The global warming thread. Is it for real?

[itfitzme]

Ignorance is a marketable commodity. It can be directed, in a democracy, towards supporting what's good for the few, at the expense of the many. Rush Limbaugh, as just one example, has been paid over a billion dollars to create a pool of malleable ignorance which the GOP can access to stay in the government that they are committed to destroy.

There is simply no other explanation for the election of a completely dysfunctional Congress with the lowest approval level of any other in history.

"Leaving Fox News has turned out to be a pretty good business move for Glenn Beck. By the end of this year, 18 months after he got out of the 24-hour cable news business and struck out on his own as an internet broadcasting pioneer, Beck will have doubled the revenues of his company, Mercury Radio Arts, from $40 million to $80 million, according to The Wall Street Journal."

So says Forbes .. WSJ .. *

Glenn Beck Closes In On The $100 Million Mark - Forbes

Still, that's just hear-say... (read-write?)

 

[itfitzme]

Don't give shit.
Where is your physically verifiable, falsifiable and repeatable science fuckchop?

Nothing but whining about the form of the model. *It's built up as computer code rather than written on a piece of paper. Instead of F=ma, it's;

01: Program
02: 5-> mass
03: 9.8-> acceleration
04: mass*acceleration -> force
05: Print "Mass","Force","Acceleration"
06: Print mass,force,acceleration
07: end program

Same thing, different language.

And, it is observable, repeatable, and*falsifiable. The model matchs the climate or not. *The climate measures change, the input changes, the output changes, the output matches or doesn't match the remaining climate measures.

And last I looked, we don't have an extra planet that we can terraform and do experiments on. *So, we measure the control variables as the population varies CO2 and the dependent variable, global mean temperature.

Oh, I get it. *You're issue is the control variable. *You just don't like not having direct control. *It's just a control issue for you. *That fits. That's the trouble with abussive personalities.

 

[Oddball]

And, it is observable, repeatable, and*falsifiable. The model matchs the climate or not. *The climate measures change, the input changes, the output changes, the output matches or doesn't match the remaining climate measures.

And last I looked, we don't have an extra planet that we can terraform and do experiments on. *So, we measure the control variables as the population varies CO2 and the dependent variable, global mean temperature.

Oh, I get it. *You're issue is the control variable. *You just don't like not having direct control. *It's just a control issue for you. *That fits. That's the trouble with abussive personalities.

Translation: The *theory* (and that's granting it some wide latitude) of anthropogenic Goebbels warming is not repeatable on demand and in context, not falsifiable and physically observable...To go with there being no static control.

IOW, no science.

 

[itfitzme]

Don't give shit.

Where is your physically verifiable, falsifiable and repeatable science fuckchop?

Sure you don't Explains the neg rep. Must be because you secretly like me.

Not sure what a neg rep is exactly but if you get one from a neg source does it net positive?

Yes, it's a negatively correlated proxy for reality.

Here is his intelligent rep response;

" The global warming... 06-30-2013 08:26 PM Oddball blow me, troll"

Why is it always "ass" and "blow me" with these guys? Latent homosexual tendencies? You'd think that they'd get that they are the ones that always bring it up. First he's all about you're ass. Now he's propositioning me. He needs to get himself a boyfriend. They can ge married in CA now.

 

[Oddball]

What's with your rank stupidity and endless trolling?

 

[itfitzme]

And, it is observable, repeatable, and*falsifiable. The model matchs the climate or not. *The climate measures change, the input changes, the output changes, the output matches or doesn't match the remaining climate measures.

And last I looked, we don't have an extra planet that we can terraform and do experiments on. *So, we measure the control variables as the population varies CO2 and the dependent variable, global mean temperature.

Oh, I get it. *You're issue is the control variable. *You just don't like not having direct control. *It's just a control issue for you. *That fits. *That's the trouble with abussive personalities.

Translation: The *theory* (and that's granting it some wide latitude) of anthropogenic Goebbels warming is not repeatable on demand and in context, not falsifiable and physically observable...To go with there being no static control.

IOW, no science.

i.e, you don't know what science is. *

Oh, how about the astronomical sciences. *

F =G* m1*m2 / r^2

And they can't actually move planets into different orbits, so they are stuck with dealing with different planets of different masses in different orbits. *And yet, after plugging Newton's, Keppler's and Einstien's physical laws into a computer model, they have proven that the inputs, models, and outputs match the real world. *Empirical real data, repeatable, falsifiable, and verifiable science. *Welcome to the 21st century.

