Global Warming Climate Models Have Made a Successful Prediction

On Saturday, 20 August 2016 13:14:08 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:

Now THAT comment is REALLY rich! Peterson is the one who fits this
description:

"Dogma is a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of
a group without being questioned or doubted."

While I am the one who maintains skepticism, which is antithetical to
dogmatism. This is a beautiful example of the kind of baloney that
Peterson regularly spews. And note also that all I did was make a
comment about his narcissism and suddenly I have an "obsession" about
him :-))

Tragically, your doubtful posturing is not only against Mr Peterson but goes against every single scientist who does not suffer from your mind set. This very large group, consisting of multiple disciplines and even many different sciences, is in agreement but spends all its energies trying to confirm or deny the fine detail of AGW.

A professional doubter or layperson, like yourself or Snell, have no scientific value unless they can produce peer reviewed and publishable, original research.

Denialists are another group clinging onto another [usually] non-scientific, dogma like religion or extreme right wing, political ideology. Or both.

Or even, carbon industries, employed trolls. Sent out like a virus to undermine public faith in AGW science. All in the hope of rebuilding investor confidence in long outdated and globally damaging industries. Why do the oil and coal industries spend more on lawyers and lobbyists than manual workers?

On Sat, 20 Aug 2016 05:31:07 -0700 (PDT), "Chris.B"
wrote:

Tragically, your doubtful posturing is not only against Mr Peterson but goes against every single scientist who does not suffer from your mind set.

He doesn't grasp the difference between skepticism and doubt. That's
what makes him a science denier, and not a scientist.

On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 6:31:09 AM UTC-6, Chris.B wrote:

On Saturday, 20 August 2016 13:14:08 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:

Now THAT comment is REALLY rich! Peterson is the one who fits this
description:

"Dogma is a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of
a group without being questioned or doubted."

While I am the one who maintains skepticism, which is antithetical to
dogmatism. This is a beautiful example of the kind of baloney that
Peterson regularly spews. And note also that all I did was make a
comment about his narcissism and suddenly I have an "obsession" about
him :-))

Tragically, your doubtful posturing is not only against Mr Peterson

Au contraire. My position is skeptical of AGW. Not GW, mind you, but
the wild-eyed, we gotta fix it RIGHT NOW OR WE'RE ALL DOOMED human
caused GW.

but goes against every single scientist who does not suffer from your
mind set.

Two problems with that wild assertion: (1) you assert that anyone who
disagrees with YOUR mindset is somehow badly flawed and (2) you maintain
a very dogmatic attitude, just like Peterson.

This very large group, consisting of multiple disciplines and even many
different sciences, is in agreement but spends all its energies trying to
confirm or deny the fine detail of AGW.

Fine detail, my Aunt Fanny! There is disturbing misdirection being promoted
by the "very large group" - as if voting was a scientific process.

A professional doubter or layperson, like yourself or Snell, have no
scientific value unless they can produce peer reviewed and publishable,
original research.

So what is your claim to such research? Pot, kettle, black, my boy.

“‎When you point your finger at someone, anyone, it is often a moment of
judgement. We point our fingers when we want to scold someone, point
out what they have done wrong. But each time we point, we simultaneously
point three fingers back at ourselves.� – Christopher Pike

And just for the record, I'm not a "professional doubter" as you try to
falsely brand me. All you know about me scientifically is that I'm
skeptical about AGW. You don't have a clue about my positions on special
or general relativity, cosmology, astrophysics, quantum mechanics, etc.

Well, I HAVE pointed out that there is no rational solution to the red
Sirius problem within the confines of astrophysical or any other theory.

There are two kinds of people in the world: those that like to put others
on tiny little Procrustean beds and those who don't. You and Peterson are
the former :-)

[Babbling dogmatism deleted]

On Sat, 20 Aug 2016 08:12:20 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

Au contraire. My position is skeptical of AGW.

AGW is a fact. All scientists, of course, are skeptical about AGW.
What that means is that they are open to changing their minds should
new evidence appear (hard to imagine what that would look like-
possibly the discovery of aliens hiding on the Moon and beaming us
with heat rays). None doubt it, however, because it has been
established beyond reasonable doubt (which is what makes it a
scientific fact).

On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 9:15:58 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Sat, 20 Aug 2016 08:12:20 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

Au contraire. My position is skeptical of AGW.

AGW is a fact.

This is your opinion, and I respect that you BELIEVE it to be true

All scientists, of course, are skeptical about AGW.

