|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 17, 2019 20:35:22 GMT
I went through this on the politics board with a similarly wide eyed believer in science. I asked how many thermometers were used to measure the temperature of the planet and where exactly any of them were located. I still to this day have not received any count or location whatever. "Just look on page 60 and see the algorithm," I was told. There was no information, and still is not, on exact methods, which if any data points were used by any algorithm, no count of data points, no location of thermometers. The "doubts" raised by changes over "longer periods" are the perfectly rational observation that there are too many and too large changes in too many factors in local levels of the sea and too few data points to extrapolate any such precision as advertised. The only thing not in doubt is that you have no acquaintance with statistics whatever, and still cannot see the difference from ceteris paribus science. That you depend on internet pages to bedazzle me as they have you fails because I can read them. When you find the information you need to persuade a person who is not afflicted with your blind faith in science please let me know. Thank you for your unsubstantiated opinions. Which happen, as usual, to be wrong. Since you don't think substantiation is needed in such disputes then I no longer feel the need to offer anything more by way of rebuttal. (Having said that, others may reflect that global temperature data comes from thousands of observation stations around the world and visit such sites as www.skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements-advanced.htm .) Again, all things being equal it is better to rely on a scientific consensus than on the words of someone who consistently speaks without authority of sources. May I ask a small favor? Could you please not link articles? Take the specific data or argument you need and if necessary paraphrase it so that I don't have to follow the link for any reason other than to credit some source. You may include the address of the article, but please ensure that I do not need to follow that to find out what you are trying to say, or how it might apply to my points. If you cannot make your own arguments then please do not join debates, especially with me. By way of explanation for this request, your methods are awkward and not productive. It is not the way I was taught to debate. I was taught that debaters are required to put things in their own words in order to ensure that they understand what others are saying. It does seem obvious lately that many people do not understand what is in the articles they now merely link. It is a sign of the loss of intellectual development caused by the internet. The problem is bigger than me or you. It is widespread and serious. It shows that my instructors were right. It would be difficult for you to imagine how little I care what you believe. You have been clear how little you care what others believe, but you don't seem to have any sense how that should apply to you as well. You do not seem to be aware that yours are opinions too. What I do care about very much is what you think and especially what led you to think that way. However when you merely provide a link to an article you are not telling what you think. You are telling me that you do not think at all. You are telling me that you recognize the authority of the parties responsible for the article you link, but do not really understand what it says or why. Perhaps you remember being told "because the Bible says so" by other opponents on this board. That didn't work on you did it? Indeed it is possible those opponents no more understood religion than you do science. There is a personality type that is only capable of following authority. Many good children simply follow authority and postpone challenging it on their own until they have the knowledge base foundation necessary from which to direct a sensible challenge. Many people remain totally dependent on authority throughout their lives. As I have explained many times that is not necessarily a bad thing and can be very efficient. As I have also explained many times it requires good leadership. If leadership fails then the mere followers are lost as well. Evidence continues to pile ever higher that my opponents on this board depend entirely on authority for their opinions and are not capable of actually joining a discussion in their own words. Just as my instructors long ago had guessed such people do not understand what they are doing. Now if you want to make an argument, I would very much appreciate that. Your latest link doesn't work anyway.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Mar 17, 2019 21:33:51 GMT
Thank you for your unsubstantiated opinions. Which happen, as usual, to be wrong. Since you don't think substantiation is needed in such disputes then I no longer feel the need to offer anything more by way of rebuttal. (Having said that, others may reflect that global temperature data comes from thousands of observation stations around the world and visit such sites as www.skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements-advanced.htm .) Again, all things being equal it is better to rely on a scientific consensus than on the words of someone who consistently speaks without authority of sources. May I ask a small favor? Could you please not link articles? Take the specific data or argument you need and if necessary paraphrase it so that I don't have to follow the link for any reason other than to credit some source. You may include the address of the article, but please ensure that I do not need to follow that to find out what you are trying to say, or how it might apply to my points. If you cannot make your own arguments then please do not join debates, especially with me. By way of explanation for this request, your methods are awkward and not productive. It is not the way I was taught to debate. I was taught that debaters are required to put things in their own words in order to ensure that they understand what others are saying. It does seem obvious lately that many people do not understand what is in the articles they now merely link. It is a sign of the loss of intellectual development caused