Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions?

lomiller said:
You failed to discuss any of them, and most were “published” in a crackpot newsletter. Those that were not were either long out of date or extensively refuted in real peer reviewed journals
Click to expand...
None of the journals are crack pot and they have not been refuted. Some have had comments made of which replies to them have been given.

Belz... said:
In other words no amount of evidence could ever convince you, not even the raw data, because you have already decided in advance that AGW is a fraud.
Click to expand...
Sorry my area of expertise is computer science and no amount of peer-pressure is going to change how computers work, least of all from people who have no remote understanding of it.

Belz... said:
Why do you come to a skeptics' forum and start a thread about this issue if you have no intention of discussing it, then ? Save us the trouble and time and find a forum dedicated to bashing global warming and post there.
Click to expand...
I thought skepticism is not based on appeals to authority and a lack of understanding of computer systems? I started threads to discuss the issue presented. Have you read paper?
 
Last edited:
Poptech said:
Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions? (PDF) (Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science, MIT)


Climate Science is less about actual science and more about political posturing. This is demonstrated here by the constant appeals to authority.
Click to expand...

Ah: your confusion is that you think appeal to authority and science are not compatible concepts.

In fact, science is very dependent on appeals to authority... legitemate appeals to authority. As opposed to the logical fallacies of appeals to questionable authority &c.

See: [Skeptical MythConceptions - part 1 - Authority]
 
Poptech said:
I thought skepticism is not based on appeals to authority and a lack of understanding of computer systems?
Click to expand...

Skepticism is about distinguishing what appeals to authority are legitemate and which aren't.

Appeal to authority is not a fallacy.

Appeal to questionable authority is a fallacy.

This misunderstanding is the origin of much pseudoskepticism.
 
blutoski said:
Ah: your confusion is that you think appeal to authority and science are not compatible concepts.

In fact, science is very dependent on appeals to authority... legitemate appeals to authority. As opposed to the logical fallacies of appeals to questionable authority &c.

See: [Skeptical MythConceptions - part 1 - Authority]
Click to expand...
I am well aware of what passes for science education today. Don't question the subjective "experts". Who defines "legitimate" and how is this determined?

blutoski said:
Skepticism is about distinguishing what appeals to authority are legitemate and which aren't.

Appeal to authority is not a fallacy.

Appeal to questionable authority is a fallacy.
Click to expand...
Skepticism as is science is about facts and reproducible results, it has nothing to do with appeals to authority.
 
What about the same model on a piece of paper ?
Click to expand...
Good question. I, too, have been wondering just what models are out. What about scale models of aircraft in wind tunnels? Seeing it's just a scale model and just a wind tunnel, not a real to-scale aircraft actually flying, surely the model is worthless, right?
 
Scale models experiments are performed in reality.

Here is a question would you accept crash safety information about cars ONLY from computer models?
 
Still not answering the question either.....blather about models and virtual reality.....THAT's the dodging when this remains unanswered

Quote:
Poptech, if you are so convinced there is legitimate dissent in the scientific community then you should have no trouble producing some recent papers to support your opinion. Why don’t you give us 5 papers published in high impact journals in the last 6 months along with a description of how you think they support your belief.
Click to expand...

Just five

current

Venues like Nature...

Then explain how they support you...
 
Poptech said:
Some calculation on a piece of paper is no more scientifically valid unless it is proven (my definition) empirically.
Click to expand...


Umm you can't make up your own definitions for things which are already defined. “Proof” is strictly limited to calculations on sheets of paper and can’t be achieved anyplace else? Empirical evidence, on the other hand supports an inductive argument which means it’s a logical fallacy to say it can prove something.
 
I listed over 100 (I have more) that dispute everything from the IPCC to CO2 as a primary driver and yes climate models.

Mac, you love to jump into any discussion and try to redirect it off topic.
 
lomiller said:
Umm you can't make up your own definitions for things which are already defined. “Proof” is strictly limited to calculations on sheets of paper and can’t be achieved anyplace else? Empirical evidence, on the other hand supports an inductive argument which means it’s a logical fallacy to say it can prove something.
Click to expand...
Please show me where I use the word "Proof". You grasp of the english language is embarrassing.
 
Scale models experiments are performed in reality.
Click to expand...
Could you elaborate? So far you've been pretty vague on which models are valid and which aren't, which is why we've been asking these questions.

As for "models being useless until proven empirically" - surely then by your definition wind tunnels are useless, too? Couldn't you say that "oh, yes, that tiny little F-22 model worked just fine, but that's all worthless unless you can prove the model empirically"?

Here is a question would you accept crash safety information about cars ONLY from computer models?
Click to expand...
If the computer models had been proven to be sufficiently realistic? Absolutely.

Would you knock down a skyscraper to verify the model results for it’s performance in an earthquake?
 
Last edited:
Poptech said:
I listed over 100...
Click to expand...

Other then argument ad-nasium you refused to demonstrate your sources were valid. In fact you failed to do even the most basic of research on the publication you cited repeatedly.

From the wikipedia entry on E&E

The journal is not listed in the ISI's Journal Citation Reports indexing service for academic journals,[1] although it is included in Scopus, which lists it as a trade journal[2], with coverage from 1995.[3] According to the WorldCat.org database, the journal can be found at 39 libraries worldwide
Click to expand...
 
lomiller said:
Wow poptech you sure have a lot to learn about models. It seems you place a lot of trust in statistical models, which unfortunately are know to be very unreliable. In contrast you seem to think physical models, the very basis of all science, become worthless as soon as you have a computer doing the math.
Click to expand...

Mm. Astronomy comes to mind. Perhaps we're lunatics for using computers to predict orbits and other events faaar intooo the fuuuuutuuuure... oweeeoooo.



lomiller said:
In that case I suggest you put the computer away, after all it was designed using just a physical model, the fact that you are using it to browse the internet must be purely your imagination. I’d advise against flying, since the airplane will have been designed using a computer model, and never, NEVER go into a skyscraper because the computer models used to design them are totally unreliable.
:dl:
Click to expand...

And the nuclear arsenals should be mothballed, because they were only proven to be safe by computer simulation. eg: Feynman's contributions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom