Scientists Find "Man-made Climate Change Doesn't Exist In Practice"

Into the Night said:
Science isn't an academy, society, or any other political organization. Science isn't scientists at all. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Consensus is not used in science. Only religions and politics do that.
Click to expand...

Yeah, yeah, yeah, we know, you see Science as subjective, solipsistic, a not so clever attempt to metaphysically rationalize away that which you just can't personally recognize as valid
 
archives said:
Beautiful, now "nightie" again wants to show everyone he's got the semantics down, did you actually think the comment was made anticipating a discussion of the geocentric theory?
Click to expand...

There is no discussion. YOU brought up the subject. YOU are the only one to blame.
 
Into the Night said:
YOU don't get to redefine science without using philosophy, dude.
Click to expand...

Nor do you, been a long time time since any grown adult has reintroduced the tree falling in the woods line of thought as a worthwhile discussion, common sense, philosophically, or as practical judgement, usually prevails
 
archives said:
Nor do you, been a long time time since any grown adult has reintroduced the tree falling in the woods line of thought as a worthwhile discussion, common sense, philosophically, or as practical judgement, usually prevails
Click to expand...

Yet you're doing just that and falsely claiming someone else is.
 
Havana Moon said:
Did El Gordo tell you that? As you're so clued up and au fait with the science, can you tell me which of the four Representative Concentration Pathways outlined in the IPCC AR5 report of 2013 you consider to be the most likely? Should be very easy for a man with your obvious insight into climate science.
Click to expand...

It's strange that not one person, apart from a pathetic stab at it by One Loony, has ever attempted to answer that question.
 
CookieCrusher said:
If the man-made global warming enthusiasts went with the idea to keep our planet clean "because it's the smart thing to do", rather than "the sky is falling" message, much more people would have gotten on board.
But, nope, they had to be fear mongering power grabbing zealots.
Click to expand...

Translation, climate science as practiced by real climate scientists has dire warnings for our planet, and you are brain dead.
 
Havana Moon said:
Quite the opposite very much into erotophilia, please note the correct spelling you pompous arse!!
Click to expand...

You're quite a fool, maggot. You've got the wrong fucking word ! HAW,HAW,HAW,HAW.............HAW.

I'll maybe let you forget it............................some time in the future.
 
archives said:
Nor do you,
Click to expand...
I use philosophy, dumbass. I've given my reasoning. You haven't. I support the basic reasoning of Karl Popper as well. You just deny it out of hand. Argument of the stone fallacy.
archives said:
been a long time time since any grown adult has reintroduced the tree falling in the woods line of thought as a worthwhile discussion,
Click to expand...
That is not philosophy. That discussion is only an example of a branch of philosophy known as phenomenology. It is an example from that branch. It is not that branch of philosophy itself. University philosophy classes are notoriously crappy in this way.

Philosophy is the reasoning of an argument. The reasoning must come from the one making the argument, not from someone else.

archives said:
common sense, philosophically, or as practical judgement, usually prevails
Click to expand...
Which you are not using. You instead are using religion.
 
Cypress said:
If true, it tells me that they were avoiding the peer review process.

Anyone who is confident in their research is not afraid to have subject matter experts review it for a refereed scholarly journal.

In general, anyone who is hesitant to run their research through the normal channels of peer review has something to hide, or is not confident in their science.
Click to expand...

Cypress said:
It's weird how they formatted their paper to resemble something that would appear in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal - but as far as I can tell it is just a PDF they wrote and put on the web. It has not been published in a peer reviewed academic journal.

The only thing I could find about the lead author indicates he is a materials scientist with a background in optical physics and spectroscopy. I could find no indication he has any training or expertise in climate science, nor that he has published any original research in climate science in any reputable scholarly peer reviewed journal.

http://users.utu.fi/jyrkau/jyrki kauppinen/
Click to expand...

Non-peer-reviewed manuscript falsely claims natural cloud changes can explain global warming

The paper has been criticised for not being peer reviewed and other climate scientists have refuted the conclusions reached by Kauppinen and Malmi. Critics have said that in addition to not being peer reviewed, Malmi and Kauppinen fail to provide correct physical explanation, have not linked to- or sited to enough sources to support their claims and although they denounce climate models, they use one themselves to prove their own points.

http://www.helsinkitimes.fi/finland...activity-on-climate-change-insignificant.html
https://climatefeedback.org/claimre...vFt7VBkqCDCNgNVp4APVSUdAqKOdjwbVMSFBljE9VZo-c
 
Into the Night said:
Bingo. This kind of projection of himself on others is known as an inversion fallacy.
Click to expand...

What's a kick up the ass and a curt ' Fuck off ' known as ? Haw, haw....................haw.


Tell me again that global weather doesn't exist. Haw, haw.................haw.
 
Cypress said:
Non-peer-reviewed manuscript falsely claims natural cloud changes can explain global warming

The paper has been criticised for not being peer reviewed and other climate scientists have refuted the conclusions reached by Kauppinen and Malmi. Critics have said that in addition to not being peer reviewed, Malmi and Kauppinen fail to provide correct physical explanation, have not linked to- or sited to enough sources to support their claims and although they denounce climate models, they use one themselves to prove their own points.

http://www.helsinkitimes.fi/finland...activity-on-climate-change-insignificant.html
https://climatefeedback.org/claimre...vFt7VBkqCDCNgNVp4APVSUdAqKOdjwbVMSFBljE9VZo-c
Click to expand...

Hmmm. So as of yet no one has explained global warming in a peer reviewed study.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top