In regards to hansen's work... Hansen is an expert on Venus by the way... its where his real background is...
I'd like you look at something. Someone sent me this link in this discussion and I find it interesting. I want to get as many opinions as possible on it.
The argument seems elegant to me and I don't really know enough of the science to have a strong opinion.
The basic concept is that if you compensate for air pressure, distance from the stun, and differences in blackbody radiation... venus and earth have the same temperature. That is the argument it makes. I don't know if its valid. It essentially only deals with three variables and it could well be more complicated then that. But the analysis is interesting.
I'm honestly just asking for as many eye balls on this thing as possible so I can get additional opinions. If the argument is reasonable it would horribly undermine hansen's credibility... given that he would be just the sort of person that should have made the connection. I'm well aware that that level of incompetence is unlikely to be actual so this theory is likely wrong. But I'd like to know why it is wrong.
if you have scientific reason for why this theory is wrong and not a political one... I'd love to hear it. For example, saying "this guy has low social status" is not a scientific opinion. That is political. Or "I don't know this guy" is a political opinion. Or "Surely someone of higher status would have come to this conclusion earlier" is also political.
I've looked at CO2's absorption spectrum before and it isn't a lot of the spectrum. CO2 is transparent/does not react with the vast majority of the spectrum. And the portion that does react seems to be a portion that other common atmospheric gases/compounds also react with... such that CO2 might only be relevant to the earth's atmosphere in that it might marginally increase the density of our atmosphere.
That change in density would of course be so small at this point as to be utterly irrelevant. So it is very important for the CO2 greenhouse gas theory that CO2 be especially good at converting light into heat that would not otherwise be converted to heat by other gases.
Appreciate... I am a laymen. I know this about myself. But I am both clever and patient. I believe I can understand these things if I am patient, humble, and persistent.
Understand, this isn't arrogance on my part... I feel to have any right to have any opinion what so ever... I must engage the issue in this manner. Anything short of this would leave me feeling that I had no right to render any opinion at all.
Understand, I am not saying this is correct or incorrect. I haven't looked into it enough to have an opinion. But I find the argument to be elegant.
What do you think about it? Please don't just dismiss it out of hand. Try to give a scientific reason for it being wrong. I am literally asking for a second opinion here.
I believe this is how science works no... back and forth between minds?
I mostly find this interesting because most AGW research is pretty impenetrable. Your citations are likely only useful if I wanted to spend months to years pouring over it. Which by the way doesn't make any of it invalid. Its just not practical for someone like myself to audit it. Which obviously makes me uncomfortable. Science doesn't have to make me comfortable... but I do prefer things that way. If I can find a valid way of looking at it that gives me a window into it then I'll pursue it.
In any case, please keep an open mind, look at the analysis in that link, and give me your scientific and honest opinion of it. Remember, I'm not interested in some snap judgement based on bias against the source. That's ad hominem. Lets try to avoid classic logical fallacies.
I found that interesting because it was the first time one of these models was actually given to a third party to evaluate. Typically the output of the models is shared but not the models themselves.
You can't have peer review without full disclosure of methodology.
They make a point now of not sharing the details of the models with people. That would concern you if you had any intellectual curiosity.
I didn't say a specific institution you'll randomly select went up by any amount. I said that some had seen that increase. And you can see in the general budget figures that there has been a massive increase in funding. And that's just US federal spending.
You're just wasting my time now. My point is made. Thank you.
I couldn't see raw global temperature data sets, the total methodology of the given model, and then the output data listed anywhere.
If I had that, then I could take the raw data... run it through the stated methodology, and then get the same or similar output.
Obviously my resources and ability are not enough to do a complete run of the system. However, I could do a rough approximation with generalized figures.
I suspect there are fewer then 20 steps the data goes through. I could put a sample through 20 steps. I could even write a script to do it for me so I could try out various variables.
What I'd be most interested in is the actual methodology of the models. Precisely what is done to the data set from initial input to final output.
What you're saying is that if the temperature goes up you can't be falsified.
Sadly that doesn't mean CO2 is increasing the temperature. That's the distinction between causation and correlation.
It would help if your theory were constructed in such a way that it could be vetting indifferent to temperature fluctuations.
What if its alien heat beams from Klandaxu that are causing the rise in temperature and not the CO2?
You see the issue.
In any case... I was wondering if you'd look at something for me. It was a blog post someone linked to me recently and maybe you can give me your opinion: http://theendofthemystery.blog...
