|
|
Post by zanygame on Jul 20, 2023 18:27:45 GMT
You did feel the need to point out citing temperature examples that there was no heatwave in the southern hemisphere where it happens to be winter. I felt the need to disprove the word global asserted by Zany. STOP PRESS Heatwaves happen in summer. Thanks Blackiswhite, I expect a lot of people didn't know that. Thank goodness you are here. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jul 20, 2023 18:31:03 GMT
Well if you have a degree in Physics you ought to know better than to claim science is based on observed fact. The Science council states: Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence.
The Oxford English dictionary states:the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained. Berkeley University California:Scientists strive to test their ideas with evidence from the natural world. Science relies on evidence.
They're all wrong. You shouldn't use google to tell you want you want to believe - it's pointless. Science is based on facts. "Evidence" is something different - it's what you've been told is the case, preferably by more than one person. It may or may not be true. Facts are something that can be demonstrated to be true. The word you're looking for is "empirical". You simply don't understand anything about science zany. It's based on facts. You're getting confused with "theories". DId you ever even do O-level in any science? That has to be taking arrogance to a new level. Ignore The Oxford English Dictionary, The Science Council and Berkeley University. Steppenwolf has spoken. Wow. Just when you think it can't get any weirder. |
|
|
|
Post by bancroft on Jul 20, 2023 19:03:25 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jul 20, 2023 19:17:43 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by bancroft on Jul 20, 2023 19:25:11 GMT
Listen to this chap skewer John Kerry, you are not elected, you are not on the Government State landing site yet at COP conferences you claim to represent the American nation. Also with all your flights and your teams flights you never produce any carbon data. Not elected, no transparency and a hypocrite at the same time as telling everyone to reduce the carbon footprint his team are not following their own advice. www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I7CDdcaCEo |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jul 21, 2023 6:39:14 GMT
They're all wrong. You shouldn't use google to tell you want you want to believe - it's pointless. Science is based on facts. "Evidence" is something different - it's what you've been told is the case, preferably by more than one person. It may or may not be true. Facts are something that can be demonstrated to be true. The word you're looking for is "empirical". You simply don't understand anything about science zany. It's based on facts. You're getting confused with "theories". DId you ever even do O-level in any science? . Ignore The Oxford English Dictionary, The Science Council and Berkeley University. Steppenwolf has spoken. Wow. Just when you think it can't get any weirder. have put the word "evidence" in bold - not the original source. You seem to have decided that science is NOT based on facts but based on evidence - and you are trying to differentiate evidence" from fact, as if there's a lower threshold of proof for science than fact . But science is based on FACTS zany - factual evidence if you like. Scientific theories are usually "peer reviewed" which involves repeating the experiments that the original proposer carried out. If it can't be repeated - i.e. the reviewer gets different results - then the theory fails. FACTS are required. Of course - and this is probably something that hasn't occurred to you - the "climate change" data is exempt from peer review because we only have only ONE set of data. We can't peer review historic data.  But pseudo-scientific bodies that don't like the existing data CAN delete it - or "smooth" it as you call it. And the IPCC are doing exactly this. They feed the existing data through filtering programs that use their climate models to determine which data is "wrong". So data that doesn't fit their theories is deleted. And you don't need a detailed knowledge of scientific method to be able to understand that this is an abuse of science. The "evidence" that their models do NOT work is there zany - it's just that the IPCC are gradually deleting it. And that's a FACT. The CO2 theory of warming does NOT work - and that's also an undeniable fact. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jul 21, 2023 6:45:27 GMT
That has to be taking arrogance to a new level. Ignore The Oxford English Dictionary, The Science Council and Berkeley University. Steppenwolf has spoken. Wow. Just when you think it can't get any weirder. have put the word "evidence" in bold - not the original source. You seem to have decided that science is NOT based on facts but based on evidence - and you are trying to differentiate evidence" from fact, as if there's a lower threshold of proof for science than fact . But science is based on FACTS zany - factual evidence if you like. Scientific theories are usually "peer reviewed" which involves repeating the experiments that the original proposer carried out. If it can't be repeated - i.e. the reviewer gets different results - then the theory fails. FACTS are required. Of course - and this is probably something that hasn't occurred to you - the "climate change" data is exempt from peer review because we only have only ONE set of data. We can't peer review historic data. But pseudo-scientific bodies that don't like the existing data CAN delete it - or "smooth" it as you call it. And the IPCC are doing exactly this. They feed the existing data through filtering programs that use their climate models to determine which data is "wrong". So data that doesn't fit their theories is deleted. And you don't need a detailed knowledge of scientific method to be able to understand that this is an abuse of science. The "evidence" that their models do NOT work is there zany - it's just that the IPCC are gradually deleting it. And that's a FACT. The CO2 theory of warming does NOT work - and that's also an undeniable fact. I put them in bold so you would see them. I've not decided science is based on evidence, the world except Steppenwolf has. And yes I know how evidence is collected and tested. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jul 21, 2023 7:21:13 GMT
This is pure deflection. What you said was:
"No, you are wrong, there are very few facts. Most things are beyond absolute proof and yet are accepted on evidence. All evidence tells us we are 92 million miles from the sun, but no one has been to it with a tape measure".