Oh, how about geological science. *Seems to be pretty successful in finding oil. *Beats just randomly poking holes in the ground. *Instead, they have these complex seismic and geological models they run through computers to narrow it down. *"and up from the ground comes bubblin' crude, black gold...."

Or are you now redefining what science is?

Translation: You're a Goebbel, chunkhead ass blower.

 

[itfitzme]

What's with your rank stupidity and endless trolling?

What is with the mindless and endless comments that say nothing about the real world? *Where is the math? *Where is the data? *Definitions beyond you're own head? Anything?

You don't even know what a "troll" is except your four year old, emotional definition of "I don't like it." and you brain dead response of "You're a stupid, chunkhead, Goebbel, ass troll. So blow me, you stupid stupidity stupid blow troll...". Stomp..stomp..stomp. Whaaaa!

 

[Oddball]

What's with your rank stupidity and endless trolling?

What is with the mindless and endless comments that say nothing about the real world? *Where is the math? *Where is the data? *Definitions beyond you're own head? Anything?

You don't even know what a "troll" is except your four year old, emotional definition of "I don't like it." and you brain dead response of "You're a stupid, chunkhead, Goebbel, ass troll. So blow me, you stupid stupidity stupid blow troll...". Stomp..stomp..stomp. Whaaaa!

The definitions that seem to be over your head are repeatability, quantification, control sample and falsifiablity, at least...All of which are long standing acid tests for real science.

The best you can do is point at your stupid (yes STUPID) computer models, which have never been right to date....That and troll like the wormy little troll that you are.

 

[itfitzme]

What's with your rank stupidity and endless trolling?

What is with the mindless and endless comments that say nothing about the real world? *Where is the math? *Where is the data? *Definitions beyond you're own head? Anything?

You don't even know what a "troll" is except your four year old, emotional definition of "I don't like it." and you brain dead response of "You're a stupid, chunkhead, Goebbel, ass troll. So blow me, you stupid stupidity stupid blow troll...". *Stomp..stomp..stomp. Whaaaa!

The definitions that seem to be over your head are repeatability, quantification, control sample and falsifiablity, at least...All of which are *long standing acid tests for real science.

The best you can do is point at your stupid (yes STUPID) computer models, which have never been right to date....That and troll like the wormy little troll that you are.

The best you can do is continuously repeat "computer models...I don't like them." And, "You're stupid." *Yet, not once have you presented anything that resembles scientific knowledge. Anything, one little scientific equation.

How about the mathematical sciences, refered to as a pure science? How about computer science?

 

[Oddball]

Well, if you're going to rely on stupid computer models that have never (and I do mean never) been right, along with discounting traditional tried-and-true scientific methods out-of-hand, then it only follows that you're stupid.

If the shoe fits....

 

[itfitzme]

Well, if you're going to rely on stupid computer models that have never (and I do mean never) been right, along with discounting traditional tried-and-true scientific methods out-of-hand, *then it only follows that you're stupid.

If the shoe fits....

Says who? *You? *Because you've deciced AWG is wrong, ergo the computer model is wrong. *Ergo, computer models aren't science. *That's bassackwards reasoning. *

I'll give you a clue, it's not the model that's wrong...It's [blank]. A three letter word that rhymes with "poo".

A computer model is simply another form of a mathematical model. It has revolutionized the sciences because it has unleashed it from being reliant on simple algebraic, linear models and openned up the realm of dealing with computational, procedural algorithms and non-linear mathematical models. It has been particularly effective in the ability to deal with statistcal data which is extremely computationally intensive.

F = m * a is the same whether you use pen and paper, a slide rule, a calculator, or a computer. *Using it and getting 5*3 = 12 says nothing of the science and everything of the person doing the computations.

You are mistaking science for the calculator. *If you calculate 3 * 5 = 12 and then measure 15, hey, verified wrong. *If you calculate 3*5=15 and measure 15, then verified right.

Repeatable, measurable, falsifiable, and verifiable. *Pencil, sliderule, calculator, computer, it doesn't matter. You're confusing the science for the tools. *You're confusing them because you are just looking for something you can call "stupid". *But here's a clue, you don't define reality.

I just checked Wikipedia, under science. *Nope, you were not in there. Computer modeling was, not Oddball.

The difference between you and a scientist is you try force reality to fit your feelings while a scientist lets their feelings fit reality. *It is called "learning".

Repeatedly saying, "You're stupid" don't make it so.