The general premise of the post is that the temperature of venus is the same as on earth if you compensate for atmospheric density, distance to the sun, and the difference in blackbody radiation.
I am not a scientist. But neither am I afraid of math. I found this argument to be elegant. It might be wrong for all I know but it seems like an interesting argument and I'd love to hear what other scientists think about it. If only because I might learn something.
I am genuinely curious about nature, science, and yes whether the world is warming. But I feel it is intellectually lazy to just accept doctrine and I've thought that much of the conduct of the pro global warming groups has been unbecoming of ethical scientific practice so far as I understand it.
Anyway, you're probably not a scientist either. But I think I'm going to start linking this around and hope that someone is a scientist and can shed some more light on then me if only by telling me its wrong. Of course... I'd want them to try and tell me why while they're at it.
Let me elect the people that will be controlling this climate institution and I'll consider them valid. Short of that... they have no right to political power.
Further, as to international groups... Any group I elect, will be elected by my people and only my people for my people. I will not submit to the control of a foreign power unless that power has defeated my country in war. And even then... I'll cooperate only so long as they maintain their control... which I'll be honor bound to frustrate.
That is very interesting... do you have more? A post on a blog isn't very compelling. I could verify the calculations but I'd love to see more on this because it seems like a very elegant and provable line of argument.
The only squirrelly issue is if all the variables are being taken into consideration. This is where science is so useful. Many minds all reviewing something.
I'd love to see more of this... or at least hear from someone that its wrong. Anything.
Right... the only politics is from the deniers... never mind Al Gore pushing your platform. Never mind the UN. Never mind the hundreds of politicians lining up one way or the other.
You're blinded by your own cognitive dissonance. Its a human tendency... very common.
Have an open mind and at least try to listen. Some people are incorrigible jackasses. But most are honestly trying to have a discussion here... and this attitude makes it impossible to do anything but draw up battle lines.
I'll point out that the fight only profits the politicians. Even the business interests lose in a fight. But the politicians can turn a fight into passion and passion can be converted into voter turn out.
And even if you did... which you don't... science isn't a democracy anymore then reality is a democracy.
You can't vote the laws of gravity away and you can't cite support numbers as scientific evidence.
What you've just proven again, is that you're thinking POLITICALLY.
Politically, support numbers matter. Scientifically, they're irrelevant.
The first people to think infections were caused by germs were ridiculed by the majority of their peers that thought them insane. Little invisible creatures spreading unseen from place to place? It sounded like nonsense. But eventually it became accepted fact.
If we went by your logic, then that discovery would have never been given credence.
Now, I know that isn't what you want. But the price of allowing such things to rise out of obscurity is to not shut down scientific discourse with political bullshit.
Its that or at the very least you'll have set a precedent that will be applied elsewhere. Possibly in medicine. Possibly in physics. And sooner or later it will bring institutions to their knees unless they have the humility to simply let the process play out.
As to cynicism, you're apparently an appalling reader. I didn't refute anything with my cynicism. I doubted your interest my reasons. The above was quite obvious.... Just pointing out the obvious.
And frankly... that half baked attack basically validated my assumptions. So... Good job... you're proving me right.
1. Citing the oil industry does not refute my point.
2. I have no problem with voluntary compliance. But that is individual.
If you want to compel my compliance with law then you're going to need to make a better argument and submit to more stringent standards.
Short of that... if all you've got are dry political talking points and insults... then I feel quite justified in holding my ground.
So, lets put north korea as the head of the human rights commission.
I'd love to hear their views on human rights. Its doubtless hilarious.
As to dialog, etc... you assume the opposition is going to talk to you in good faith.
That is... specifically you are assuming the iranians are going to discuss this in good faith.... Really?
That's another one of those regimes that we'll just tolerate and contain until some lucky series of circumstances allows for actual reform from within.
2. As to charlatans, obviously they shouldn't be given time. However, you're attempting to disqualify a larger group then can be labeled a charlatan. The occasional kook... fine. But not this many people.
Further, its dangerous in science to shut people out when this much money and power is on the line. Consider for a moment... just for the sake of argument... that the skeptics are correct. What do you think will be effect of removing all criticism and oversight from the pro AGW crowd while they're getting billions in funds and increasing amounts of naked unquestioned power?
You're creating a dangerous situation here. Are the skeptics annoying and often wrong? Yes. But shutting them out could be a disaster that could bring whole scientific institutions to their knees. Its not worth it.
