Search the Community
Showing results for 'climate doom' in content posted by Jonathan.
-
"Activists demand UN ‘revoke’ credentials of ‘climate deniers’ in Paris..." Heh. What a reasonable, rational, pro-science mindset! But why stop there? Why not just cut to the chase and round up all of the "deniers" and ship them off to camps where they can be forcibly reeducated or, if they refuse to change their views in the face of torture, why not just "recycle" and "compost" them? Quit pussyfooting around and get down to the true goal of torturing and killing! J
-
"Experts" claim record cold caused by global warming
Jonathan replied to Jerry Biggers's topic in Science & Mathematics
Discussions on climate change are usually very much like discussions on conspiracy theories. They quickly devolve into mounds and mounds of details and pointless bickering over minutiae because no one began by laying the groundwork of identifying specifically what would constitute either proof or falsifiability. The believers are therefore left with the constant option of skirting the issue of falsifiability, and therefore of practicing pseudoscience and passing it off as science. Everything is accepted as proof of their position, and there is no possible falsification. They will not name or a -
Michelle Marder Kamhi's "Who Says That's Art?"
Jonathan replied to Ellen Stuttle's topic in 5 - Aesthetics
Ellen The difference between climate-alarmists (and other polluters of the concept of science) and Danto is that Danto was correct about art. Warhol's Brillo boxes are art, regardless of whether most people would see them as such, and they are even art by Rand's and Kamhi's definitions and criteria. So, it's not just Warhol's of Danto's "theory of art" that makes them art, but Rand's and Kamhi's as well. They are selective re-creations of reality according to the artist's metaphysical value-judgments. J -
If the observed temperatures in reality don't fall within that range, are you saying that the model which predicted temperatures within that range is therefore falsified, or is it still just a "minor discrepancy"? See, it would be nice if you would actually answer my questions, rather than bluffing and blustering while avoiding them. I have to wonder why you refuse to answer the questions. Is it because you know that once you actually identify precisely what you mean by "minor discrepancies" versus observations which would falsify a given model, then we can begin to apply your own stated stand
-
My favorite part of the rest of the article is this: "But none of the climate simulations carried out for the IPCC produced this particular hiatus at this particular time. That has led sceptics — and some scientists — to the controversial conclusion that the models might be overestimating the effect of greenhouse gases, and that future warming might not be as strong as is feared." I love the author's classification of "sceptics" and "scientist" as two mutually exclusive categories. Heh. If you're a sceptic, you are, by the author's definition, not a scientist! J
-
You have no real-world knowledge of the scientific method or how "real science" works. As always, you're bluffing and blustering. You're making shit up. Actually, your model IS falsified under those conditions. That's completely illogical. Being that far off in your predictions DOES NOT mean that "you're on the right track." The new model does not predict reality, and is also therefore falsified. "Minor" by what rational standard? How large of a discrepancy would it have to be before you would label it "major"?!!! Would ANY discrepancy, no matter how great, count as falsifying AGW?!!!
-
How could someone who is the serious student of climate science that you pose as being not have heard of Ehrlich? Do you mean "no one" other than Stanford University and the leftist media and Ehrlich's leftist "critics" who think that he hasn't gone far enough? Since you've just now heard of Ehrlich for the first time, why are you claiming to know who does or doesn't take him seriously? Do you really believe that you can make us believe that you've had enough time to study the issue to come to a rational and informed conclusion? I'll believe that you believe what you say about AGW when I s
-
Scientific Fraud becoming endemic?
Jonathan replied to Selene's topic in News and Interesting Articles
Another interesting article: It's okay to lie about climate change. J -
Scientific Fraud becoming endemic?
Jonathan replied to Selene's topic in News and Interesting Articles
Okay, I've apparently misunderstood you. You had mentioned that you were an AGWer, and after I asked you to clarify which "consensus" you were referring to, you posted the two links, which I assumed meant that you agreed with their content, and that they represented the "consensus" views that you thought would have to be falsified in order to disprove AGW. Sorry if I got that wrong. And if I did get it wrong, then I don't understand the point of your posting the two links. I didn't check for "reason for doubt." Powell did, as described here: "Articles that merely claimed to have found some d -
Scientific Fraud becoming endemic?
Jonathan replied to Selene's topic in News and Interesting Articles
Bill, a few questions occurred to me today: Which prominent critics and their criticisms of AGW have you read, and how would you answer the substance of their criticisms? What do you think of the mindset of certain proponents of AGW in the sciences, academe and politics of ostracizing and intimidating dissenters, and now even proposing using the force of law to silence and punish them? Why is it that only supporters of AGW are the ones trying to silence critics and punish them? Is that a scientific mindset? Isn't a truly scientific mindset to encourage and welcome criticism, rather than to do -
An assistant professor of philosophy wants to lock up "deniers": https://theconversation.com/is-misinformation-about-the-climate-criminally-negligent-23111 I'm thinking that torture might be worth considering too. Commenter Helen Stream nailed it: ...And to the author of this article, why should you not be considered to be deceitful yourself on this, when you cite the discredited '97% of scientists agree' claim in the link as an affirmation of the truth of CAGW and of the criminal culpability of sceptics? The 97.1% is only 97.1 % of the 4014 accepted for assessment---those who agreed , not s
-
I think the idea is that "state-controlled science" doesn't produce science. In other words, the initiation of force is not compatible with free inquiry. Soviet agricultural genetics would be a good example. As would the pseudoscience of man-made global warming/climate change. J
-
Like Al Gore on climate change, the Stalker takes every possible outcome on every subject as proof of his theories -- all outcomes confirm his theories, none refute them. J
