Why Does the Global Warming Faith Claim to be Science?

[Saint Guinefort]

They are all an important part of statistical mathematics, and are all important in any attempt to measure Earth's temperature.

Yeah and you have no clue what they mean in the current discussion.

The fact that you referred to them as "random" shows that YOU have no clue what any of them mean.

LOL. No. Unlike you I've spent about 30 years processing data and running statistics on lab data.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

As far as I can tell, you don't understand ANY of them...

Why am I not surprised you can't talk about any of them in detail?

 

[Into the Night]

So you don't think the temperature is increasing as measured by thermometers at the surface of the earth?

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

Wrong. It is literally done all the time.

But the thing you don't seem to know about this topic is that we don't look at the raw temperature. We look at what is called the "temperature anomaly" or the difference between the temperature (grid averaged) for a region and a baseline for that same region. (Feel free to tell NOAA and NASA and all the earth's climate scientists that this doesn't exist)

You'd know more if you read any science at all on this topic.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

ITN might want to include this doozy of a statement in his signature. You have now been reduced to asserting that "science is bullshit".


Is there a substance term in the SB law?


What is "my bullshit"? What are you even talking about?

YOU are the one who attempts to modify the SB law by adding in a wavelength term. YOU are the one who ignores it when it contradicts the AGW theory of "trapped heat" "reducing Earth's radiance" while simultaneously "increasing Earth's temperature".

This is YOUR issue, not mine. Own it.

When did I add in a wavelength term to the SB law?
I love your claim that the temperature of the troposphere is the same thing as the temperature of exosphere. Can you provide evidence to support that theory?

 

[gfm7175]

You are confusing meterological winter and spring with astrological winter and spring.

I am not confusing anything. YOU are the one who is confused, attempting to tell me that the timing of winter and spring (whether "meteorological" or "astrological") can somehow be adjusted via lake water freezing/melting or via bird migration.

They are not the same thing.

Right. "Astrological" is how seasons are most accurately/technically defined (via Earth's tilt and rotation). "Meteorological" is how seasons are more generally defined for purposes of more accurately documenting and analyzing weather data.

Why is the ice forming on lakes later and leaving lakes earlier?

What ice? What lakes? Why does it even matter?? Lake ice has nothing to do with determining seasons or Earth's temperature.

You are simply distracting from the pertinent question, which is: why should any rational adult believe that the Earth is warming? Once again, if that's your faith, then believe whatever you want, but don't pretend that your faith is science.

 

[Into the Night]

So something people measure directly

No one is measuring the temperature of the Earth. It is not possible.

and shows warming,

Base rate fallacy. You can't show a change in value unless you measure the absolute value at least twice.

you don't believe them?

Making up numbers is just random numbers of type randU. Using them as data is a fallacy called an argument from randU fallacy.

Do you think the entire earth's weather people who go out and record the temperatures daily over the last century or century and a half were all part of a global cabal to fake the data?

No one is measuring the temperature of the Earth.

I don't know about the other poster but I know I have more science background than you.

You deny and discard science. You have already discarded the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, the Stefan-Boltzmann law, Newton's laws, Einstein's laws, and Planck's laws.
You also deny and discard mathematics, particularly random number mathematics, probability mathematics, and statistical mathematics. I have also already seen you discard algebra.

Denying and discarding science and mathematics is NOT a science background.

Do you wish to ask any basic questions on the topic?

No. I already know your wacky answers.

 

[gfm7175]

Yeah

♬Take me down to the Paradox City
Where the logic dies and the mind goes trippy♬

Are they "random statistically sounding words" or are they "an important part of statistical mathematics"?

and you have no clue what they mean in the current discussion.

Once again, your issue not mine, as already identified.

LOL. No. Unlike you I've spent about 30 years processing data and running statistics on lab data.

I don't believe you.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I am not confusing anything. YOU are the one who is confused, attempting to tell me that the timing of winter and spring (whether "meteorological" or "astrological") can somehow be adjusted via lake water freezing/melting or via bird migration.


Right. "Astrological" is how seasons are most accurately/technically defined (via Earth's tilt and rotation). "Meteorological" is how seasons are more generally defined for purposes of more accurately documenting and analyzing weather data.


What ice? What lakes? Why does it even matter?? Lake ice has nothing to do with determining seasons or Earth's temperature.

You are simply distracting from the pertinent question, which is: why should any rational adult believe that the Earth is warming? Once again, if that's your faith, then believe whatever you want, but don't pretend that your faith is science.

Why would any rational person ignore evidence?

https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-lake-ice

 

[gfm7175]

Why am I not surprised you can't talk about any of them in detail?

You have yet to decide whether they are "random statistical sounding words" or whether they are "important parts of statistical mathematics".