Tolerate people with different views... its a lot cheaper then the alternative.
Further, they're not just going to go away. So you won't accomplish much by shutting them out.
I'd say both, really. I realise that having a lot of people think something doesn't make it right, but if you show your idea to enough people, at some point you start to think that all the holes must have been found by at least one of the eyes that looked at it.
As I said, its a classical logical fallacy.
Its not valid thinking. So... if that's your position, your position is indefensible.
The process is very transparent. Even with the whole "climategate" bullshit a few years ago, there was nothing that wasn't open and honest apart from a couple of informal emails using words that the MSM didn't like. To be accepted to a science journal or conference you need to be doing science, not just spouting a conspiracy theory.
There were computer programs that were getting their papers into journals and into conferences so I don't know what you think you're talking about.
The system is never perfect. It can't be perfect.
All that can keep it honest is transparency and public scrutiny. Journals are not transparent... and whatever you might feel of the openness of the issue... it isn't open enough for people like me.
Would it be so bad to just give me what I want? I don't want to tell anyone what to think. I merely want enough access to these things that I feel comfortable with the way they are run.
Nothing more or less.
Your job isn't meaningless because your manager is trying to get himself more power. Sport isn't less fun because a player went to another team for a bullshit reason. Just like carbon dioxide won't magically change it's IR spectrum because some greedy politicians are sticking their noses in.
If you want me to sign off on programs that will cost trillions of dollars and give power over myself to various agencies... I must trust them.
So long as they are obvious political agents that financially profit from the issue I can't trust them. The conflict of interest is too great. Surely you must see that.
Lets reverse the issue around so maybe you might grasp the problem.
Lets say that democrats/socialists/various left of center groups were against doing anything about global warming. And that Republicans/capitalists/various right of center groups were for doing something about global warming.
Just for the sake of argument... Now lets say those groups started getting very excited about it. And they proposed a big plan to fix the world. And buried in all those plans they basically claimed a lot of power for their factions, made their allies rich, and screwed over their opposition.
Would you sign off on that or resist it?
Do you perhaps begin to see the problem? The AGW movement has been hijacked.
Until the hijackers are removed it will not be treated as legitimate.
And don't forget the People's republic of North Korea.
Which is a republic about as much as most of those Scandinavian countries are monarchies.
Do you want to play stupid word games that wouldn't fool a child or do you want to actually discuss the issue like an adult? Because these sad little games where morons try to score points with obviously fallacious arguments is pathetic.
Use your brain to come up with a rational argument that you find credible. Then have the humility to see if your peers think it holds water. And then the integrity to deal with the vetting process.
That is a principle science education was supposed to teach glorified monkeys like yourself.
Sorry... your stupidity bores me so I'm now just amusing myself with silly insults. Don't take them too seriously if you actually start taking the discussion seriously I'll put all of that trash away. But if you're going to be snippy and rude I see no reason not flick frozen peas in your general direction.
Only because you automatically define anyone that does question it as not a real scientist.
Its circular logic.
Really... your thought process is childish and crude. And yet you presume to claim superiority while spouting logical fallacies that no one that graduated high school should utter.
Its pathetic.
If you want to play the condescension game... then you'll find I'm likely better schooled rhetorically slapping you around then you are me.
Will this accomplish anything? Short of a dim pride in my own abilities... not much.
It would be nice if we could have a real discussion. But so few of you even know how to have a discussion.
You're like wind up robots all set out and marching mechanically along. Utterly unable to think for yourselves or adapt to changing circumstances. Its a pity.
The smoking gun was the Earth Simulator the Japanese built.
They built this giant super computer and plugged in the climate science models... and nothing worked properly.
Eventually, they had to resort of per year plug variables. Effectively they told the graph what to point out every year and the giant super computer... with all its great calculating capacity... gave an answer an excel spreadsheet could provide.
Slashdot Mirror
In regards to hansen's work... Hansen is an expert on Venus by the way... its where his real background is...
I'd like you look at something. Someone sent me this link in this discussion and I find it interesting. I want to get as many opinions as possible on it.
http://theendofthemystery.blog...
The argument seems elegant to me and I don't really know enough of the science to have a strong opinion.
The basic concept is that if you compensate for air pressure, distance from the stun, and differences in blackbody radiation... venus and earth have the same temperature. That is the argument it makes. I don't know if its valid. It essentially only deals with three variables and it could well be more complicated then that. But the analysis is interesting.
