Greg F
-
Posts
422 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Greg F
-
-
I appreciate the link and the further explanation.
What I'd like to know is this: What evidence exists that the "theory" of climate change, as you put it, was found to be false? What peer-reviewed (or at least reasonably unbiased and fact-based) reports exist claiming that the science on global warming has been disproven? If I have missed it in this thread, forgive me. I admittedly have not read all 140 pages of discussion and am genuinely curious to know why several people here are of this opinion. Thanks.
Peer review only means somebody else looked it. It doesn't mean it is right. Einstein published over 300 papers of which only 1 was peer reviewed.
Claude Shannon, the father of information theory, published in the Bell system journal (not peer reviewed). His paper, A Mathematical Theory of Communication, would not get published in any journal today due to its length. You would be hard pressed to find 5 papers in the last century that have had as profound an effect.
I posted this a few pages back. In true Popper fashion it compares the prediction(s) with what has happened. Reality.
Please note the important thing is the rate of change. The models are warming 2 to 3 times faster than reality. This isn't the only thing wrong, it just happens to be one of the more obvious. If the model fails to match reality then the theory is wrong. It is that simple.
-
It appears someone is unfamiliar with Karl Popper and falsification.
These considerations led me in the winter of 1919-20 to conclusions which I may now reformulate as follows.
1. It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory — if we look for confirmations.
2. Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions; that is to say, if, unenlightened by the theory in question, we should have expected an event which was incompatible with the theory — an event which would have refuted the theory.
3. Every "good" scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen. The more a theory forbids, the better it is.
4. A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice.
5. Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it. Testability is falsifiability; but there are degrees of testability: some theories are more testable, more exposed to refutation, than others; they take, as it were, greater risks.
6. Confirming evidence should not count except when it is the result of a genuine test of the theory; and this means that it can be presented as a serious but unsuccessful attempt to falsify the theory. (I now speak in such cases of "corroborating evidence.")
7. Some genuinely testable theories, when found to be false, are still upheld by their admirers — for example by introducing ad hoc some auxiliary assumption, or by reinterpreting the theory ad hoc in such a way that it escapes refutation. Such a procedure is always possible, but it rescues the theory from refutation only at the price of destroying, or at least lowering, its scientific status. (I later described such a rescuing operation as a "conventionalist twist" or a "conventionalist stratagem.")
One can sum up all this by saying that the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability.
I would suggest reading the whole thing and pay special attention to his discussion of "confirming evidence" what is often times called confirmation bias. Also notice there isn't a word about 'consensus' having anything to do with science.
-
How so? I have a newer one, 5 gallon, for genset. But have old cans that I don't dear part with. New one is a PITA, but I still haven't lost fuel.
Chain saw and string trimmer. When filling them it helps to have 3 hands. One to hold the gas can, one to pull back the spring loaded gas nozzel, and one to hold what I am trying to fill. Having only 2 hands the gas doesn't always go where intended.
Second issue is if the can is sitting in the sun. Pressure builds up and if I forget to release the pressure before pouring the gas comes out fire hose style. If I do release the pressure then it kind of defeats the purpose of the 'environmentally friendly ©' gas can by releasing the fumes it was designed to prevent.
I have three 5 gallon, one 2.5 gallon, and two 1 gallon. One of the 1 gallon is the 'environmentally friendly ©' type. The 5 gallon cans are used for the lawn mower and snowblower. The good 1 gallon goes to camp for the lawnmower (non-ethanol gas). The 'environmentally friendly' © can gets filled with non-ethanol gas/oil mixture for the string trimmer and chain saw. The 2.5 gallon I picked up at a yard sale for the nozzle that fits my 5 gallon cans.
Now you are probably wondering why this guy has so many gas cans. Then again maybe you're not but I am going to tell you anyway. The 5 gallon cans I bought new for $5 a piece (my age is showing). Back in the day I used to go through the local reservation where gas was 50 ¢ to 80 ¢ per gallon cheaper. Two fill ups and they were paid for. Now they are used when redeeming gas credit we get from the grocery store (X cents/gallon) that is good for up to 20 gallons.