by the internet. The problem is bigger than me or you. It is widespread and serious. It shows that my instructors were right. It would be difficult for you to imagine how little I care what you believe. You have been clear how little you care what others believe, but you don't seem to have any sense how that should apply to you as well. You do not seem to be aware that yours are opinions too. What I do care about very much is what you think and especially what led you to think that way. However when you merely provide a link to an article you are not telling what you think. You are telling me that you do not think at all. You are telling me that you recognize the authority of the parties responsible for the article you link, but do not really understand what it says or why. Perhaps you remember being told "because the Bible says so" by other opponents on this board. That didn't work on you did it? Indeed it is possible those opponents no more understood religion than you do science. There is a personality type that is only capable of following authority. Many good children simply follow authority and postpone challenging it on their own until they have the knowledge base foundation necessary from which to direct a sensible challenge. Many people remain totally dependent on authority throughout their lives. As I have explained many times that is not necessarily a bad thing and can be very efficient. As I have also explained many times it requires good leadership. If leadership fails then the mere followers are lost as well. Evidence continues to pile ever higher that my opponents on this board depend entirely on authority for their opinions and are not capable of actually joining a discussion in their own words. Just as my instructors long ago had guessed such people do not understand what they are doing. Now if you want to make an argument, I would very much appreciate that. Your latest link doesn't work anyway. In the field of psychology, the Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people of low ability have illusory superiority and mistakenly assess their cognitive ability as greater than it is. The cognitive bias of illusory superiority comes from the inability of low-ability people to recognize their lack of ability. Without the self-awareness of metacognition, low-ability people cannot objectively evaluate their competence or incompetence. You have it. You are so certain of your 'opinions' being correct that you dismiss not only those of others with more knowledge than you will ever have, butt more dangerously you reject the body of intellectual scholarship, the premises of scientific research and in general are a foolish old windbag with an inflated view of his own abilities.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 17, 2019 21:45:53 GMT
May I ask a small favor? Could you please not link articles? Take the specific data or argument you need and if necessary paraphrase it so that I don't have to follow the link for any reason other than to credit some source. You may include the address of the article, but please ensure that I do not need to follow that to find out what you are trying to say, or how it might apply to my points. If you cannot make your own arguments then please do not join debates, especially with me. By way of explanation for this request, your methods are awkward and not productive. It is not the way I was taught to debate. I was taught that debaters are required to put things in their own words in order to ensure that they understand what others are saying. It does seem obvious lately that many people do not understand what is in the articles they now merely link. It is a sign of the loss of intellectual development caused by the internet. The problem is bigger than me or you. It is widespread and serious. It shows that my instructors were right. It would be difficult for you to imagine how little I care what you believe. You have been clear how little you care what others believe, but you don't seem to have any sense how that should apply to you as well. You do not seem to be aware that yours are opinions too. What I do care about very much is what you think and especially what led you to think that way. However when you merely provide a link to an article you are not telling what you think. You are telling me that you do not think at all. You are telling me that you recognize the authority of the parties responsible for the article you link, but do not really understand what it says or why. Perhaps you remember being told "because the Bible says so" by other opponents on this board. That didn't work on you did it? Indeed it is possible those opponents no more understood religion than you do science. There is a personality type that is only capable of following authority. Many good children simply follow authority and postpone challenging it on their own until they have the knowledge base foundation necessary from which to direct a sensible challenge. Many people remain totally dependent on authority throughout their lives. As I have explained many times that is not necessarily a bad thing and can be very efficient. As I have also explained many times it requires good leadership. If leadership fails then the mere followers are lost as well. Evidence continues to pile ever higher that my opponents on this board depend entirely on authority for their opinions and are not capable of actually joining a discussion in their own words. Just as my instructors long ago had guessed such people do not understand what they are doing. Now if you want to make an argument, I would very much appreciate that. Your latest link doesn't work anyway. In the field of psychology, the Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people of low ability have illusory superiority and mistakenly assess their cognitive ability as greater than it is. The cognitive bias of illusory superiority comes from the inability of low-ability people to recognize their lack of ability. Without the self-awareness of metacognition, low-ability people cannot objectively evaluate their competence or incompetence. You have it. You are so certain of your 'opinions' being correct that you dismiss not only those of others with more knowledge than you will ever have, butt more dangerously you reject the body of intellectual scholarship, the premises of scientific research and in general are a foolish old windbag with an inflated view of his own abilities. Concerning conclusions You are still failing to recognize your childishness. Your are still failing to recognize how much you depend on "authority" you don't really understand. I'm sorry for the failure of leadership to provide appropriate answers to many of life's questions. They have been overtaken by "grunts" with blind allegiance to authority and mistaken ideas. I do not support Donald Trump. His followers are just as bad as you in their blind allegiance to whatever as you are in your blind allegiance to science.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Mar 17, 2019 21:59:20 GMT