I'm honestly just asking for as many eye balls on this thing as possible so I can get additional opinions. If the argument is reasonable it would horribly undermine hansen's credibility... given that he would be just the sort of person that should have made the connection. I'm well aware that that level of incompetence is unlikely to be actual so this theory is likely wrong. But I'd like to know why it is wrong.
if you have scientific reason for why this theory is wrong and not a political one... I'd love to hear it. For example, saying "this guy has low social status" is not a scientific opinion. That is political. Or "I don't know this guy" is a political opinion. Or "Surely someone of higher status would have come to this conclusion earlier" is also political.
I've looked at CO2's absorption spectrum before and it isn't a lot of the spectrum. CO2 is transparent/does not react with the vast majority of the spectrum. And the portion that does react seems to be a portion that other common atmospheric gases/compounds also react with... such that CO2 might only be relevant to the earth's atmosphere in that it might marginally increase the density of our atmosphere.
That change in density would of course be so small at this point as to be utterly irrelevant. So it is very important for the CO2 greenhouse gas theory that CO2 be especially good at converting light into heat that would not otherwise be converted to heat by other gases.
Appreciate... I am a laymen. I know this about myself. But I am both clever and patient. I believe I can understand these things if I am patient, humble, and persistent.
Understand, this isn't arrogance on my part... I feel to have any right to have any opinion what so ever... I must engage the issue in this manner. Anything short of this would leave me feeling that I had no right to render any opinion at all.
Okay... let me put the shoe on the other foot.
Lets say a study came out that contradicted your impressions and that study was funded by Big Evil Oil company number 3.
Would you find the study more or less credible due to its backers?
Okay... So we can both acknowledge that who funds research and what their interests are is relevant.
Just out of curosity, what do you think of this argument:
http://theendofthemystery.blog...
Understand, I am not saying this is correct or incorrect. I haven't looked into it enough to have an opinion. But I find the argument to be elegant.
What do you think about it? Please don't just dismiss it out of hand. Try to give a scientific reason for it being wrong. I am literally asking for a second opinion here.
I believe this is how science works no... back and forth between minds?
I mostly find this interesting because most AGW research is pretty impenetrable. Your citations are likely only useful if I wanted to spend months to years pouring over it. Which by the way doesn't make any of it invalid. Its just not practical for someone like myself to audit it. Which obviously makes me uncomfortable. Science doesn't have to make me comfortable... but I do prefer things that way. If I can find a valid way of looking at it that gives me a window into it then I'll pursue it.
In any case, please keep an open mind, look at the analysis in that link, and give me your scientific and honest opinion of it. Remember, I'm not interested in some snap judgement based on bias against the source. That's ad hominem. Lets try to avoid classic logical fallacies.
I have much experience with such... You deal with it by processing the paper work.
Eventually it comes out.
No, captain strawman... that is not what I said.
I said that science perverted by political and economic self interest can't be trusted.
There is a conflict of interest... and that has to be addressed.
I found that interesting because it was the first time one of these models was actually given to a third party to evaluate. Typically the output of the models is shared but not the models themselves.
You can't have peer review without full disclosure of methodology.
They make a point now of not sharing the details of the models with people. That would concern you if you had any intellectual curiosity.
I would have to be ignorant as to those same countries to miss the sarcasm. I am not ignorant.
But just as there are monarchies that are not monarchies... there are "People's Republics" that are not republics.
As was said... "what is in a name"... I have one... and you're an anonymous coward.
I didn't say a specific institution you'll randomly select went up by any amount. I said that some had seen that increase. And you can see in the general budget figures that there has been a massive increase in funding. And that's just US federal spending.
You're just wasting my time now. My point is made. Thank you.
You're not contradicting any of my points. You're just throwing about some innuendo.
Please either stay on topic or I'll have to assume you've conceded the argument in my favor.
I couldn't see raw global temperature data sets, the total methodology of the given model, and then the output data listed anywhere.
If I had that, then I could take the raw data... run it through the stated methodology, and then get the same or similar output.
Obviously my resources and ability are not enough to do a complete run of the system. However, I could do a rough approximation with generalized figures.
I suspect there are fewer then 20 steps the data goes through. I could put a sample through 20 steps. I could even write a script to do it for me so I could try out various variables.
What I'd be most interested in is the actual methodology of the models. Precisely what is done to the data set from initial input to final output.
Is that unreasonable?
What you're saying is that if the temperature goes up you can't be falsified.