You don't have to use a tape measure to establish the fact that the SUN is 92 million miles from the Sun. It can be done by triangulation - i.e. geometry - which is far more accurate than a tape measure. You're just very confused, zany. You're getting confused by the difference between "theory" and "observed data". Theories are NOT facts, but observed data IS factual. And ALL science is based on facts.
You seem to like googling everything so here's what Wiki says:
"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world."
"Based on a body of facts".
|
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jul 21, 2023 7:37:08 GMT
Zanygame says: " In part my arguments are trying to correct their views, but I also feel responsible to a certain extent to inform visitors reading these posts". This really is highly amusing, zany - and you call me arrogant! It's incredibly public-spirited of you to give up your time "to inform visitors". We should all be very grateful that you're here "to correct our views".  This is so reminiscent of a religious leader preaching to his poor ignorant flock. The problem is that not only do you have very little knowledge of this subject, but you also have no knowledge of science or how it works. All you're actually doing is propagating disinformation, while ignoring rational alternative theories from genuine scientists who are actually involved in genuine research. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jul 22, 2023 6:03:14 GMT
So, as usual, Zanygame disappears when shown to be wrong - only to reappear at some point in the future spouting the same old nonsense.
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jul 22, 2023 7:17:31 GMT
So, as usual, Zanygame disappears when shown to be wrong - only to reappear at some point in the future spouting the same old nonsense. Actually Zany has a life outside of this forum. Zany has been setting up the Zany's annual themed party, This year its pirates, so Zany has been building a 30ft pirate ship and a customs office in his house and garden. Zany also had to add a huge canopy over said ship because the weather is going to be shit (Bloody climate change) Nearly done now, party starts at 7pm. Anyway, sorry for neglecting you Steppen. I'm sure you think you are far more important that you are. Anyway, working out distance using trigonometry is well known and pretty simple, the issue comes when the distances grow very large and degrees of angle miniscule. Then you add in the fact that the suns size is difficult to measure. Secondly when you don't get to move where you want to but only circle the object you need to find a third object to use in your calculations. In this case the stars. But this assumes we know how the stars behave. Of course we do, we know from lots of gathered evidence, but we can never be sure. Now I'm happy to agree that the stacks of evidence of all sorts backing up our measurements of our distance from the sun. I am not arguing we don't know that. I am arguing that your definition of a fact as something indisputable rarely exists in science. Bringing that to earths temperature. It is quite possible to find outlying temperatures and historical anomalies, so you can never give earths temperature as a fact. What you can do is take thousands of bits of evidence and see how many point in the same direction, you then build in a degree of variation (In the case of the IPCC figures +-0.03c As for contradicting your claims for potential visitors to this forum, it is quite possible for someone who doesn't follow the science to take the bloggers claims you repeat as being real. They might take your word for it that the IPCC have lied about temperature readings or that its not proven that Co2 is causing our current warming. The biggest danger of deep fake is that it feels believable after all its caught you. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jul 22, 2023 7:21:28 GMT
So, as usual, Zanygame disappears when shown to be wrong - only to reappear at some point in the future spouting the same old nonsense. Actually Zany is one of a few people on here who actually addresses most questions and points directed at him. As Zany hates it when people dodge the point and or switch to petty insults as if that offers an alternative. Zany also often apologises if he is wrong or misunderstood. Something diminishingly rare on here. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jul 22, 2023 8:35:54 GMT