In the field of psychology, the Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people of low ability have illusory superiority and mistakenly assess their cognitive ability as greater than it is. The cognitive bias of illusory superiority comes from the inability of low-ability people to recognize their lack of ability. Without the self-awareness of metacognition, low-ability people cannot objectively evaluate their competence or incompetence. You have it. You are so certain of your 'opinions' being correct that you dismiss not only those of others with more knowledge than you will ever have, butt more dangerously you reject the body of intellectual scholarship, the premises of scientific research and in general are a foolish old windbag with an inflated view of his own abilities. Concerning conclusions You are still failing to recognize your childishness. Your are still failing to recognize how much you depend on "authority" you don't really understand. I'm sorry for the failure of leadership to provide appropriate answers to many of life's questions. They have been overtaken by "grunts" with blind allegiance to authority and mistaken ideas. I do not support Donald Trump. His followers are just as bad as you in their blind allegiance to whatever as you are in your blind allegiance to science. There you go again! You wouldn't know 'science' if it bit you on the arse!
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 17, 2019 22:02:35 GMT
May I ask a small favor? Could you please not link articles? Take the specific data or argument you need and if necessary paraphrase it so that I don't have to follow the link for any reason other than to credit some source. You may include the address of the article, but please ensure that I do not need to follow that to find out what you are trying to say, or how it might apply to my points. That's very kind of you, But don't worry; as already mentioned I am now simply oppose your blithe opinions with opposing ones of my own. You won't have the trouble of not reading authoritative links as hitherto offered (although there may be some included for the interest of those who wish to pursue the matter as a matter of their own interest.) Oh yes, I remember how you were in a school or college debating society back in the day. You listed it back then as an academic achievement. Yes it is hard since here you are, writing hundreds of words... most of which is wrong. Opinions for which I offer substantiation - a key difference. Remember how you suggested that health outcomes were better for faith healers than those for health professionals, and then offered nothing to show to back up this striking assertion? Or how recently you attempted a God of the Gaps argument in another thread? Or that I gave the standard scientific ages for the universe and the earth and you felt unable to offer a substantiated age - any age - of your own even when repeatedly pressed? I do. But this is not correct since, I characteristically make a point and then corroborate it by citing an authoritative link, with or without qualifications which pertain. What I then think, and say is, usually, that I am to be disappointed since you can offer no sources for your own peculiar opinions. And I always am. As always you are entitled to your opinions either on myself and others. But that is all they are - and as such reveal more about your psychology and superiority complex than any wider truths you aspire to. But this fact has been commented on before by others here, as well as myself. As has the peculiar relationship fundamentalists have with a particular authority they venerate and upon which they remain totally dependent without challenge. You know, the one which claims everything was made by the unexplained, deliberate supernatural? And once again my opinion is that you are wrong and I, indeed read,and understand, every link I offer by way of support. Sorry about that. Evidence which, in common with all your views and assertions here, is naturally never supplied by you lol. QED. The argument, here is now that I really don't need to substantiate any rebuttal I might make to your regular anti-scientism, whether it is your hot button issues such as climate change, faith healing, abiogenesis, physics since Einstein, or the age of the cosmos, since you never offer anything up but wrong-headed opinion. I've done with all that, sorry. To see the link just paste the address into your browser and go. I hope that helps. But it wasn't aimed at you anyway, for reasons already explained.
|
|
|
Post by lunda2222 on Mar 17, 2019 22:07:42 GMT
In the field of psychology, the Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people of low ability have illusory superiority and mistakenly assess their cognitive ability as greater than it is. The cognitive bias of illusory superiority comes from the inability of low-ability people to recognize their lack of ability. Without the self-awareness of metacognition, low-ability people cannot objectively evaluate their competence or incompetence. You have it. You are so certain of your 'opinions' being correct that you dismiss not only those of others with more knowledge than you will ever have, butt more dangerously you reject the body of intellectual scholarship, the premises of scientific research and in general are a foolish old windbag with an inflated view of his own abilities. If I may be so bold as to give the most common example: 80 percent of drivers think they are better than average on the road. Which of course is impossible.