Sadly that doesn't mean CO2 is increasing the temperature. That's the distinction between causation and correlation.
It would help if your theory were constructed in such a way that it could be vetting indifferent to temperature fluctuations.
What if its alien heat beams from Klandaxu that are causing the rise in temperature and not the CO2?
You see the issue.
In any case... I was wondering if you'd look at something for me. It was a blog post someone linked to me recently and maybe you can give me your opinion:
http://theendofthemystery.blog...
The general premise of the post is that the temperature of venus is the same as on earth if you compensate for atmospheric density, distance to the sun, and the difference in blackbody radiation.
I am not a scientist. But neither am I afraid of math. I found this argument to be elegant. It might be wrong for all I know but it seems like an interesting argument and I'd love to hear what other scientists think about it. If only because I might learn something.
I am genuinely curious about nature, science, and yes whether the world is warming. But I feel it is intellectually lazy to just accept doctrine and I've thought that much of the conduct of the pro global warming groups has been unbecoming of ethical scientific practice so far as I understand it.
Anyway, you're probably not a scientist either. But I think I'm going to start linking this around and hope that someone is a scientist and can shed some more light on then me if only by telling me its wrong. Of course... I'd want them to try and tell me why while they're at it.
Let me elect the people that will be controlling this climate institution and I'll consider them valid. Short of that... they have no right to political power.
Further, as to international groups... Any group I elect, will be elected by my people and only my people for my people. I will not submit to the control of a foreign power unless that power has defeated my country in war. And even then... I'll cooperate only so long as they maintain their control... which I'll be honor bound to frustrate.
That is very interesting... do you have more? A post on a blog isn't very compelling. I could verify the calculations but I'd love to see more on this because it seems like a very elegant and provable line of argument.
The only squirrelly issue is if all the variables are being taken into consideration. This is where science is so useful. Many minds all reviewing something.
I'd love to see more of this... or at least hear from someone that its wrong. Anything.
Right... the only politics is from the deniers... never mind Al Gore pushing your platform. Never mind the UN. Never mind the hundreds of politicians lining up one way or the other.
You're blinded by your own cognitive dissonance. Its a human tendency... very common.
Have an open mind and at least try to listen. Some people are incorrigible jackasses. But most are honestly trying to have a discussion here... and this attitude makes it impossible to do anything but draw up battle lines.
I'll point out that the fight only profits the politicians. Even the business interests lose in a fight. But the politicians can turn a fight into passion and passion can be converted into voter turn out.
You're being played.
You don't have 99% of anything.
And even if you did... which you don't... science isn't a democracy anymore then reality is a democracy.
You can't vote the laws of gravity away and you can't cite support numbers as scientific evidence.
What you've just proven again, is that you're thinking POLITICALLY.
Politically, support numbers matter. Scientifically, they're irrelevant.
The first people to think infections were caused by germs were ridiculed by the majority of their peers that thought them insane. Little invisible creatures spreading unseen from place to place? It sounded like nonsense. But eventually it became accepted fact.
If we went by your logic, then that discovery would have never been given credence.
Now, I know that isn't what you want. But the price of allowing such things to rise out of obscurity is to not shut down scientific discourse with political bullshit.
Its that or at the very least you'll have set a precedent that will be applied elsewhere. Possibly in medicine. Possibly in physics. And sooner or later it will bring institutions to their knees unless they have the humility to simply let the process play out.
As to cynicism, you're apparently an appalling reader. I didn't refute anything with my cynicism. I doubted your interest my reasons. The above was quite obvious.... Just pointing out the obvious.
And frankly... that half baked attack basically validated my assumptions. So... Good job... you're proving me right.
1. Citing the oil industry does not refute my point.
2. I have no problem with voluntary compliance. But that is individual.
If you want to compel my compliance with law then you're going to need to make a better argument and submit to more stringent standards.
Short of that... if all you've got are dry political talking points and insults... then I feel quite justified in holding my ground.
So, lets put north korea as the head of the human rights commission.
I'd love to hear their views on human rights. Its doubtless hilarious.
As to dialog, etc... you assume the opposition is going to talk to you in good faith.
That is... specifically you are assuming the iranians are going to discuss this in good faith.... Really?
That's another one of those regimes that we'll just tolerate and contain until some lucky series of circumstances allows for actual reform from within.
Till then... you're just jerking yourself off.
1: Let me google that for you:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=climate+c...
You should just be embarrassed with yourself.