So, as usual, Zanygame disappears when shown to be wrong - only to reappear at some point in the future spouting the same old nonsense. Anyway, working out distance using trigonometry is well known and pretty simple, the issue comes when the distances grow very large and degrees of angle miniscule. Then you add in the fact that the suns size is difficult to measure. Secondly when you don't get to move where you want to but only circle the object you need to find a third object to use in your calculations. In this case the stars. But this assumes we know how the stars behave. Of course we do, we know from lots of gathered evidence, but we can never be sure. Now I'm happy to agree that the stacks of evidence of all sorts backing up our measurements of our distance from the sun. I am not arguing we don't know that. I am arguing that your definition of a fact as something indisputable rarely exists in science. Bringing that to earths temperature. It is quite possible to find outlying temperatures and historical anomalies, so you can never give earths temperature as a fact. What you can do is take thousands of bits of evidence and see how many point in the same direction, you then build in a degree of variation (In the case of the IPCC figures +-0.03c As for contradicting your claims for potential visitors to this forum, it is quite possible for someone who doesn't follow the science to take the bloggers claims you repeat as being real. They might take your word for it that the IPCC have lied about temperature readings or that its not proven that Co2 is causing our current warming. The biggest danger of deep fake is that it feels believable after all its caught you. You just won't accept you're wrong, zany, I'm afraid, like all cultists. Observed data is regarded as FACT. If a temperature is measured then that is a fact - within a quoted degree of accuracy, which is checked by repeating the measurements. The distance of the Sun from the Earth is known to a certain degree of accuracy (a few metres). That's also a fact. The position of the planets are also known very accurately - Relativity can calculate the motion of the planets so accurately that things like eclipses can be calculated to seconds over many decades. Obviously there is always a margin of error in any measurement - just as the uncertainty principle shows that you can never exactly know where an electron is, so you can also never exactly know where a planet or a star is, but we can get remarkably close. I'm not sure what IPCC figures you're saying are accurate to +-0.03C. It's not their measurements because they have different error margins depending on which type of measuring mechanism is being used - satellite, buoys, etc. In fact with their predictions for warming their quoted error margin was actually greater than the warming itself. So what are you actually claiming now. But you've deflected again. My point was that the IPCC are "massaging" data using their own inaccurate models i.e. they're using their models to filter out measurements (both new and historic) that are "wrong". And in doing this they have deleted some of the measurements that are known to be the most accurate (like data from buoys). The point is that it is reasonable (and actually common practice) to use theoretical equations and models to filter out data in "smoothing". However, you can only use equations or models that are KNOWN to be reliable i.e. models or equations that make accurate predictions. You CANNOT use this method to try to make data fit your own UNVERIFIED model. That should be obvious to anyone, even someone who knows nothing about science. This is what caused some senior scientists at the IPCC to resign. You said: " As for contradicting your claims for potential visitors to this forum, it is quite possible for someone who doesn't follow the science to take the bloggers claims you repeat as being real. They might take your word for it that the IPCC have lied about temperature readings or that its not proven that Co2 is causing our current warming." You seem to have ignored also the point I made about how the IPCC operates. The IPCC HAVE lied about temperature readings - they have fiddled the figures. And it is most certainly NOT "proven that CO2 is causing our current warming". Absolutely NOTHING has been "proven" as even you should know. And the "bloggers" that you are dismissing are serious research scientists who are looking at real data. The IPCC is not a research organisation at all. It's an organisation that exists to propagate the CO2 warming theory - that's why it's an ASSUMPTION in their models that CO2 causes warming in the Earth's system. No one has every proved that CO2 causes warming in the earth's system, zany, yet they assume it. You need to start reading some of the real science surrounding this subject - and you have been given many links but ignored them. It's the only way you'll get even an embryonic understanding of this subject. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jul 22, 2023 15:51:10 GMT
