On Sunday, April 15, 2012 9:15:37 PM UTC+10, Bill Snyder wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 18:52:35 +1000, "Peter Webb"
> <r.peter.webb...@gmail.com> wrote:
....[some crap]
> Says the shit-bot whose knowledge of the scientific method could
> be written on a postage stamp, without affecting its suitability
> for use in sending snailmail.
Sgt Schultz is allays willing to give advice he can't take himsel. :)
--
> Naive studies may be evidence of a kind, but really all they can do is
> re-inforce studies already published. If one can fit a regression
> line through some published data and it seems to show a statistically
> significant connection, and it predicts much the same thing as in
> published work, then we have evidence to accept the published work[...]
> OTOH, if [you] get a different answer [you] are [most likely in error].
[...]
You do realise that what you have described is "an appeal to authority" - the authority in the case being some unnamed journals - and not the scientific method.
-- Peter Webb <webbfam...@optusnet.com.au>, 23 Nov 2010
> On Sunday, April 15, 2012 9:15:37 PM UTC+10, Bill Snyder wrote:
>> On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 18:52:35 +1000, "Peter Webb"
>> <r.peter.webb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ....[some crap]
>> Says the shit-bot whose knowledge of the scientific method could
>> be written on a postage stamp, without affecting its suitability
>> for use in sending snailmail.
> Sgt Schultz is allays willing to give advice he can't take himsel. :)
Yeah, Bill Snyder (or Sgt Schultz as you call him) acts as if he "knows nuthink!" about the scientific method. Which is of course almost certainly true.
> -- >> Naive studies may be evidence of a kind, but really all they can do is
>> re-inforce studies already published. If one can fit a regression
>> line through some published data and it seems to show a statistically
>> significant connection, and it predicts much the same thing as in
>> published work, then we have evidence to accept the published work[...]
>> OTOH, if [you] get a different answer [you] are [most likely in error].
> [...]
> You do realise that what you have described is "an appeal to authority" -
> the authority in the case being some unnamed journals - and not the
> scientific method.
> -- Peter Webb <webbfam...@optusnet.com.au>, 23 Nov 2010
>>>>> "We don't know what it is, but it can't be CO2"
>>>>> They know that though.
>>>> No doubt you be called on to actually find the alternative as well,
>>>> otherwise it would be the "scientific method (denialist brand)". :)
>>>I have previously recommended to you that you learn about the "scientific
>>>method".
>>>Your idiot comments suggest that you have not actually done this.
>>>The proposing and analysis of alternate theories is *not* part of the
>>>scientific method. If you think about this for a while, you may even work
>>>out why this is the case. Or you could actually learn the scientific >>>method,
>>>as I have suggested on numnerous past occassions.
>> Says the shit-bot whose knowledge of the scientific method could
>> be written on a postage stamp, without affecting its suitability
>> for use in sending snailmail.
>If you think you know something about the scientific method, why didn't you >point out Horsell's error when it ocurred?
Because there wasn't one. The case that it is CO2 is
well-established now, to the point that a claim that it isn't
bears the burden of proof.
-- Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]
On Monday, April 16, 2012 8:06:00 AM UTC+10, Bill Snyder wrote:
....
> Because there wasn't one. The case that it is CO2 is
> well-established now, to the point that a claim that it isn't
> bears the burden of proof.
Allays amusin after we've found a major explanatory independent variable -- in this case CO2 measurements tracking 80% of the variation in global warming indexes -- that someone wants "science" to find an unrelated even more major explanatory variable. :)
But that's why they're called kooks.
-- [Not a trend].
We weren't talking about some undefined "trend line", we are talking about
global temperatures. And they have decreased since 1998. -- "Peter Webb" <r.peter.webb...@gmail.com>, Thu, 9 Feb 2012 10:04 +1100
>>>>>> "We don't know what it is, but it can't be CO2"
>>>>>> They know that though.
>>>>> No doubt you be called on to actually find the alternative as well,
>>>>> otherwise it would be the "scientific method (denialist brand)". :)
>>>>I have previously recommended to you that you learn about the >>>>"scientific
>>>>method".
>>>>Your idiot comments suggest that you have not actually done this.
>>>>The proposing and analysis of alternate theories is *not* part of the
>>>>scientific method. If you think about this for a while, you may even >>>>work
>>>>out why this is the case. Or you could actually learn the scientific
>>>>method,
>>>>as I have suggested on numnerous past occassions.
>>> Says the shit-bot whose knowledge of the scientific method could
>>> be written on a postage stamp, without affecting its suitability
>>> for use in sending snailmail.