 

[Saint Guinefort]

No one is measuring the temperature of the Earth. It is not possible.

Base rate fallacy. You can't show a change in value unless you measure the absolute value at least twice.

Making up numbers is just random numbers of type randU. Using them as data is a fallacy called an argument from randU fallacy.

No one is measuring the temperature of the Earth.

You deny and discard science. You have already discarded the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, the Stefan-Boltzmann law, Newton's laws, Einstein's laws, and Planck's laws.
You also deny and discard mathematics, particularly random number mathematics, probability mathematics, and statistical mathematics. I have also already seen you discard algebra.

Denying and discarding science and mathematics is NOT a science background.

No. I already know your wacky answers.

Seems to me you and your sock are the primary ones denying science. But that's understandable. Clearly you haven't had any science training. Too bad for you. I can tell you, though, you probably couldn't handle much science education. You wouldn't last long.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I am not confusing anything. YOU are the one who is confused, attempting to tell me that the timing of winter and spring (whether "meteorological" or "astrological") can somehow be adjusted via lake water freezing/melting or via bird migration.

Congratulations. You clearly know nothing about horticulture or biology in general.
Why don't you go ask a farmer why it matters when the ice goes out on lakes or when their ground thaws.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

You have yet to decide whether they are "random statistical sounding words" or whether they are "important parts of statistical mathematics".

So why don't you talk us through the Second Law. If you can. There's always Google but your lack of facility with the concepts will show.

 

[gfm7175]

When did I add in a wavelength term to the SB law?
I love your claim that the temperature of the troposphere is the same thing as the temperature of exosphere. Can you provide evidence to support that theory?

When did I claim anything about troposphere and exosphere temperature?

 

[Into the Night]

Might want to get a set of suspenders for those socks.

What socks? Yours?

 

[Into the Night]

The temperature of WHAT is increasing? The Earth?

The "surface of the Earth" is not the Earth. Any data from said thermometers is only applicable to each precise location of each thermometer. However, you wish to pretend that thousands of thermometers, purposefully located with regard to having access for routine servicing, can somehow measure the temperature of not only the Earth's surface, but the entirety of Earth as well, all without the data summary being tainted by location and time bias... all without considering how high of a variance value temperature has... all without declaring a target margin of error at the outset... all without calculating a margin of error from the declared variance... etc etc

Faith is not science, dude.

He is specifically trying to claim he knows the temperature of the surface of Earth only, ignoring any atmosphere or ocean or soil depth. It, of course, can't be measured either. Partly because he can't seem to specify a boundary, but mostly because there aren't enough thermometers measuring it. Weather stations typically have their thermometers mounted at a height anywhere between four and eight feet above the surface of Earth. None that I know of use a contact thermometer.

 

[gfm7175]

I just want to take a second to remind the forum of Poor Richard's profound statement of faith, making use of the Marxist "we" of course:

We don't even have to rely on temperature readings to see that the earth is warming.

Here, he proclaims to the forum that, even without the existence of any valid temperature data of any sort, he knows deep down in his heart that "the earth is warming", not only because lake water freezes and thaws, but also because birds migrate.

This seems like a good time for me to chime in about my Christian faith once again... This seems like a brilliant time to chime in and proclaim that "we" don't even have to rely on historical accounts of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection to see that Christianity is the "one true faith", but "we" can also know this because Christianity is the most popular religion in the world, and because Earth is very intricate in its ability to support life.

 

[Into the Night]

Doesn't sound like you know anything about this.

He already has shown that he does.

You clearly have never read any of Karl's work from the 1980's.

Karl Marx didn't produce any work in 1980.

Back in the 1980's time of observation bias has been explicitly dealt with.

No, it wasn't.

That's almost 40 years ago and you didn't even know this?

Never happened. Location grouping also never was dealt with. You are trying to rationalize ignoring statistical math again. Thermometers are not uniformly spaced and are not read at the same time by the same authority. Both of these are introducing bias.

Also: NOAA took the data from the poorest sited stations (as chosen by denialists who ranked them) and showed that with or without these poorly sited stations the warming trend is seen. This was done years ago.

Base rate fallacy. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

On top of that Peterson wrote one or two articles showing that urban heat island effect doesn't alter the overall trend.

Irrelevance fallacy. Location grouping is a biasing factor. It MUST be eliminated in the raw data collection.

It's like you haven't read ANY science in this area.

You are not discussing science. Science is not mathematics. You are making serious mathematical errors.

 

[gfm7175]

Why would any rational person ignore evidence?

https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-lake-ice

Why would any rational person pretend that religion is science? Supporting evidence is a part of RELIGION, dude...

 

[Into the Night]

Given that you weren't aware of Peterson's work or Karl's work I should think you might be more modest about your "abilities" in this area.

Quoting random names means nothing.