Or to put it in another way: Some people are so stupid they think they are very good at things, when in reality they suck at it, which gives them a great sense of false self-confidence. The best example today is Trump.
Among those who really do know things it's the opposite. Or to quote Aristotle: The more you know, the more you know you don't know. In other words, for every thing you understand 10 more questions will arise.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 17, 2019 22:11:25 GMT
Concerning conclusions You are still failing to recognize your childishness. Your are still failing to recognize how much you depend on "authority" you don't really understand. I'm sorry for the failure of leadership to provide appropriate answers to many of life's questions. They have been overtaken by "grunts" with blind allegiance to authority and mistaken ideas. I do not support Donald Trump. His followers are just as bad as you in their blind allegiance to whatever as you are in your blind allegiance to science. There you go again! You wouldn't know 'science' if it bit you on the arse! It might be more entertaining if you attempted in formal language to explain how a person who has no conclusions "suffers" from Dunning Kruger except in encountering people who do.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 17, 2019 22:31:13 GMT
May I ask a small favor? Could you please not link articles? Take the specific data or argument you need and if necessary paraphrase it so that I don't have to follow the link for any reason other than to credit some source. You may include the address of the article, but please ensure that I do not need to follow that to find out what you are trying to say, or how it might apply to my points. That's very kind of you, But don't worry; as already mentioned I am now simply oppose your blithe opinions with opposing ones of my own. You won't have the trouble of not reading authoritative links as hitherto offered (although there may be some included for the interest of those who wish to pursue the matter as a matter of their own interest.) Oh yes, I remember how you were in a school or college debating society back in the day. You listed it back then as an academic achievement. Yes it is hard since here you are, writing hundreds of words... most of which is wrong. Opinions for which I offer substantiation - a key difference. Remember how you suggested that health outcomes were better for faith healers than those for health professionals, and then offered nothing to show to back up this striking assertion? Or how recently you attempted a God of the Gaps argument in another thread? Or that I gave the standard scientific ages for the universe and the earth and you felt unable to offer a substantiated age - any age - of your own even when repeatedly pressed? I do. But this is not correct since, I characteristically make a point and then corroborate it by citing an authoritative link, with or without qualifications which pertain. What I then think, and say is, usually, that I am to be disappointed since you can offer no sources for your own peculiar opinions. And I always am. As always you are entitled to your opinions either on myself and others. But that is all they are - and as such reveal more about your psychology and superiority complex than any wider truths you aspire to. But this fact has been commented on before by others here, as well as myself. As has the peculiar relationship fundamentalists have with a particular authority they venerate and upon which they remain totally dependent without challenge. You know, the one which claims everything was made by the unexplained, deliberate supernatural? And once again my opinion is that you are wrong and I, indeed read,and understand, every link I offer by way of support. Sorry about that. Evidence which, in common with all your views and assertions here, is naturally never supplied by you lol. QED. The argument, here is now that I really don't need to substantiate any rebuttal I might make to your regular anti-scientism, whether it is your hot button issues such as climate change, faith healing, abiogenesis, physics since Einstein, or the age of the cosmos, since you never offer anything up but wrong-headed opinion. I've done with all that, sorry. To see the link just paste the address into your browser and go. I hope that helps. But it wasn't aimed at you anyway, for reasons already explained. Substantiation of what? Please do not misrepresent me. I compared the effectiveness of faith healers to OTC pain relievers only, not other medical science. It might be extended to some other medical science on the frontiers, but your own doctor will tell you how little chance of success there is with those.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Mar 17, 2019 22:33:02 GMT
There you go again! You wouldn't know 'science' if it bit you on the arse! It might be more entertaining if you attempted in formal language to explain how a person who has no conclusions "suffers" from Dunning Kruger except in encountering people who do. Arlon, you have made a career on the last board and this board airing your ' lack of conclusions'. For you to now claim that you don't have any is both disingenuous and laughable. You even have a fricking website devoted to these 'lack of conclusions'!