>>If you think you know something about the scientific method, why didn't >>you
>>point out Horsell's error when it ocurred?
> Because there wasn't one. The case that it is CO2 is
> well-established now, to the point that a claim that it isn't
> bears the burden of proof.
Gee, you should *really* learn about the scientific method. Horsell attempted to justify AGW theory on the basis that no better theory was forthcoming (have a look above, its still there). That is not part of the scientific method; that a theory is better than some alternative theory has no bearing on its scientific truth.
So, I guess that answers my question above:
"If you think you know something about the scientific method, why didn't you point out Horsell's error when it ocurred?"
The answer is that you didn't say anything because in fact you *don't* know anything about the scientific method.
So you have at least answered my question about why you didn't spot Horsell's error.
> On Monday, April 16, 2012 8:06:00 AM UTC+10, Bill Snyder wrote:
> ....
>> Because there wasn't one. The case that it is CO2 is
>> well-established now, to the point that a claim that it isn't
>> bears the burden of proof.
> Allays amusin after we've found a major explanatory independent > variable -- in this case CO2 measurements tracking 80% of the variation in > global warming indexes -- that someone wants "science" to find an > unrelated even more major explanatory variable. :)
_________________________________________
God you love vague and unsubstantiated claims! Its like you write things deliberately vague so that they can't be checked against experimental evidence, you Believers seem to hate comparing theory to experiment.
But I will bite. Do CO2 measurements track "variation" in global warming indexes over the (say) last 10 years? What "global warming indexes" are you referring to? How is tracking "variation in global warming indexes" different to simply tracking "global warming indexes"? What does this 80% supposedly mean? How did you derive this number, exactly?
Lets see if there is the slightest meaning to what you have claimed, and then lets find out if it is true. From your past performance, I expect the answer to both of these is "no", but perhaps one day you will make a claim that turns out to have some basis in truth ... or maybe not.
> But that's why they're called kooks.
Yeah, kooks just love making these meaningless claims. Like the ones you make so frequently.
> -- > [Not a trend].
> We weren't talking about some undefined "trend line", we are talking about
> global temperatures. And they have decreased since 1998.
> -- "Peter Webb" <r.peter.webb...@gmail.com>, Thu, 9 Feb 2012 10:04 +1100
That's true. But CO2 has gone up. So how could your 80% claim above possibly be true?
>>>>>>> "We don't know what it is, but it can't be CO2"
>>>>>>> They know that though.
>>>>>> No doubt you be called on to actually find the alternative as well,
>>>>>> otherwise it would be the "scientific method (denialist brand)". :)
>>>>>I have previously recommended to you that you learn about the >>>>>"scientific
>>>>>method".
>>>>>Your idiot comments suggest that you have not actually done this.
>>>>>The proposing and analysis of alternate theories is *not* part of the
>>>>>scientific method. If you think about this for a while, you may even >>>>>work
>>>>>out why this is the case. Or you could actually learn the scientific
>>>>>method,
>>>>>as I have suggested on numnerous past occassions.
>>>> Says the shit-bot whose knowledge of the scientific method could
>>>> be written on a postage stamp, without affecting its suitability
>>>> for use in sending snailmail.
>>>If you think you know something about the scientific method, why didn't >>>you
>>>point out Horsell's error when it ocurred?
>> Because there wasn't one. The case that it is CO2 is
>> well-established now, to the point that a claim that it isn't
>> bears the burden of proof.
>Gee, you should *really* learn about the scientific method. Horsell >attempted to justify AGW theory on the basis that no better theory was >forthcoming (have a look above, its still there). That is not part of the >scientific method; that a theory is better than some alternative theory has >no bearing on its scientific truth.
[blsh, blah, blah, bullshit, bullshit]
And yet we justify evolutionary theory on exactly this basis; we
justify quantum theory on this basis; we justify relativity theory
on this basis; we justify the heliocentric solar system on this
basis . . .
But of course different rules apply when the shit-bot gets going.
-- Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]
>>>>>>>> "We don't know what it is, but it can't be CO2"
>>>>>>>> They know that though.
>>>>>>> No doubt you be called on to actually find the alternative as well,
>>>>>>> otherwise it would be the "scientific method (denialist brand)". :)
>>>>>>I have previously recommended to you that you learn about the
>>>>>>"scientific
>>>>>>method".
>>>>>>Your idiot comments suggest that you have not actually done this.
>>>>>>The proposing and analysis of alternate theories is *not* part of the
>>>>>>scientific method. If you think about this for a while, you may even
>>>>>>work
>>>>>>out why this is the case. Or you could actually learn the scientific
>>>>>>method,
>>>>>>as I have suggested on numnerous past occassions.
