The Sun-Climate Effect

I'm not sure you want to make information censorship the basis of your defense.

 

No, I've cited scientists and their product on every point. The fact that there have been mistakes in the past is NOT A JUSTIFICATION for simply choosing to ignore science.

You have cited coders and other nonsense sources.

I'm tired of reading that kind of material.

Please come back when you have something serious that is reviewed by reputable scientists, including those who back mainstream views developed in cooperation with the entire world of climatology.

 

No, that's not the issue at all.

I'm really tired of individuals with ZERO credentials in climatology hand picking studies that match personal beliefs and often haven't even been published.

That isn't a valid methodology.

 

You have no standing to determine what is and is not valid.

 

Nope. It came from geologists, paleontologists, chemists, biologists, botanists, historians, anthropologists, archaeologists, etc.

I think -- I know -- that anti-fossil-fuel hysteria mongers purporting to be climatologists forgot how science works, if they ever knew.

 

What are your "credentials" to be the one who decides what methodology is valid? Whether a methodology is valid or not depends on its content, not someone's credentials. You don't seem to be clear on that.

 

You are not clear on the concept that the people on opposite sides of a scientific controversy are not "ignoring science," but participating in it.

Garbage.

No, you're just tired of being out-thought and out-argued.

Anti-fossil-fuel hysteria is not the entire world of climatology, no matter how often you claim it is.

 

Those are sciences that develop data which is aggregated by paleo climatologists.

 

I haven't said anything about the validity of any method used by scientists.

I HAVE commented on the methods used by those who are NOT scientists, yet get quoted by the deniers on this board.

I'm not interested in considering the opinions of those who have no credentials in the field. And, you should have no interest in that, either.

 

Once again, basing arguments on material from those who have NO credentials in the field has NOTHING TO DO with participating in science.

You're confused about the position of fossil fuel in this. And, I certainly have not said what you claim I've said.

 

“For myself, I am interested in science and in philosophy only because I want to learn something about the riddle of the world in which we live, and the riddle of man's knowledge of that world. And I believe that only a revival of interest in these riddles can save the sciences and philosophy from an obscurantist faith in the expert's special skill and in his personal knowledge and authority.”
― Karl R. Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery

 

So are you actually a "scientist" or do you just like to play one when arguing on the internet? If you are a "scientist", what are the qualifications that make you one?

 

You know noting about science. Great discoveries have been made by people without "credentials."

No, I am very clear about it.

Yes you have.

 

But isn't that exactly what you're doing? Cherry picking studies that have been blessed/funded by the powers that be.

 

Because of another peer-reviewed paper, right?

 

That's fascinating. I must have had a mental freeze... Could you please be so kind to point out where I said anything of the sort?

 

I can tell by your reply that YOU have no idea what the 2003 E and E and the 2005 GRL published paper that exposed the statistical crap Dr. Mann made by someone who has won honors in Mathematics at University and laid it out that mathematically Mann's paper is built on a great big error which was clearly laid out in the Wegman Report and the North Report.

I am tired reading your ignorance and dead-end arguments YOU make that doesn't even address the beatdown by the seminal E and E 2003 paper (Which you never read) which has never been reasonably countered by Dr. Mann.

Here is the simple explanation that you might even understand that help explain the M and M 2003 paper in PDF

Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance

LINK

Here is this one that has more sources to read into:


Climate
Free Access

First published: 12 February 2005

Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance

LINK

===

Stop defending a dead paper!

Dr. Mann's 1998 paper has failed because of his misuse of statistical method in his absurd paper that many Statistical experts have acknowledged.

 

According to YOU we must ignore Einsteins 1905 paper because he wasn't yet a scientist, he was a patent Clerk or ignore High School graduate Clyde Tombaugh's discovery of Pluto which many professional astronomers failed to find after years of looking because he decided on a search pattern that wasn't considered viable by professionals with their big college degree in their back pocket or Geologist J. Harlan Bretz flood hypothesis or Meteorologist Alfred Otto Wegener's continental drift hypothesis or... Milton Humason who wasn't even an Astronomer and a high school DROP OUT yet was a leading cosmologist of his day.

YOU are the true denier of science history.

 

If those aren't your views, you are giving a pretty good imitation of someone who holds them.

 

Einstein got his PhD from the University of Zurich in 1905, publishing his physics dissertation on molecular dimensions. He published 4 ground breaking physics papers that year.

He developed relativity theory in collaboration with leading physicists of his day

His theory was tested for a decade before it gained acceptance, and has continued to be tested ever since then. Today, gravity waves are a test of relativity theory.

Bretz - Phd from University of Chicago
Wegener - Phd from University of Berlin
Humason - was noted for objects he found, published significant papers in top line journals and worked closely with Hubble for years.


Are you just having fun trying to poke at me, or what?

 

"Another paper"? There are thousands upon thousands of papers written on climatology since then.

 

I've stated many times that I'm not a scientist.

But, I don't have to be a scientist to reject the flawed methods of consuming science, such as the hand picked studies chosen to confirm personal opinion, the denigration of experts and the reliance on those who are not scientists.

 

None peer-reviewed before publication.

 

I think you missed the point. The "hockey stick" was embraced and accepted in dozens of peer reviews - and then - horror of horrors - peer-reviewed papers appeared that said the hockey stick thesis as moo moo poo poo.

 

Oh, please. That's just verbal diaheria.

OK, so you've admitted you don't know what you're talking about with the core issue of science. Your major qualification appears to be your self-proclaimed ability to sort truth from fiction based on who wrote the papers.

In science popularity polls don't determine truth or fiction, experimentation does. Posing a hypothesis and then testing it with experiments. In order to be a legitimate hypothesis in scientific terms, the hypothesis needs to be falsifiable and that forms the basis of good experiments. A hypothesis that survives legitimate attempts to falsify it earns legitimacy and becomes useful.

Is there any legitimate experimentation that you can point to in the papers you worship that have ever proven climate change is real?