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 17, 2019 22:35:42 GMT
It might be more entertaining if you attempted in formal language to explain how a person who has no conclusions "suffers" from Dunning Kruger except in encountering people who do. Arlon, you have made a career on the last board and this board airing your ' lack of conclusions'. For you to now claim that you don't have any is both disingenuous and laughable. You even have a fricking website devoted to these 'lack of conclusions'! Do you intend to cite even one conclusion you imagine I made?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 17, 2019 22:39:48 GMT
In your case, invariably of any of your views and opinions, down various threads and exchanges. I don't. You hardly ever, if ever, corroborate and either evade, obfuscate or leave threads when it becomes unavoidable. Unfortunately this is not correct. You made a specific contrast between the effectiveness of faith healing and the medical outcomes gained by treatment through health professionals, otherwise I would not have bothered in replying. (Neither was this reference to OTC pain relievers been raised before as a clarification) I would link to the exchange and your exact quote - but as you know that now, with you, I don't bother with substantiating any assertions I am sure you will understand. [/quote]
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 17, 2019 22:44:02 GMT
Arlon, you have made a career on the last board and this board airing your ' lack of conclusions'. For you to now claim that you don't have any is both disingenuous and laughable. You even have a fricking website devoted to these 'lack of conclusions'! Do you intend to cite even one conclusion you imagine I made? You mean like the ones, on this very thread, that "my opponents on this board depend entirely on authority for their opinions and are not capable of actually joining a discussion in their own words" or (in connection with sea levels) that "The "doubts" raised by changes over "longer periods" are the perfectly rational observation that there are too many and too large changes in too many factors in local levels of the sea and too few data points to extrapolate any such precision as advertised." (on planet temperatures) .. Crude estimates of healthy temperature are possible, but not on the scale of the planet." - conclusions indeed. It my opinion that most of your opinions are explicit or implicit conclusions - whether judgements on the limits of science, the intelligence of others - or your own necessarily intellectual superiority.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Mar 17, 2019 23:00:01 GMT
Do you intend to cite even one conclusion you imagine I made? You mean like the ones, on this very thread, that "my opponents on this board depend entirely on authority for their opinions and are not capable of actually joining a discussion in their own words" or (in connection with sea levels) that "The "doubts" raised by changes over "longer periods" are the perfectly rational observation that there are too many and too large changes in too many factors in local levels of the sea and too few data points to extrapolate any such precision as advertised." (on planet temperatures) .. Crude estimates of healthy temperature are possible, but not on the scale of the planet." - conclusions indeed. It my opinion that most of your opinions are explicit or implicit conclusions - whether judgements on the limits of science, the intelligence of others - or your own necessarily intellectual superiority. I was thinking all this guff, especially the hypocritical bits about what he claims are not actually conclusions yet they have previously been presented by him as such!
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Mar 17, 2019 23:59:08 GMT
^^ thinks one can't be sure if the patient has a fever unless multiple thermometers are used and their exact location is carefully documented You might find this interesting. How much does the planet Earth weigh? Or to put it in the more exact terms of physics, how much mass does it have? In this case you don't need to put scales all over the place. In measuring any mass it is simply a matter of the gravitational force between two objects. Weighing yourself is actually measuring the force between you and the planet Earth. F = force of gravity m 1 = your mass m 2 = Earth's mass d = distance between you and center of Earth G = to be discussed presently F = (G x m 1 x m 2) / d 2 Obviously if you know F for m 1 then you can solve for m 2. However it is necessary to know the value of G, the gravitational constant. Since all measurements of mass had to be made with the Earth as m 2, there was no value of G known without the value of m 2 unless you define the mass of the Earth as "1" Earth mass unit, which is not much of an answer. Therefore it was necessary to measure G with two known masses in some convenient unit such as kilograms, which is very difficult since it is extremely small. Henry Cavendish used two lumps of lead suspended on a long thin cord tied to a long bar between them and another piece of lead close to one of those and then measure the twist in the cord. That yielded F, m 1 and m 2 in kilograms , and d and he solved for G, which is approximately 6.67 x 10 -11 meters /( kilograms x seconds 2) Now it is possible to solve for the mass of the Earth from any measurement of weight of an object on it. It is approximately 5.97 x 10 24 kg. It is important to note in this context that this is a crude approximation. It is not the mass of the