2. As to charlatans, obviously they shouldn't be given time. However, you're attempting to disqualify a larger group then can be labeled a charlatan. The occasional kook... fine. But not this many people.
Further, its dangerous in science to shut people out when this much money and power is on the line. Consider for a moment... just for the sake of argument... that the skeptics are correct. What do you think will be effect of removing all criticism and oversight from the pro AGW crowd while they're getting billions in funds and increasing amounts of naked unquestioned power?
You're creating a dangerous situation here. Are the skeptics annoying and often wrong? Yes. But shutting them out could be a disaster that could bring whole scientific institutions to their knees. Its not worth it.
Tolerate people with different views... its a lot cheaper then the alternative.
Further, they're not just going to go away. So you won't accomplish much by shutting them out.
As I said, its a classical logical fallacy.
Its not valid thinking. So... if that's your position, your position is indefensible.
There were computer programs that were getting their papers into journals and into conferences so I don't know what you think you're talking about.
The system is never perfect. It can't be perfect.
All that can keep it honest is transparency and public scrutiny. Journals are not transparent... and whatever you might feel of the openness of the issue... it isn't open enough for people like me.
Would it be so bad to just give me what I want? I don't want to tell anyone what to think. I merely want enough access to these things that I feel comfortable with the way they are run.
Nothing more or less.
If you want me to sign off on programs that will cost trillions of dollars and give power over myself to various agencies... I must trust them.
So long as they are obvious political agents that financially profit from the issue I can't trust them. The conflict of interest is too great. Surely you must see that.
Lets reverse the issue around so maybe you might grasp the problem.
Lets say that democrats/socialists/various left of center groups were against doing anything about global warming. And that Republicans/capitalists/various right of center groups were for doing something about global warming.
Just for the sake of argument... Now lets say those groups started getting very excited about it. And they proposed a big plan to fix the world. And buried in all those plans they basically claimed a lot of power for their factions, made their allies rich, and screwed over their opposition.
Would you sign off on that or resist it?
Do you perhaps begin to see the problem? The AGW movement has been hijacked.
Until the hijackers are removed it will not be treated as legitimate.
End of line.
You don't get to terminate debate on any pretext AND preserve the mantle of scientific integrity.
And really, your efforts to disqualify me likely apply to yourself as well. Which means you're saying you have no right to a voice either.
Or do you have a right to a voice?
And don't forget the People's republic of North Korea.
Which is a republic about as much as most of those Scandinavian countries are monarchies.
Do you want to play stupid word games that wouldn't fool a child or do you want to actually discuss the issue like an adult? Because these sad little games where morons try to score points with obviously fallacious arguments is pathetic.
Use your brain to come up with a rational argument that you find credible. Then have the humility to see if your peers think it holds water. And then the integrity to deal with the vetting process.
That is a principle science education was supposed to teach glorified monkeys like yourself.
Sorry... your stupidity bores me so I'm now just amusing myself with silly insults. Don't take them too seriously if you actually start taking the discussion seriously I'll put all of that trash away. But if you're going to be snippy and rude I see no reason not flick frozen peas in your general direction.
Only because you automatically define anyone that does question it as not a real scientist.
Its circular logic.
Really... your thought process is childish and crude. And yet you presume to claim superiority while spouting logical fallacies that no one that graduated high school should utter.
Its pathetic.
If you want to play the condescension game... then you'll find I'm likely better schooled rhetorically slapping you around then you are me.
Will this accomplish anything? Short of a dim pride in my own abilities... not much.
It would be nice if we could have a real discussion. But so few of you even know how to have a discussion.
You're like wind up robots all set out and marching mechanically along. Utterly unable to think for yourselves or adapt to changing circumstances. Its a pity.
As to semantics, I think you know precisely what I meant. Intentionally twisting my argument serves no intellectual purpose.
Rather, your rhetorical style is one favored by politicians that want to win an argument based on innuendo and emotion.
To use such a style WHILE presuming to represent science... it doesn't work.
Either fairly acknowledge my point or you are merely posturing to a political position... not science.
The smoking gun was the Earth Simulator the Japanese built.
They built this giant super computer and plugged in the climate science models... and nothing worked properly.
Eventually, they had to resort of per year plug variables. Effectively they told the graph what to point out every year and the giant super computer... with all its great calculating capacity... gave an answer an excel spreadsheet could provide.
And because someone will ask for a citation:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/P...
There are many such examples but this one is my favorite.