>>>>> Says the shit-bot whose knowledge of the scientific method could
>>>>> be written on a postage stamp, without affecting its suitability
>>>>> for use in sending snailmail.
>>>>If you think you know something about the scientific method, why didn't
>>>>you
>>>>point out Horsell's error when it ocurred?
>>> Because there wasn't one. The case that it is CO2 is
>>> well-established now, to the point that a claim that it isn't
>>> bears the burden of proof.
>>Gee, you should *really* learn about the scientific method. Horsell
>>attempted to justify AGW theory on the basis that no better theory was
>>forthcoming (have a look above, its still there). That is not part of the
>>scientific method; that a theory is better than some alternative theory >>has
>>no bearing on its scientific truth.
> [blsh, blah, blah, bullshit, bullshit]
> And yet we justify evolutionary theory on exactly this basis; we
> justify quantum theory on this basis; we justify relativity theory
> on this basis; we justify the heliocentric solar system on this
> basis . . .
Yes, on the basis of the scientific method.
I am very pleased that you have provided some scientific theories which actually pass the scientific method, we can compare and constrast them to climate "science".
> But of course different rules apply when the shit-bot gets going.
No, same deal, the requirement is (amongst othere things) that the theory accurately predicts the outcomes of future experiments.
The theories you mention above definitely do this.
Climate "science" does not. Unless you can point us to some accurate predictions of future temperature made by climate "science" ? No ? Thought not.
That is the difference between climate "science" and (to use one of your examples) Relativity; Relativity makes correct predictions accurate to 14 significant places of accuracy. What's the best accuracy that climate "science" has had in predicting future temperatures?
On Monday, April 16, 2012 11:25:28 PM UTC+10, Bill Snyder wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 18:32:22 +1000, "Peter Webb"
> <r.peter.webb...@gmail.com> wrote:
[confuscation of scientific method, philosophy of science, "scientific truth", and any number of other topics; but basically a rejection of the idea
the current best theory wins]
> And yet we justify evolutionary theory on exactly this basis; we
> justify quantum theory on this basis; we justify relativity theory
> on this basis; we justify the heliocentric solar system on this
> basis . . .
> But of course different rules apply when the shit-bot gets going.
Sgt Schultz's inside track to determining what is the unchanging "scientific truth" may involve listening to those voices of his.
He'll be making an appearance on Swedish TV any day now to prove he has psychic powers according to a testing protocol he designed himself.
-- [An honest evaluation:]
Peter Webb wrote:
>My proof seems pretty good to me.
But it's not a correct proof.
-- quasi <qu...@null.set>, Wed, 13 Jul 2011 23:19 -0500
>>>>>>>"R Kym Horsell" <kymhors...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:16118285.965.1334475284512.JavaMail.geo-discussion-
forums@pbje9...
>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 15, 2012 4:36:06 PM UTC+10, Dawlish wrote: ...
>>>>>>>>> "We don't know what it is, but it can't be CO2"
>>>>>>>>> They know that though.
>>>>>>>> No doubt you be called on to actually find the alternative as
>>>>>>>> well, otherwise it would be the "scientific method (denialist
>>>>>>>> brand)". :)
>>>>>>>I have previously recommended to you that you learn about the
>>>>>>>"scientific
>>>>>>>method".
>>>>>>>Your idiot comments suggest that you have not actually done this.
>>>>>>>The proposing and analysis of alternate theories is *not* part of
>>>>>>>the scientific method. If you think about this for a while, you may
>>>>>>>even work
>>>>>>>out why this is the case. Or you could actually learn the
>>>>>>>scientific method,
>>>>>>>as I have suggested on numnerous past occassions.
>>>>>> Says the shit-bot whose knowledge of the scientific method could be
>>>>>> written on a postage stamp, without affecting its suitability for
>>>>>> use in sending snailmail.
>>>>>If you think you know something about the scientific method, why
>>>>>didn't you
>>>>>point out Horsell's error when it ocurred?
>>>> Because there wasn't one. The case that it is CO2 is
>>>> well-established now, to the point that a claim that it isn't bears
>>>> the burden of proof.
>>>Gee, you should *really* learn about the scientific method. Horsell
>>>attempted to justify AGW theory on the basis that no better theory was
>>>forthcoming (have a look above, its still there). That is not part of
>>>the scientific method; that a theory is better than some alternative
>>>theory has
>>>no bearing on its scientific truth.
>> [blsh, blah, blah, bullshit, bullshit]
>> And yet we justify evolutionary theory on exactly this basis; we
>> justify quantum theory on this basis; we justify relativity theory on
>> this basis; we justify the heliocentric solar system on this basis . .