Then it is not a fact. A fact is that climate scientists use several
different models to predict various aspects of GW. A fact is that not
all the models predict the same thing. A fact is that the CLOUD study
shows that none of the models have taken cosmic ray influences into
account. And then there are the little niggling things like the solar
constant isn't constant, CO2 levels lag temperature rise, large volcanic
eruptions can throw the earth into another ice age (if the supervolcano
beneath Yellowstone blew, it would cause the equivalent of nuclear
winter), etc.

What that means is that they are open to changing their minds should
new evidence appear (hard to imagine what that would look like-
possibly the discovery of aliens hiding on the Moon and beaming us
with heat rays). None doubt it, however, because it has been
established beyond reasonable doubt (which is what makes it a
scientific fact).

If you can't perform full-scale experiments, there is ALWAYS reasonable
doubt. And since AGW catastrophe is not imminent there is no reason to
demand immediate and precipitous action. I have suggested a course of
action that COULD be started right now: put up controllable mirrors in
orbit to either deflect sunlight away from the earth or reflect it TO
the earth in case global cooling occurs. The response I got here cooled
the earth significantly, proving that AGW promoters are dogmatic.

The BIG SCARE tactic about the part of the Greenland ice sheet that has
broken off and is melting would have been laughable if it weren't so
dishonest. They claimed it would raise the ocean level 6 meters, but
at the rate it was melting, that would take 300,000 years! Now they're
making noises about ALL of the Arctic ice melting!

I prefer to take a wait and see stance and keep an open mind. There's
plenty of time.

On Sat, 20 Aug 2016 10:51:32 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 9:15:58 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Sat, 20 Aug 2016 08:12:20 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

Au contraire. My position is skeptical of AGW.

AGW is a fact.

This is your opinion, and I respect that you BELIEVE it to be true

It is not an opinion, except in the sense that it's an opinion that
the Earth circles the Sun, and not the other way around.

All scientists, of course, are skeptical about AGW.

Then it is not a fact.

Yes, it is. Because it is understood to be true beyond any reasonable
doubt, it is rightfully called a "fact".

If you can't perform full-scale experiments, there is ALWAYS reasonable
doubt.

That's not true. Experiments are not a requirement of science. Nothing
that we know about nature is beyond doubt, but a great deal is beyond
reasonable doubt.

On Sat, 20 Aug 2016 04:14:03 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel wrote:

On Friday, August 19, 2016 at 8:02:54 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Fri, 19 Aug 2016 04:12:34 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

On Thursday, August 18, 2016 at 8:53:39 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

Again, where do you suggest I live if not on private land?

There's a guy in New Zealand that built his house on poles just offshore
on Doubtful Sound. You could try the same thing here.

And I clarified my point. But you're too intellectually dishonest to
take that and work with it.

It is more likely that Peterson has some fetish about never being wrong,
no matter what he says :-)

Yours and Snell's obsession with me reveals that you recognize the
truth in much of what I say and it scares you, because dogma can't
hold up to the truth.

Now THAT comment is REALLY rich! Peterson is the one who fits this
description:

"Dogma is a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of
a group without being questioned or doubted."

While I am the one who maintains skepticism, which is antithetical to
dogmatism. This is a beautiful example of the kind of baloney that
Peterson regularly spews. And note also that all I did was make a
comment about his narcissism and suddenly I have an "obsession" about
him :-))

I've kill-filed Peterson and wsnell. It represents a loss because, at
times, each has had something worthwile to contribute.

You and C.B. may be onto something, as I've wondered how/why both these
guys evoled into usenet "bullies". They'll fight with anyone, anywhere,
and no topic is too small to fight over. In my view, they're
intolerant, contentious, combative to the point that their behavior
overshadows any contributions they can make.

I've put 'em to "pasture" on the 4,000, virtual, acres at the far
reaches of the ranch, where they can argue 24/7 x 365 -1/4 over the
desicated cow-patties.


--
Email address is a Spam trap.

On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 1:08:58 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
On Sat, 20 Aug 2016 04:14:03 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel wrote:

On Friday, August 19, 2016 at 8:02:54 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Fri, 19 Aug 2016 04:12:34 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

On Thursday, August 18, 2016 at 8:53:39 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

Again, where do you suggest I live if not on private land?

There's a guy in New Zealand that built his house on poles just offshore
on Doubtful Sound. You could try the same thing here.

And I clarified my point. But you're too intellectually dishonest to
take that and work with it.