Earth within a kilogram or even within a ton. A study of the concept of precision is necessary, which is obviously your problem with climate change. Now about your measurement of the temperature of the human body, taking the temperature of the planet is not like taking the temperature of a baseball. There is too great a difference in size. So too for a human body. Also the temperature of the human body is maintained internally and varies externally. Crude estimates of healthy temperature are possible, but not on the scale of the planet. This webpage shows how measurements made by four independent agencies are in close agreement on global temperatures going back to 1880. www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-do-scientists-measure-global-temperatureI've never before felt the need to look up the methods used to determine global temperature before, but there is plenty of credible information available on the web if you're interested.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 18, 2019 1:56:14 GMT
You might find this interesting. How much does the planet Earth weigh? Or to put it in the more exact terms of physics, how much mass does it have? In this case you don't need to put scales all over the place. In measuring any mass it is simply a matter of the gravitational force between two objects. Weighing yourself is actually measuring the force between you and the planet Earth. F = force of gravity m 1 = your mass m 2 = Earth's mass d = distance between you and center of Earth G = to be discussed presently F = (G x m 1 x m 2) / d 2 Obviously if you know F for m 1 then you can solve for m 2. However it is necessary to know the value of G, the gravitational constant. Since all measurements of mass had to be made with the Earth as m 2, there was no value of G known without the value of m 2 unless you define the mass of the Earth as "1" Earth mass unit, which is not much of an answer. Therefore it was necessary to measure G with two known masses in some convenient unit such as kilograms, which is very difficult since it is extremely small. Henry Cavendish used two lumps of lead suspended on a long thin cord tied to a long bar between them and another piece of lead close to one of those and then measure the twist in the cord. That yielded F, m 1 and m 2 in kilograms , and d and he solved for G, which is approximately 6.67 x 10 -11 meters /( kilograms x seconds 2) Now it is possible to solve for the mass of the Earth from any measurement of weight of an object on it. It is approximately 5.97 x 10 24 kg. It is important to note in this context that this is a crude approximation. It is not the mass of the Earth within a kilogram or even within a ton. A study of the concept of precision is necessary, which is obviously your problem with climate change. Now about your measurement of the temperature of the human body, taking the temperature of the planet is not like taking the temperature of a baseball. There is too great a difference in size. So too for a human body. Also the temperature of the human body is maintained internally and varies externally. Crude estimates of healthy temperature are possible, but not on the scale of the planet. This webpage shows how measurements made by four independent agencies are in close agreement on global temperatures going back to 1880. www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-do-scientists-measure-global-temperatureI've never before felt the need to look up the methods used to determine global temperature before, but there is plenty of credible information available on the web if you're interested. I have read enough of your messages here to know that you should have a better understanding of how to build a case than this. Yes, that looks thorough, but not thorough enough. Critical necessary data would include how many measurements, which you can plainly see is not given. Covering 197 million square miles would take quite many. I am rather certain large parts of the land and the ocean have been ignored by necessity of insufficient resources and inaccessible areas. Then too, the temperature of the air is known to be different at various heights, which your site does not consider. The use of satellites is problematic in that scattering of the IR makes information near the surface "cloudy" (no pun). I do believe it is possible in theory to measure the temperature of the planet to within one degree. That however would require far more measurements than you have shown, and far more than any sane private or government agency would finance. Nevertheless, should you obtain a comprehensive list of sufficient data points, please notify us. One thing you really can easily check online is how many people are more fond of science than capable of it. Edit > I should probably also address the similarity of the findings of the four agencies. It is a fallacy of logic to assume that because several parties got the same answer it must be right. The various parties could have used the same wrong approach to the problem.
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Mar 18, 2019 10:13:30 GMT
Yes, that looks thorough, but not thorough enough. Lucky for us, you are not in any position of authority to judge what is actually "thorough enough", and never will be, since you are scientifically illiterate and motivated solely by ideology. For the sake of human civilization, let's hope that the hicks of the world such as yourself are increasingly marginalized and have your political power reduced. We can't afford to have such fools as you at the controls.