>> .
> Yes, on the basis of the scientific method.
> I am very pleased that you have provided some scientific theories which
> actually pass the scientific method, we can compare and constrast them
> to climate "science".
>> But of course different rules apply when the shit-bot gets going.
> No, same deal, the requirement is (amongst othere things) that the
> theory accurately predicts the outcomes of future experiments.
> The theories you mention above definitely do this.
> Climate "science" does not. Unless you can point us to some accurate
> predictions of future temperature made by climate "science" ? No ?
> Thought not.
> That is the difference between climate "science" and (to use one of your
> examples) Relativity; Relativity makes correct predictions accurate to
> 14 significant places of accuracy. What's the best accuracy that climate
> "science" has had in predicting future temperatures?
If Snider knew what the scientific method was, he would have a chance of being embarrassed by his statements.
He's no more embarrassed than any other male equus africanus asinus would be upon being told what the scientific method really is.
>>>>>>"Bill Snyder" <bsny...@airmail.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:pcblo798li6rmcvevjivkf03iq97a4sk92@4ax.com...
>>>>>>> On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 18:52:35 +1000, "Peter Webb"
>>>>>>> <r.peter.webb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>"R Kym Horsell" <kymhors...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>news:16118285.965.1334475284512.JavaMail.geo-discussion-
>forums@pbje9...
>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 15, 2012 4:36:06 PM UTC+10, Dawlish wrote: ...
>>>>>>>>>> "We don't know what it is, but it can't be CO2"
>>>>>>>>>> They know that though.
>>>>>>>>> No doubt you be called on to actually find the alternative as
>>>>>>>>> well, otherwise it would be the "scientific method (denialist
>>>>>>>>> brand)". :)
>>>>>>>>I have previously recommended to you that you learn about the
>>>>>>>>"scientific
>>>>>>>>method".
>>>>>>>>Your idiot comments suggest that you have not actually done this.
>>>>>>>>The proposing and analysis of alternate theories is *not* part of
>>>>>>>>the scientific method. If you think about this for a while, you may
>>>>>>>>even work
>>>>>>>>out why this is the case. Or you could actually learn the
>>>>>>>>scientific method,
>>>>>>>>as I have suggested on numnerous past occassions.
>>>>>>> Says the shit-bot whose knowledge of the scientific method could be
>>>>>>> written on a postage stamp, without affecting its suitability for
>>>>>>> use in sending snailmail.
>>>>>>If you think you know something about the scientific method, why
>>>>>>didn't you
>>>>>>point out Horsell's error when it ocurred?
>>>>> Because there wasn't one. The case that it is CO2 is
>>>>> well-established now, to the point that a claim that it isn't bears
>>>>> the burden of proof.
>>>>Gee, you should *really* learn about the scientific method. Horsell
>>>>attempted to justify AGW theory on the basis that no better theory was
>>>>forthcoming (have a look above, its still there). That is not part of
>>>>the scientific method; that a theory is better than some alternative
>>>>theory has
>>>>no bearing on its scientific truth.
>>> [blsh, blah, blah, bullshit, bullshit]
>>> And yet we justify evolutionary theory on exactly this basis; we
>>> justify quantum theory on this basis; we justify relativity theory on
>>> this basis; we justify the heliocentric solar system on this basis . .
>>> .
>> Yes, on the basis of the scientific method.
>> I am very pleased that you have provided some scientific theories which
>> actually pass the scientific method, we can compare and constrast them
>> to climate "science".
>>> But of course different rules apply when the shit-bot gets going.
>> No, same deal, the requirement is (amongst othere things) that the
>> theory accurately predicts the outcomes of future experiments.
>> The theories you mention above definitely do this.
>> Climate "science" does not. Unless you can point us to some accurate
>> predictions of future temperature made by climate "science" ? No ?
>> Thought not.
>> That is the difference between climate "science" and (to use one of your
>> examples) Relativity; Relativity makes correct predictions accurate to
>> 14 significant places of accuracy. What's the best accuracy that climate
>> "science" has had in predicting future temperatures?
>If Snider knew what the scientific method was, he would have a chance of >being embarrassed by his statements.
>He's no more embarrassed than any other male equus africanus asinus would >be upon being told what the scientific method really is.
Mouth, insults, no evidence. That is to say, SOP for Marvie.
-- Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]
> >>>>>>>> "We don't know what it is, but it can't be CO2"
> >>>>>>>> They know that though.
> >>>>>>> No doubt you be called on to actually find the alternative as well,
> >>>>>>> otherwise it would be the "scientific method (denialist brand)". :)
> >>>>>>I have previously recommended to you that you learn about the
> >>>>>>"scientific
> >>>>>>method".