It is more likely that Peterson has some fetish about never being wrong,
no matter what he says :-)

Yours and Snell's obsession with me reveals that you recognize the
truth in much of what I say and it scares you, because dogma can't
hold up to the truth.

Now THAT comment is REALLY rich! Peterson is the one who fits this
description:

"Dogma is a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of
a group without being questioned or doubted."

While I am the one who maintains skepticism, which is antithetical to
dogmatism. This is a beautiful example of the kind of baloney that
Peterson regularly spews. And note also that all I did was make a
comment about his narcissism and suddenly I have an "obsession" about
him :-))

I've kill-filed Peterson and wsnell. It represents a loss because, at
times, each has had something worthwile to contribute.

You and C.B. may be onto something, as I've wondered how/why both these
guys evoled into usenet "bullies". They'll fight with anyone, anywhere,
and no topic is too small to fight over. In my view, they're
intolerant, contentious, combative to the point that their behavior
overshadows any contributions they can make.

I've put 'em to "pasture" on the 4,000, virtual, acres at the far
reaches of the ranch, where they can argue 24/7 x 365 -1/4 over the
desicated cow-patties.

Welcome to the 21st century. Back in the '70's we had CB radio whereby one could communicate with others via the airwaves, but the range was only about 5 miles. Originally it was thought that it would help travelers who might be broken down to get help (remember back then cars were sort of poorly made). Well it didn't take long for the airwaves to fill up with "spam", and even though the number of channels increased, they still filled up with gobblegobblecrapola about where Smokey was hiding and other inane stuff.

Also before long, personal insults were hurled with drivers thinking they were un-identifiable. My neighbor was cruising one Saturday night, got into a personal insult battle with another CBer, and before long was being stalked by him. The other guy had some kind of directional homing antenna on his truck, eventually found my neighbor and took a pot shot at his car with a shotgun.

Nowadays people using the internet for their squabbles are more than 5 miles apart, so it presents a huge cache of people they can annoy and also have reasonable anonymity. So we have a lot of keyboard cowboys who are fearless behind the internet wall, but probably would be much more polite when they are with real people in the flesh and blood.

On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 12:02:23 PM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Sat, 20 Aug 2016 10:51:32 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

If you can't perform full-scale experiments, there is ALWAYS reasonable
doubt.

That's not true. Experiments are not a requirement of science.

Now we get down to the bare bones where the basic disagreement between
us lies. Of course experiments are a requirement of science. It is
encompassed in the very definition of the word:

"the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic
study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world
through observation and experiment."


Nothing that we know about nature is beyond doubt, but a great deal
is beyond reasonable doubt.

I agree with that. What I disagree with is your definition of "reasonable."
That is a human judgment and often has little to do with what is real.

On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 12:08:58 PM UTC-6, Bill wrote:

On Sat, 20 Aug 2016 04:14:03 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel wrote:

On Friday, August 19, 2016 at 8:02:54 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

Yours and Snell's obsession with me reveals that you recognize the
truth in much of what I say and it scares you, because dogma can't
hold up to the truth.

Now THAT comment is REALLY rich! Peterson is the one who fits this
description:

"Dogma is a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of
a group without being questioned or doubted."

While I am the one who maintains skepticism, which is antithetical to
dogmatism. This is a beautiful example of the kind of baloney that
Peterson regularly spews. And note also that all I did was make a
comment about his narcissism and suddenly I have an "obsession" about
him :-))

I've kill-filed Peterson and wsnell. It represents a loss because, at
times, each has had something worthwile to contribute.

“I never learned from a man that agreed with me.� – Robert A. Heinlein

You and C.B. may be onto something, as I've wondered how/why both these
guys evoled into usenet "bullies". They'll fight with anyone, anywhere,
and no topic is too small to fight over. In my view, they're
intolerant, contentious, combative to the point that their behavior
overshadows any contributions they can make.

I've put 'em to "pasture" on the 4,000, virtual, acres at the far
reaches of the ranch, where they can argue 24/7 x 365 -1/4 over the
desicated cow-patties.

I came to understand special relativity (and a bit of general) by arguing
with a few relativity deniers. It made me study and ponder until I did
understand. And then my understanding got honed further by discussions
with those who really knew their stuff. "Climate science" is much murkier
because it's based on a lot of inference, being mostly observation. Much
of the so-called "experimental" basis is computer programs which attempt
to mimic observation, which they do with varying success.