My wife bought the 'environmentally friendly ©' can (don't ask) and I bought the 1 gallon originally for the chain saw and string trimmer which was before we bought the camp.
Leave that open in a hot confined space and you are asking for an airspace in the explosive range.
I don't remember ever hearing that happen. Gasoline has a fairly narrow fuel to air ratio that it will ignite (1.3% to 7.6%).
-
Gas cans. I have lost more gasoline with one of the EPA mandated gas cans then I ever lost with the traditional can.
-
And by my calculations you need to stop reading Infowars
Projection.
-
Hey how are the Global Sea Ice levels doing...
If you had an up to date plot you would see it is recovering. Either way the climate changes as it always has and the sea ice is just another data point. The fact is you avoided the previous plot I posted clearly showing the 'calculations' by the climate models don't match reality. In normal science we would say the hypothesis has been falsified. The sea ice was just a diversion to avoid dealing with failure of the 'calculations'.
-
We interrupt this comic for a public service anouncement to show you the 'calculations' vs. reality.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled Chicken Little © program.
-
Just think when times were simpler, amateur politicians debating about what the word "is" is. Now we have real pro politicians leading us and telling us "wiretapping" really doesn't mean, well, wiretapping. Pay close attention to those quotation marks.
...And what exactly is wiretapping? I am sure The Great Trumpster the Dumpster uses one of these. They are so huge! He's going mobile, wireless!
So you are saying the NYT was lying when they wrote:
The F.B.I. is leading the investigations, aided by the National Security Agency, the C.I.A. and the Treasury Department’s financial crimes unit. The investigators have accelerated their efforts in recent weeks but have found no conclusive evidence of wrongdoing, the officials said. One official said intelligence reports based on some of the wiretapped communications had been provided to the White House. -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daily_Wire
Your source sucks - do you just vomit whatever the conservative spin on the news of the day is? Is that why this thread is so long?
Then read the CBO report and make an argument. "Your source sucks" is not an argument, it's an emotional outburst.
-
Considering the Republican party is the only Conservative Party out of any of the Democratic countries in the world to have at least a fraction of their party flat out deny man made climate change, I'm going to believe the scientific consensus throughout the world. The real question is not if, but how much humans have contributed to climate change. Fossil fuel companies shelled out 100 million dollars to various Republicans in the primaries with the most going to Tea Party favorite and bs extraordinaire Ted Cruz (20 million).
Pretty sure you would have been suckered into the Eugenic consensus too.
-
If all you fossil fuel fans, Pegs included, would just seal up your garage and crank up the car there would be a lot less debate, meat eating, farting, oil spills..... While you are huffing away tap out those last few key strokes telling me how the air is just fine.
You would die of asphyxiation. Not much different than putting a plastic bag over your head.
A 17-year-old man was discovered lying on his left side in the driver’s seat of his 1997 BMW which was parked in a wooded
area several miles from his home. The automobile engine was running. One end of a pool hose was connected to the exhaust pipe; the other end entered the interior of the vehicle through the driver’s side rear window. Pieces of cloth were used to seal the open window gap. The vehicle was locked and the fire department gained access by breaking a window. Several hand written suicide notes were found in the car.
At autopsy fixed purple lividity and Tardieu spot distribution were consistent with the position in which he was found. The abdomen was distended with gas and there were patchy areas of skin slippage. He had neither physical injury nor natural disease. Standard toxicology testing was negative for ethanol, opiates, benzodiazepines, and basic drugs. His blood carboxyhemoglobin (COHb) was less than 5% saturation. Subsequent testing of the automobile emissions revealed that the CO was consistently 0.01% and the CO2 varied between 14.9% and 15.2%. His cause of death was attributed to asphyxiation due to exhaustion of O2 in the interior of the car due to instilled exhaust fumes.
-
No I just want to hear someone explain how burning fossil fuels is good for the environment.