> >>>>>>Your idiot comments suggest that you have not actually done this.
> >>>>>>The proposing and analysis of alternate theories is *not* part of the
> >>>>>>scientific method. If you think about this for a while, you may even
> >>>>>>work
> >>>>>>out why this is the case. Or you could actually learn the scientific
> >>>>>>method,
> >>>>>>as I have suggested on numnerous past occassions.
> >>>>> Says the shit-bot whose knowledge of the scientific method could
> >>>>> be written on a postage stamp, without affecting its suitability
> >>>>> for use in sending snailmail.
> >>>>If you think you know something about the scientific method, why didn't
> >>>>you
> >>>>point out Horsell's error when it ocurred?
> >>> Because there wasn't one. The case that it is CO2 is
> >>> well-established now, to the point that a claim that it isn't
> >>> bears the burden of proof.
> >>Gee, you should *really* learn about the scientific method. Horsell
> >>attempted to justify AGW theory on the basis that no better theory was
> >>forthcoming (have a look above, its still there). That is not part of the
> >>scientific method; that a theory is better than some alternative theory > >>has
> >>no bearing on its scientific truth.
> > [blsh, blah, blah, bullshit, bullshit]
> > And yet we justify evolutionary theory on exactly this basis; we
> > justify quantum theory on this basis; we justify relativity theory
> > on this basis; we justify the heliocentric solar system on this
> > basis . . .
> Yes, on the basis of the scientific method.
> I am very pleased that you have provided some scientific theories which > actually pass the scientific method, we can compare and constrast them to > climate "science".
> > But of course different rules apply when the shit-bot gets going.
> No, same deal, the requirement is (amongst othere things) that the theory > accurately predicts the outcomes of future experiments.
> The theories you mention above definitely do this.
> Climate "science" does not. Unless you can point us to some accurate > predictions of future temperature made by climate "science" ? No ? Thought > not.
> That is the difference between climate "science" and (to use one of your > examples) Relativity; Relativity makes correct predictions accurate to 14 > significant places of accuracy. What's the best accuracy that climate > "science" has had in predicting future temperatures?
Yes, That has been tested and what makes the Theory of Relativity good
science, is that it can predict well, while admiting that it is incomplete.
It is becoming obvious that there is no science in "climate science"
Global Political Hacks all! They make up "causes" to please thier
own sponsors while taking advantage of, and corupting, some aspects
of the scientific method. When have Hansen's fairytails been peer
reviewed by anyone other than those that work for Hansen?
Even if the eventual "causes" have some merit, what do these clowns
plan to do about it? If Chief Anthropoid Hansen and his crew are
"doing it" they wil continue to "do it". I want to see Hansen's birth
cirtificate and where it proves he is a human. Why do people pay
to hear him exhale his anthropogenic CO2?
> On Monday, April 16, 2012 11:25:28 PM UTC+10, Bill Snyder wrote:
> > On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 18:32:22 +1000, "Peter Webb"
> > <r.peter.webb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [confuscation of scientific method, philosophy of science, "scientific truth", and any number of other topics; but basically a rejection of the idea
> the current best theory wins]
> > And yet we justify evolutionary theory on exactly this basis; we
> > justify quantum theory on this basis; we justify relativity theory
> > on this basis; we justify the heliocentric solar system on this
> > basis . . .
> > But of course different rules apply when the shit-bot gets going.
> Sgt Schultz's inside track to determining what is the unchanging "scientific truth" may involve listening to those voices of his.
> He'll be making an appearance on Swedish TV any day now to prove he has psychic powers according to a testing protocol he designed himself.
Hey Kim Horsenuts,
Tell us all again how you violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics,
when appling Newtons Law of Cooling where it does not apply.
Including a proof that happens tomorrow!
(yes, he provided numbers that were generated later than his post)
>> On Monday, April 16, 2012 11:25:28 PM UTC+10, Bill Snyder wrote:
>> > On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 18:32:22 +1000, "Peter Webb"
>> > <r.peter.webb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> [confuscation of scientific method, philosophy of science, "scientific truth", and any number of other topics; but basically a rejection of the idea
>> the current best theory wins]
>> > And yet we justify evolutionary theory on exactly this basis; we
>> > justify quantum theory on this basis; we justify relativity theory
>> > on this basis; we justify the heliocentric solar system on this
>> > basis . . .
>> > But of course different rules apply when the shit-bot gets going.
>> Sgt Schultz's inside track to determining what is the unchanging "scientific truth" may involve listening to those voices of his.