 

[itfitzme]

Well, if you're going to rely on stupid computer models that have never (and I do mean never) been right, along with discounting traditional tried-and-true scientific methods out-of-hand, *then it only follows that you're stupid.

If the shoe fits....

Mankind has created an awesome computer model that reflects reality. *It is comprised of millions of individual computers, all interconnected on this thing called the interweb. And it models the real world and the mind of man. How close it gets to reality is entirely dependent on the input it receives. *

I input F=ma+e or GDP = PQ, and it models reality perfectly, as a model of a model of physical mechanics and national economy.

The BEA does surveys and enters data and the internet produces

Google maps, part of the internet, models the geography of the physical world. *

But this model of our world is only as good as the data that it is give, only as good as it's weakest link. *So everytime you post, it more resembles the kind of computer model that you so complain about.

Case in point.

 

[Oddball]

Blablablabla.

None of that has anything to do with the fact that you have no actual physically producible, quantifiable, falsifiable proof of your hypothesis.

The rest is just a bunch of smoke blowing...Which you don't do particularly well either.

 

[itfitzme]

Blablablabla.

None of that has anything to do with the fact that you have no actual physically producible, quantifiable, falsifiable proof of your hypothesis.

The rest is just a bunch of smoke blowing...Which you don't do particularly well either.

Blablablablabla.

Yes, it is measurable, falsifiable and repeatable. *You seem to be completely unwilling to accept the reality of this. *All you have done is played word games with the definition of model and science, desperately trying to avoid the reality that

leads to

which when all the science is brought to bear on it, yields

and

The independent, driving data goes in. The dependent, driven prediction comes out. *The predicted output matches the actual driven data, within the level of accepted uncertainty. And with every new year, every new set of additional data, every new satellite, every new run of CRAVE, new set of data from ARGO, the model gets better.

The largest unknown now is national policy. The science is way past that.

But I get your problem, you can't distinguish between*
anon=-3.08+0.0092*CO2,*
F=ma,*
"chunkhead", and
"blablabla".

It all just sounds the same to you. As a model of reality, the noise in your head exceeds the input.

On the other hand, I now do

anon=-3.08+0.00922*CO2

from memory.

Which is why I get smarter and you just stay ignorant.

 

[PMZ]

Arguing with the hairball is futile. He's been knighted by Rush Limbaugh as an educated patriot useful for blindly supporting lost causes that benefit the few at the expense of the many.

Actually, the "good boy" thing is how I train my dog with equal results. He does what I ask him to. Now that I've trained him, telling him "bad boy" for doing what I ask him is like water off a duck's back. He knows what he's been told to do and is incapable of any other reasoning.

 

[itfitzme]

Arguing with the hairball is futile. He's been knighted by Rush Limbaugh as an educated patriot useful for blindly supporting lost causes that benefit the few at the expense of the many.

Actually, the "good boy" thing is how I train my dog with equal results. He does what I ask him to. Now that I've trained him, telling him "bad boy" for doing what I ask him is like water off a duck's back. He knows what he's been told to do and is incapable of any other reasoning.

Learning from his mistakes works. It's the null hypothesis route. I do the best I can to prove he has some relevance. Then when it fails miserably, I know.

When it gets boring, I go the positive feedback route elsewhere.

I'm waiting for some demonstration of this logarithmic CO2 function. To get there, though, seema to require abandoning other denier claims. The whole AWG science is a complete package. What the do is make one assumption for temp=log(co2) requires one assumption that then abandons other denier hypothesis. We can't have negative feedback, temp driven CO2 and the recent temp v CO2 all at the same time.

 

[westwall]

Blablablabla.

None of that has anything to do with the fact that you have no actual physically producible, quantifiable, falsifiable proof of your hypothesis.

The rest is just a bunch of smoke blowing...Which you don't do particularly well either.

Blablablablabla.

Yes, it is measurable, falsifiable and repeatable. *You seem to be completely unwilling to accept the reality of this. *All you have done is played word games with the definition of model and science, desperately trying to avoid the reality that

leads to

which when all the science is brought to bear on it, yields

and

The independent, driving data goes in. The dependent, driven prediction comes out. *The predicted output matches the actual driven data, within the level of accepted uncertainty. And with every new year, every new set of additional data, every new satellite, every new run of CRAVE, new set of data from ARGO, the model gets better.

The largest unknown now is national policy. The science is way past that.

