The Climate Alarmist 97% Lie !!!

They know how to cash checks.

 

Then based on that, shouldn't you be skeptical about the Landsale wind powered battery farm. Their scientists also cash checks.

 

Tom, when did you talk to Professor Lindzen and ask him if any of what you say about him is true?

I communicated to the man.

The alarmists collect the enormous checks. It is why they bother us on forums like this forum.

 

Strictly speaking, they're not different sciences. In an epistemological discussion they're disciplines or areas of study. Although colloquially they are often individually referred to as "sciences". The context dictates what one is referring to.

Please stop trying.... You have too much studying to do. You just said that science was based on verification. My God! That alone should tell any casual reader what the value of the above statement would be.

Here is a very schematic chart I used to explain to my first year students. More as a study guide, than an actual description, as in reality it is much more complex. But it's the same no matter what the scientific area of study is.

Observation-> Hypothesis-> Falsification attempt-> peer-review->publication->post-publication peer-review->replication(multiplied by complexity)

In a nutshell....

The observation is where it all begins. Observations can range from "an apple falls from a tree", to "Austria declares war on Serbia". A hypothesis attempts to explain why. And some way to falsify that hypothesis must be devised. Not verify. If the attempt to falsify fails, then it is said that the level of confidence in the hypothesis has increased. It has NOT been "proven". Hypothesis are never proven. Peer review is necessary to check the data, methodology, relevance, if it contradicts other studies and how it accounts for that, etc. Publication and more peer-review. Then the whole thing needs to be re-done by a whole different team using different methodology and a different approach,..... Depending on the complexity this needs to be done over and over. Accounting for all the different variables. AGW, for example, is so complex that it has required thousands of studies over a period of more than 100 years. But it has met its burden. Over twenty years ago was the last time when anybody could point out a variable that was not addressed.

Does this mean that we can say that AGW has been proven? No!!! As I said: hypothesis are never proven. It means that there is a scientific consensus The highest level of confidence that science can accomplish.

 

In other words, completely different fields of study.

This particular science depends on verification. In order to do the verification they require independent data. Independent data is not available because it is years in the future. They can only use dependent data which is the same data used to come up with the equations and computer programs to start with.

There are numerous scientific methods varying from a half dozen or less to a dozen steps or more. .

You were saying earlier that the scientific consensus made no difference. There was only science.

Bottom line to all of this is that you only believe because someone convinced you should believe, not because you had any real understanding.

 

Can you produce one prediction or climate model produced by Climate Alarmist that has come to fruition without manipulation of the historical climate data !

 

The science deniers are the ones who refuse to admit the 97% statistic is phony. It's not based on a scientific survey of climate scientists and is therefore anti-science.

 

So what?

Lindsey has been singing big oil’s song for some time.

He is now retired and being paid by a host of right wing and extraction interests including the oil soaked Cato Institute, the Heartland Institute, and directly for Peabody Coal.,

Contrary to your claims, his academic writings have been heavily criticized by peer reviewers.

And peddling Exxon’s message pays a lot better than being an environmentalist.

 

What?

You response makes no sense at all.

Landsdale is a wind powered battery farm. The largest in the world at time of completion.

It has been a spectacular success, exceeding the expectations of even its most ardent boosters,’

They expect full payback on the investment inside of three years. That is astounding performance in the electric power industry,

So, it’s no longer about science.

You flat earthers can entertain yourselves with rants about denial all you want.

It doesn’t matter.

The industry is moving toward renewables all over the world. And they’re not doing it out of a sense of altruism.

They’re doing it because renewables and cheaper batteries make peak shaving pay well. And as the cost curve of battery technology continues to plummet, decoupling the need to match production with demand on a constant basis, which has been the case ever since Edison put his first dynamos into service in Pearl Street in the early 1880’s, renewables will take a much bigger share of the market. They’re already almost even with coal in the US.

 

Knock off the insults.

I am all in favor of renewables. I also know that when technologies get pushed to hard arbitrarily, they get unforeseen problems. .

 

Said the guy who calls everyone else an "alarmist".

Your second sentence is correct.

And the electricity industry all over the world is gradually shedding the unforeseen problems of coal and nuclear, most particularly, high capital and high fixed costs, and long term liability.

 

Where have I said anything like that?

 

You made all of that up.

 

No idea what "this particular science" you're talking about. But your doubling down on your statement shows knowledge gaps.. Especially because I just explained it to you. The scientific method is not based on verification. It has not been based on verification for 100 years. Verification is used within specific steps of the methodology. For example to make sure the original observation (measurements, for example) as listed within the study is accurate. As part, for example, of peer-review. But it's not the basis for the methodology, or the way the hypothesis is tested, or the way the conclusions are drawn. These are based on falsification.

I said no such thing! I said opinions make no difference. In science, a consensus is an agreement of peer-reviewed studies. Not of opinions. Only thing that matters in science is what scientists can prove. Not their opinions.. And there is only one way to prove things in Science. And that's using the Scientific Method. Which I outlined for you.

I've explained this to you. You can choose to try to understand it and, if you want, try to verify it on your own. Or you can choose to stay as uninformed as you were. I gave you the information to start you off, but the rest is up to you.

 

Can you explain why it is the ideology of the Democrats to blame climate on man? When I have suggested a massive planting scheme would handle it, they want to control my car, my home, my essentials of life instead. Why is this the Democrats ideology?

 

Why would I do that? I have no interest.

I'm not a climatologist. My area is Epistemology. Therefore my arguments are epistemological.

 

So you expect they will devise all those very complicated formulas and then not verify that they actually work? That is the very heart of this particular science. They devise their equations and run them in a computer problem and test them against dependent data. They then refine them and repeat the process. The problem is that they cannot verify against independent data.

A direct quote from you "It makes absolutely no difference what scientists believe. In Science, the only thing that matters is what they can prove. through peer-reviewed scientific studies that use the Scientific Method."

You only believe what you have spoon fed because they have convinced you that is what you should believe, not from any understanding of the science.

 

You do know that you run the risk of making a fool of yourself if you don't read the post you are responding to before responding, right?

Now you know.

 

No idea what that has to do with ideology. It only has to do with science.

 

What formulas? If you're talking about mathematical formulas, they're not science. Because you can't falsify a formula.

Math formulas are used in science. And they are indispensable in science. Just like writing is indispensable in science. And so is epistemology. But none of them are science. Math and epistemology are branches of logic. Not of science.

Exactly!

If nothing else, I hope you learn that.

 

One would think science, understanding the relationship of plants to carbon dioxide would be badgering congress to do massive planting projects.There are ways to restore soil to accept more carbon dioxide.

 

Should have said equations. They devise these very complicated equations. However, they are not based on pure science. They use observation data which are entered in as coefficients. One of the primary problems with the climate change predictions is separating the effects of other green house gases from CO2. The primary one is water vapor which has a much larger effect than CO2. . A very small difference in coefficients can lead to very large errors over a long period. The equations tend to either flatten out or exaggerate the results over long periods. . They adjust the stability of the equations by verifying against dependent data.

You only believe what you have spoon fed because they have convinced you that is what you should believe, not from any understanding of the science.

 

There are moves against falsification.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/falsifiability/

Does Science Need Falsifiability?

Popper I add was an idea man, not a true scientist.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/falsifiability/

 

That is really true.

 

Totally agree. And there are many such projects under the Paris Agreement. Many countries have taken advantage of this and have been able to make quite a business of selling their carbon credits to others. I know Costa Rica is one that has been selling carbon credits for quite some time. There are countries that don't have the conditions to do this, but by giving incentives to those that do, the overall carbon footprint can be reduced to meet the global goals.