>> He'll be making an appearance on Swedish TV any day now to prove he has psychic powers according to a testing protocol he designed himself.
>Hey Kim Horsenuts,
>Tell us all again how you violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics,
>when appling Newtons Law of Cooling where it does not apply.
>Including a proof that happens tomorrow!
>(yes, he provided numbers that were generated later than his post)
Hey, dipshit, where's the support for your repeated claim that
0.001 K change in the Sun's temperature will produce a 1 K change
in the Earth's temperature? Where's the evidence that you've been
challenged to produce over and over and over again?
Nowhere, that's where it is. The same place as your understanding
of the laws of thermodynamics, and your ability to decide what
does or doesn't violate them. Nowhere. It doesn't exist.
-- Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]
> Yes, That has been tested and what makes the Theory of Relativity good
> science, is that it can predict well, while admiting that it is
> incomplete.
> It is becoming obvious that there is no science in "climate science"
> Global Political Hacks all! They make up "causes" to please thier
> own sponsors while taking advantage of, and corupting, some aspects
> of the scientific method. When have Hansen's fairytails been peer
> reviewed by anyone other than those that work for Hansen?
> Even if the eventual "causes" have some merit, what do these clowns
> plan to do about it? If Chief Anthropoid Hansen and his crew are
> "doing it" they wil continue to "do it". I want to see Hansen's
> birth
> cirtificate and where it proves he is a human. Why do people pay
> to hear him exhale his anthropogenic CO2?
As ice cap melts, militaries vie for Arctic edge
ERIC TALMADGE, Associated Press
Updated 04:44 p.m., Monday, April 16, 2012
YOKOSUKA, Japan (AP) - To the world's military leaders, the debate over climate change is long over. They are preparing for a new kind of Cold War in the Arctic, anticipating that rising temperatures there will open up a treasure trove of resources, long-dreamed-of sea lanes and a slew of potential conflicts.
By Arctic standards, the region is already buzzing with military activity, and experts believe that will increase significantly in the years ahead.
Last month, Norway wrapped up one of the largest Arctic maneuvers ever - Exercise Cold Response - with 16,300 troops from 14 countries training on the ice for everything from high intensity warfare to terror threats. Attesting to the harsh conditions, five Norwegian troops were killed when their C-130 Hercules aircraft crashed near the summit of Kebnekaise, Sweden's highest mountain.
On Tuesday, April 17, 2012 3:49:15 AM UTC+10, Bill Snyder wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 12:34:49 -0500, wil...@nospam.pobox.com (Will
> Janoschka) wrote:
> >> On Monday, April 16, 2012 11:25:28 PM UTC+10, Bill Snyder wrote:
> >> > On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 18:32:22 +1000, "Peter Webb"
> >> > <r.peter.webb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> [confuscation of scientific method, philosophy of science, "scientific truth", and any number of other topics; but basically a rejection of the idea
> >> the current best theory wins]
> >> > And yet we justify evolutionary theory on exactly this basis; we
> >> > justify quantum theory on this basis; we justify relativity theory
> >> > on this basis; we justify the heliocentric solar system on this
> >> > basis . . .
> >> > But of course different rules apply when the shit-bot gets going.
> >> Sgt Schultz's inside track to determining what is the unchanging "scientific truth" may involve listening to those voices of his.
> >> He'll be making an appearance on Swedish TV any day now to prove he has psychic powers according to a testing protocol he designed himself.
> >Hey Kim Horsenuts,
> >Tell us all again how you violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics,
> >when appling Newtons Law of Cooling where it does not apply.
> >Including a proof that happens tomorrow!
> >(yes, he provided numbers that were generated later than his post)
> Hey, dipshit, where's the support for your repeated claim that
> 0.001 K change in the Sun's temperature will produce a 1 K change
> in the Earth's temperature? Where's the evidence that you've been
> challenged to produce over and over and over again?
> Nowhere, that's where it is. The same place as your understanding
> of the laws of thermodynamics, and your ability to decide what
> does or doesn't violate them. Nowhere. It doesn't exist.
...
Is it my imagination or does Will sound less coherent than usual.
May be an advantage if he's working on a TV script. From the sample he posted I was guessing something like "Lost" or maybe "Twin Peaks".
While his confusion about GHG "violating the laws of thermodynamics" will probably never be truly sorted out -- much like his posted TV script sees characters lurch from one scene to the next with no regard to continuity or even identifiable characters apart from the obvious projections of the writers own foibles -- at least I was hoping for some fumbling arithmetic to prove that sunspots create alternate cold snaps and heatwaves.