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Mar 18, 2019 15:17:43 GMT
Critical necessary data would include how many measurements, which you can plainly see is not given. Covering 197 million square miles would take quite many. 197 million thermometers perchance? The average human adult has about 2 million square mm of skin, so it must take that many thermometers to be sure if a patient has a fever.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 18, 2019 17:48:35 GMT
This webpage shows how measurements made by four independent agencies are in close agreement on global temperatures going back to 1880. www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-do-scientists-measure-global-temperatureI've never before felt the need to look up the methods used to determine global temperature before, but there is plenty of credible information available on the web if you're interested. I have read enough of your messages here to know that you should have a better understanding of how to build a case than this. Yes, that looks thorough, but not thorough enough. Critical necessary data would include how many measurements, which you can plainly see is not given. Covering 197 million square miles would take quite many. I am rather certain large parts of the land and the ocean have been ignored by necessity of insufficient resources and inaccessible areas. Then too, the temperature of the air is known to be different at various heights, which your site does not consider. The use of satellites is problematic in that scattering of the IR makes information near the surface "cloudy" (no pun). I do believe it is possible in theory to measure the temperature of the planet to within one degree. That however would require far more measurements than you have shown, and far more than any sane private or government agency would finance. Nevertheless, should you obtain a comprehensive list of sufficient data points, please notify us. One thing you really can easily check online is how many people are more fond of science than capable of it. Edit > I should probably also address the similarity of the findings of the four agencies. It is a fallacy of logic to assume that because several parties got the same answer it must be right. The various parties could have used the same wrong approach to the problem. So Arlon, leaving aside the quibble over how reliable the measurement of small amounts of temperature rises might be, the one thing missing is your opinion as to whether the planet has warming or not. Care to float your thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by goz on Mar 18, 2019 20:36:16 GMT
I have read enough of your messages here to know that you should have a better understanding of how to build a case than this. Yes, that looks thorough, but not thorough enough. Critical necessary data would include how many measurements, which you can plainly see is not given. Covering 197 million square miles would take quite many. I am rather certain large parts of the land and the ocean have been ignored by necessity of insufficient resources and inaccessible areas. Then too, the temperature of the air is known to be different at various heights, which your site does not consider. The use of satellites is problematic in that scattering of the IR makes information near the surface "cloudy" (no pun). I do believe it is possible in theory to measure the temperature of the planet to within one degree. That however would require far more measurements than you have shown, and far more than any sane private or government agency would finance. Nevertheless, should you obtain a comprehensive list of sufficient data points, please notify us. One thing you really can easily check online is how many people are more fond of science than capable of it. Edit > I should probably also address the similarity of the findings of the four agencies. It is a fallacy of logic to assume that because several parties got the same answer it must be right. The various parties could have used the same wrong approach to the problem. So Arlon, leaving aside the quibble over how reliable the measurement of small amounts of temperature rises might be, the one thing missing is your opinion as to whether the planet has warming or not. Care to float your thoughts? Sir, surely you jest! Planet Arlon has spent the better part of two days assuring us that whilst he has the only correct opinions on these matters, due to his unfailing accuracy of method, which is as yet unknown to' science'... he NEVER makes 'conclusions'.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 18, 2019 22:03:31 GMT
I have read enough of your messages here to know that you should have a better understanding of how to build a case than this. Yes, that looks thorough, but not thorough enough. Critical necessary data would include how many measurements, which you can plainly see is not given. Covering 197 million square miles would take quite many. I am rather certain large parts of the land and the ocean have been ignored by necessity of insufficient resources and inaccessible areas. Then too, the temperature of the air is known to be different at various heights, which your site does not consider. The use of satellites is problematic in that scattering of the IR makes information near the surface "cloudy" (no pun). I do believe it is possible in theory to measure the temperature of the planet to within one degree. That however would require far more measurements than you have shown, and far more than any sane private or government agency would finance. Nevertheless, should you obtain a comprehensive list of sufficient data points, please notify us. One thing you really can easily check online is how many people are more fond of science than capable of it. Edit > I should probably also address the similarity of the findings of the four agencies. It is a fallacy of logic to assume that because several parties got the same answer it must be right. The various parties could have used the same wrong approach to the problem. So Arlon, leaving aside the quibble over how reliable the measurement of small amounts of temperature rises might be, the one thing missing is your opinion as to whether the planet has warming or not. Care to float your thoughts? I have long well understood that the Earth's supply of fossil fuels is finite and will run out at some time, however in the somewhat distant future. Estimates of when that will happen are not possible to a very high degree of precision and accuracy. Some say 250 years others say far less, others hope for more. Although no one knows exactly when they will run out, it is obvious they will eventually. By that time it will be very important to have renewable energy sources obviously, whether the planet is warming or not. This being the case, the pressure to accept that the planet is warming is misplaced. Unless it can be more convincing it will only lead some people to ignore warnings about limited fossil fuels by making the alarmists appear unqualified to call an alarm. It might be warming, but the evidence is below certainty. There are feedback loops that prevent or postpone disaster. The warmer the air gets the more water it holds, thus slowing the rise of the seas. More CO 2 can stimulate plant activity that will then bring those levels back down. We might run out of fossil fuels to burn or they might become scarce enough to slow their use, thus avoiding the sea level issue, but obviously not avoiding the lack of fossil fuels.
|
|