From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25. -
-
Greg F back in the house! How you feeling tonight, Greg? Tell the people!
Still nothing substantive from GoBills808 on the topic at hand.
-
Do it. My boy Greg needs a breather.
From the ignorant GoBills808 that thought:
Make ammunition for illegal firearms impossible to obtain. Keep tabs on brass and powder for the DIYers.
This ain't rocket science.
GoBills808 didn't know that the same rounds that are used in what he would like to be "illegal firearms" are also in many cases the same rounds that are used in what he would allow as legal firearms. Another solution of his only applicable in some alternate universe. I would suggest that his knowledge of firearms is exceeded by his knowledge of rocket science.
-
It's actually called the Socratic method ...
One more thing you appear to be ignorant of.
-
Yeah, if you can't see where I'm going with this you might wanna bow out.
It's called going off on a tangent.
-
Like talking to a brick...If they aren't law enforcement or military, then tough titties. No exceptions.
So your solution is that the rich and famous (that includes powerful politicians) are going to give up their personal body guards. Nice alternate universe you live in. Let us know when you have something that doesn't involve imaginary worlds.
Top ones are .22s, right? No real difference except magazine.
How many times have you fired in self defense, Greg?
Poor GoBills808 ... can't make an argument so he resorts to misdirection. I don't play that game.
-
How many guns do you own, Greg?
Now your attempting to change the subject. It's none of you damn business.
-
What part of law enforcement and military are you having so much trouble with?
None. Your the one that is of the Animal House mentality. Private body guards are not law enforcement or military, you seem to be avoiding that issue.
-
I still haven't heard any substantive counterpoint my larger issue on selective gun control.
When you make one let us know.
-
Notwithstanding an SKS and AK-47 are both semiautomatic and a Garand is a relic, I am sorry for the grandpa slight.
Remington Model 700 SPS Blued Bolt-Action Rifle -.223 Remington/ 5.56 NATO
Black Rain Ordnance® BRO Spec15 Carbine Semi-Auto Rifle -.223 Remington/ 5.56 NATO
I am quite sure it wouldn't include body guards for the rich and famous nor private security for private schools where the rich and famous send their kids. Welcome to the Animal Farm mentality.
I'd also outlaw private schools.
Apparently body guards for the rich and famous is okay by you.
-
I think bolt action long rifles and shotguns should be the only firearms citizens can legally carry. I'd outlaw handguns and anything high capacity or semi automatic..leave those for the military and law enforcement.
I am quite sure it wouldn't include body guards for the rich and famous nor private security for private schools where the rich and famous send their kids. Welcome to the Animal Farm mentality.
-
If you want to stand for states' rights while buying insurance across state lines, you can't.
States rights do not include setting up trade barriers with other states if you subscribe to the original meaning of the Commerce clause.
Global warming err Climate change HOAX
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
That is what error bars are for. If your model is useful reality will fall inside the error bars.
Tom ... this is just meaningless.
Doesn't matter. Concerning climate models, even if the theory were perfect there is no way to calculate the results from first principles (see Navier–Stokes). On top of that climate is nonlinear and chaotic. Therefore the output is highly sensitive to small changes in initial conditions. Since climate data is so sparse we can't even get the initial conditions correct. If you can't make a prediction you can't test the theory.
The financial models are very much like climate models. They are nothing more that sophisticated curve fit models. IOW, they are statistical models that have no predictive power for out of sample data. Therefore "black swan" (out of sample data) always produces unpredictable results.
It isn't the complexity, semiconductor manufacturers have very complex physical models based on first principles that work very well. They also have tons of data to validate their models.
The climate models are primarily statistical models. They are tuned (curve fit) to mimic past climate. Various tuning’s include aerosols, clouds, water vapor, and albedo. The reality is that we have little to no data to start with. For example, we have no idea the volume or distribution of aerosols from the 70’s. Clouds, even if we had detailed data, are too small to model due to model grid size.
Another issue which Dr. Pat Frank expands on is error propagation which is well worth a listen. (43 minutes)