Oh well, until then I'll just have to content myself with the idea in Will's household you need to heat a blanket to 38C+ before use, or blast the bathroom mirror with a heatgun before you can see your own reflection.
-- [Bullshit:]
A milli-kelvin change the sun temperature would
result in a 1 kelvin change in earth temperature.
[Can't solve a(Ts+.001)^4 approx= b(Te+x)^4?]
Please do the numbers, so as, to prove to yourself,
that Hansens claims are Political BS.'
Logic does not work against Political BS!
-- Will Janoschka, 1 Mar 2012 7:18 PM
> > >> On Monday, April 16, 2012 11:25:28 PM UTC+10, Bill Snyder wrote:
> > >> > On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 18:32:22 +1000, "Peter Webb"
> > >> > <r.peter.webb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> [confuscation of scientific method, philosophy of science, "scientific truth", and any number of other topics; but basically a rejection of the idea
> > >> the current best theory wins]
> > >> > And yet we justify evolutionary theory on exactly this basis; we
> > >> > justify quantum theory on this basis; we justify relativity theory
> > >> > on this basis; we justify the heliocentric solar system on this
> > >> > basis . . .
> > >> > But of course different rules apply when the shit-bot gets going.
> > >> Sgt Schultz's inside track to determining what is the unchanging "scientific truth" may involve listening to those voices of his.
> > >> He'll be making an appearance on Swedish TV any day now to prove he has psychic powers according to a testing protocol he designed himself.
> > >Hey Kim Horsenuts,
> > >Tell us all again how you violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics,
> > >when appling Newtons Law of Cooling where it does not apply.
> > >Including a proof that happens tomorrow!
> > >(yes, he provided numbers that were generated later than his post)
> > Hey, dipshit, where's the support for your repeated claim that
> > 0.001 K change in the Sun's temperature will produce a 1 K change
> > in the Earth's temperature? Where's the evidence that you've been
> > challenged to produce over and over and over again?
> > Nowhere, that's where it is. The same place as your understanding
> > of the laws of thermodynamics, and your ability to decide what
> > does or doesn't violate them. Nowhere. It doesn't exist.
> ....
> Is it my imagination or does Will sound less coherent than usual.
> May be an advantage if he's working on a TV script. From the sample he posted I was guessing something like "Lost" or maybe "Twin Peaks".
> While his confusion about GHG "violating the laws of thermodynamics" will probably never be truly sorted out -- much like his posted TV script sees characters lurch from one scene to the next with no regard to continuity or even identifiable characters apart from the obvious projections of the writers own foibles -- at least I was hoping for some fumbling arithmetic to prove that sunspots create alternate cold snaps and heatwaves.
> Oh well, until then I'll just have to content myself with the idea in Will's household you need to heat a blanket to 38C+ before use, or blast the bathroom mirror with a heatgun before you can see your own reflection.
I need not prove, I only challange, you need proof to claim!
BTW, determine the temperature of a reflective surface..., after you again
tell us of how you violate the laws of Thermodynamics with written proof
from tomorrow!
On Tuesday, April 17, 2012 3:17:28 PM UTC+10, Will Janoschka wrote:
...
> I need not prove, I only challange, you need proof to claim!
...
All hat; no cattle.
--
[Bullshit:]
A milli-kelvin change the sun temperature would
result in a 1 kelvin change in earth temperature.
[Can't solve a(Ts+.001)^4 approx= b(Te+x)^4?]
Please do the numbers, so as, to prove to yourself,
that Hansens claims are Political BS.'
Logic does not work against Political BS!
-- Will Janoschka, 1 Mar 2012 7:18 PM
the greenies hate a hand held co2 meter and the edia cant find one
either.
$ 50 and they dont own one ?
Buy one for radiation too.
read them boath evry day.
YOU will see 270 PPM co2 and it will not go up.
You will see radiation is a problem and has killed 30 million in usa
from fallout damage.
> On Tuesday, April 17, 2012 3:17:28 PM UTC+10, Will Janoschka wrote:
> ....
> > I need not prove, I only challange, you need proof to claim!
> ....
> All hat; no cattle.
> --
> [Bullshit:]
> A milli-kelvin change the sun temperature would
> result in a 1 kelvin change in earth temperature.
> [Can't solve a(Ts+.001)^4 approx= b(Te+x)^4?]
> Please do the numbers, so as, to prove to yourself,
> that Hansens claims are Political BS.'
> Logic does not work against Political BS!