But I get your problem, you can't distinguish between*
anon=-3.08+0.0092*CO2,*
F=ma,*
"chunkhead", and
"blablabla".

It all just sounds the same to you. As a model of reality, the noise in your head exceeds the input.

On the other hand, I now do

anon=-3.08+0.00922*CO2

from memory.

Which is why I get smarter and you just stay ignorant.

Those are ALL derived from models. And the models have been proven to be less than worthless.

You'll have to do better if you wish to be taken seriously.

 

[itfitzme]

Blablablabla.

None of that has anything to do with the fact that you have no actual physically producible, quantifiable, falsifiable proof of your hypothesis.

The rest is just a bunch of smoke blowing...Which you don't do particularly well either.

Blablablablabla.

Yes, it is measurable, falsifiable and repeatable. *You seem to be completely unwilling to accept the reality of this. *All you have done is played word games with the definition of model and science, desperately trying to avoid the reality that

leads to

which when all the science is brought to bear on it, yields

and

The independent, driving data goes in. The dependent, driven prediction comes out. *The predicted output matches the actual driven data, within the level of accepted uncertainty. And with every new year, every new set of additional data, every new satellite, every new run of CRAVE, new set of data from ARGO, the model gets better.

The largest unknown now is national policy. The science is way past that.

But I get your problem, you can't distinguish between*
anon=-3.08+0.0092*CO2,*
F=ma,*
"chunkhead", and
"blablabla".

It all just sounds the same to you. As a model of reality, the noise in your head exceeds the input.

On the other hand, I now do

anon=-3.08+0.00922*CO2

from memory.

Which is why I get smarter and you just stay ignorant.

Those are ALL derived from models. *And the models have been proven to be less than worthless.

You'll have to do better if you wish to be taken seriously.

Yeah, still living in fantacy land, I see. *Try saying something specific.

Like how you can't accomplish it. *That's the real fact, you can't.

 

[PMZ]

Blablablabla.

None of that has anything to do with the fact that you have no actual physically producible, quantifiable, falsifiable proof of your hypothesis.

The rest is just a bunch of smoke blowing...Which you don't do particularly well either.

Blablablablabla.

Yes, it is measurable, falsifiable and repeatable. *You seem to be completely unwilling to accept the reality of this. *All you have done is played word games with the definition of model and science, desperately trying to avoid the reality that

leads to

which when all the science is brought to bear on it, yields

and

The independent, driving data goes in. The dependent, driven prediction comes out. *The predicted output matches the actual driven data, within the level of accepted uncertainty. And with every new year, every new set of additional data, every new satellite, every new run of CRAVE, new set of data from ARGO, the model gets better.

The largest unknown now is national policy. The science is way past that.

But I get your problem, you can't distinguish between*
anon=-3.08+0.0092*CO2,*
F=ma,*
"chunkhead", and
"blablabla".

It all just sounds the same to you. As a model of reality, the noise in your head exceeds the input.

On the other hand, I now do

anon=-3.08+0.00922*CO2

from memory.

Which is why I get smarter and you just stay ignorant.

Those are ALL derived from models. And the models have been proven to be less than worthless.

You'll have to do better if you wish to be taken seriously.

How else would you understand climate dynamics other than modeling it?

 

[Oddball]

Blablablablabla.

Yes, it is measurable, falsifiable and repeatable. *You seem to be completely unwilling to accept the reality of this. *All you have done is played word games with the definition of model and science, desperately trying to avoid the reality that

leads to

which when all the science is brought to bear on it, yields

and

The independent, driving data goes in. The dependent, driven prediction comes out. *The predicted output matches the actual driven data, within the level of accepted uncertainty. And with every new year, every new set of additional data, every new satellite, every new run of CRAVE, new set of data from ARGO, the model gets better.

The largest unknown now is national policy. The science is way past that.

But I get your problem, you can't distinguish between*
anon=-3.08+0.0092*CO2,*
F=ma,*
"chunkhead", and
"blablabla".

It all just sounds the same to you. As a model of reality, the noise in your head exceeds the input.

On the other hand, I now do

anon=-3.08+0.00922*CO2

from memory.

Which is why I get smarter and you just stay ignorant.

Those are ALL derived from models. And the models have been proven to be less than worthless.

You'll have to do better if you wish to be taken seriously.

How else would you understand climate dynamics other than modeling it?

By coming up with repeatable, verifiable, quantifiable methods to prove it beyond any reasonable doubt.

But all you have are imperfect models, designed to get the result you're getting...And they keep getting it wrong.