Anyway, working out distance using trigonometry is well known and pretty simple, the issue comes when the distances grow very large and degrees of angle miniscule. Then you add in the fact that the suns size is difficult to measure. Secondly when you don't get to move where you want to but only circle the object you need to find a third object to use in your calculations. In this case the stars. But this assumes we know how the stars behave. Of course we do, we know from lots of gathered evidence, but we can never be sure. Now I'm happy to agree that the stacks of evidence of all sorts backing up our measurements of our distance from the sun. I am not arguing we don't know that. I am arguing that your definition of a fact as something indisputable rarely exists in science. Bringing that to earths temperature. It is quite possible to find outlying temperatures and historical anomalies, so you can never give earths temperature as a fact. What you can do is take thousands of bits of evidence and see how many point in the same direction, you then build in a degree of variation (In the case of the IPCC figures +-0.03c As for contradicting your claims for potential visitors to this forum, it is quite possible for someone who doesn't follow the science to take the bloggers claims you repeat as being real. They might take your word for it that the IPCC have lied about temperature readings or that its not proven that Co2 is causing our current warming. The biggest danger of deep fake is that it feels believable after all its caught you. Says the conspiracy theorist. Ha. So now inaccurate data is a fact, that suits me. The IPCC took thousands of readings and found some were at odds but enough were matching for them to say climate change is a fact. They knew the effect of Co2 on solar warming but not exactly how it would work on a global scale, but they knew it would so that's a fact. If you got down from your high horse and actually read my words you would see that's what I said. Some are most are not and the trend is always the same direction. More later. Guests just arriving early. But you've deflected again. My point was that the IPCC are "massaging" data using their own inaccurate models i.e. they're using their models to filter out measurements (both new and historic) that are "wrong". And in doing this they have deleted some of the measurements that are known to be the most accurate (like data from buoys). The point is that it is reasonable (and actually common practice) to use theoretical equations and models to filter out data in "smoothing". However, you can only use equations or models that are KNOWN to be reliable i.e. models or equations that make accurate predictions. You CANNOT use this method to try to make data fit your own UNVERIFIED model. That should be obvious to anyone, even someone who knows nothing about science. This is what caused some senior scientists at the IPCC to resign. You said: " As for contradicting your claims for potential visitors to this forum, it is quite possible for someone who doesn't follow the science to take the bloggers claims you repeat as being real. They might take your word for it that the IPCC have lied about temperature readings or that its not proven that Co2 is causing our current warming." You seem to have ignored also the point I made about how the IPCC operates. The IPCC HAVE lied about temperature readings - they have fiddled the figures. And it is most certainly NOT "proven that CO2 is causing our current warming". Absolutely NOTHING has been "proven" as even you should know. And the "bloggers" that you are dismissing are serious research scientists who are looking at real data. The IPCC is not a research organisation at all. It's an organisation that exists to propagate the CO2 warming theory - that's why it's an ASSUMPTION in their models that CO2 causes warming in the Earth's system. No one has every proved that CO2 causes warming in the earth's system, zany, yet they assume it. You need to start reading some of the real science surrounding this subject - and you have been given many links but ignored them. It's the only way you'll get even an embryonic understanding of this subject. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Jul 22, 2023 16:10:11 GMT
This made me laugh from twitter...........
World Economic Forum report: “90% of all coastal areas will be affected by rising sea-levels due to climate change.”
|
|
But pseudo-scientific bodies that don't like the existing data CAN delete it - or "smooth" it as you call it. And the IPCC are doing exactly this. They feed the existing data through filtering programs that use their climate models to determine which data is "wrong". So data that doesn't fit their theories is deleted. And you don't need a detailed knowledge of scientific method to be able to understand that this is an abuse of science.
This is so reminiscent of a religious leader preaching to his poor ignorant flock.