> -- Will Janoschka, 1 Mar 2012 7:18 PM
> On Monday, April 16, 2012 11:25:28 PM UTC+10, Bill Snyder wrote:
>> On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 18:32:22 +1000, "Peter Webb"
>> <r.peter.webb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [confuscation of scientific method, philosophy of science, "scientific > truth", and any number of other topics; but basically a rejection of the > idea
> the current best theory wins]
>> And yet we justify evolutionary theory on exactly this basis; we
>> justify quantum theory on this basis; we justify relativity theory
>> on this basis; we justify the heliocentric solar system on this
>> basis . . .
>> But of course different rules apply when the shit-bot gets going.
> Sgt Schultz's inside track to determining what is the unchanging > "scientific truth" may involve listening to those voices of his.
> He'll be making an appearance on Swedish TV any day now to prove he has > psychic powers according to a testing protocol he designed himself.
> -- > [An honest evaluation:]
> Peter Webb wrote:
>>My proof seems pretty good to me.
> But it's not a correct proof.
> -- quasi <qu...@null.set>, Wed, 13 Jul 2011 23:19 -0500
>>>>>>>"Bill Snyder" <bsny...@airmail.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:pcblo798li6rmcvevjivkf03iq97a4sk92@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 18:52:35 +1000, "Peter Webb"
>>>>>>>> <r.peter.webb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>"R Kym Horsell" <kymhors...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>news:16118285.965.1334475284512.JavaMail.geo-discussion-
>>forums@pbje9...
>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 15, 2012 4:36:06 PM UTC+10, Dawlish wrote: ...
>>>>>>>>>>> "We don't know what it is, but it can't be CO2"
>>>>>>>>>>> They know that though.
>>>>>>>>>> No doubt you be called on to actually find the alternative as
>>>>>>>>>> well, otherwise it would be the "scientific method (denialist
>>>>>>>>>> brand)". :)
>>>>>>>>>I have previously recommended to you that you learn about the
>>>>>>>>>"scientific
>>>>>>>>>method".
>>>>>>>>>Your idiot comments suggest that you have not actually done this.
>>>>>>>>>The proposing and analysis of alternate theories is *not* part of
>>>>>>>>>the scientific method. If you think about this for a while, you may
>>>>>>>>>even work
>>>>>>>>>out why this is the case. Or you could actually learn the
>>>>>>>>>scientific method,
>>>>>>>>>as I have suggested on numnerous past occassions.
>>>>>>>> Says the shit-bot whose knowledge of the scientific method could be
>>>>>>>> written on a postage stamp, without affecting its suitability for
>>>>>>>> use in sending snailmail.
>>>>>>>If you think you know something about the scientific method, why
>>>>>>>didn't you
>>>>>>>point out Horsell's error when it ocurred?
>>>>>> Because there wasn't one. The case that it is CO2 is
>>>>>> well-established now, to the point that a claim that it isn't bears
>>>>>> the burden of proof.
>>>>>Gee, you should *really* learn about the scientific method. Horsell
>>>>>attempted to justify AGW theory on the basis that no better theory was
>>>>>forthcoming (have a look above, its still there). That is not part of
>>>>>the scientific method; that a theory is better than some alternative
>>>>>theory has
>>>>>no bearing on its scientific truth.
>>>> [blsh, blah, blah, bullshit, bullshit]
>>>> And yet we justify evolutionary theory on exactly this basis; we
>>>> justify quantum theory on this basis; we justify relativity theory on
>>>> this basis; we justify the heliocentric solar system on this basis . .
>>>> .
>>> Yes, on the basis of the scientific method.
>>> I am very pleased that you have provided some scientific theories which
>>> actually pass the scientific method, we can compare and constrast them
>>> to climate "science".
>>>> But of course different rules apply when the shit-bot gets going.
>>> No, same deal, the requirement is (amongst othere things) that the
>>> theory accurately predicts the outcomes of future experiments.
>>> The theories you mention above definitely do this.
>>> Climate "science" does not. Unless you can point us to some accurate
>>> predictions of future temperature made by climate "science" ? No ?
>>> Thought not.
>>> That is the difference between climate "science" and (to use one of your
>>> examples) Relativity; Relativity makes correct predictions accurate to
>>> 14 significant places of accuracy. What's the best accuracy that climate
>>> "science" has had in predicting future temperatures?
>>If Snider knew what the scientific method was, he would have a chance of
>>being embarrassed by his statements.
>>He's no more embarrassed than any other male equus africanus asinus would
>>be upon being told what the scientific method really is.
> Mouth, insults, no evidence. That is to say, SOP for Marvie.
He didn't need to. The evidence that you don't understand the scientific method has already been given, and still appears above.
The conversation has moved on from your (already established) ignorance of the scientific method as to why you are apparently unembarrased by your ignorance.
