL]

 

[catatomic]

And get this...........only 1% of science journals articles follow the scientific method.

Tell that to the scientific heroes at www.arXiv.org .