The Test and Failure of the AGW Paradigm

[Lord of Planar]

If science is not being done fairly to all sides then it is corrupt. I don't know how YOU define corrupt but that is a form of corruption.

Which of these do you think I would be referring to?

Definition of corrupt
(Entry 1 of 2)

transitive verb
1a : to change from good to bad in morals, manners, or actions
Officials were corrupted by greed. was accused of corrupting the youth also : bribe

b : to degrade with unsound principles or moral values
Some fear the merger will corrupt the competitive marketplace.

2 : rot, spoil The fruits were transported without being corrupted.

3 : to subject (a person) to corruption of blood

4 : to alter from the original or correct form or version
The file was corrupted.

intransitive verb
1a : to become tainted or rotten
leaving the bodies to corrupt on the field

b : to become morally debased

2 : to cause disintegration or ruin

corrupt
adjective

Definition of corrupt (Entry 2 of 2)

1a : morally degenerate and perverted : depraved

b : characterized by improper conduct (such as bribery or the selling of favors)
corrupt judges

2 : putrid, tainted

3 : adulterated or debased by change from an original or correct condition
a corrupt version of the text

Definition of CORRUPT

to change from good to bad in morals, manners, or actions; also : bribe; to degrade with unsound principles or moral values; rot, spoil… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Definition of corruption


1a : dishonest or illegal behavior especially by powerful people (such as government officials or police officers) : depravity

b : inducement to wrong by improper or unlawful means (such as bribery)
the corruption of government officials

c : a departure from the original or from what is pure or correct the corruption of a text the corruption of computer files

d : decay, decomposition the corruption of a carcass

2 chiefly dialectal : pus

3 archaic : an agency or influence that corrupts

Definition of CORRUPTION

dishonest or illegal behavior especially by powerful people (such as government officials or police officers) : depravity; inducement to wrong by improper or unlawful means (such as bribery); a departure from the original or from what is pure or correct… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Except I've written MANY technical papers. I've been in peer reviewed journals. I've even written a patent (most of my patents were written by attorneys but when I passed the US patent bar exam I asked the legal department if I could start doing some drafting myself). So please let's not belabor my "precision" in language. It is getting boring having someone like YOU insult me over my writing when I've got 12 peer reviewed publications, 11 conference abstracts, and 15 patents under my belt.

Whoop-t-do....

I dismiss your claim to your precision of language. You are a fraud in that regard.

 

[istodolez]

Which of these do you think I would be referring to?

Why do I care what YOU would refer to? I'm saying that unfair distribution of funds not based on the merits is corrupt.

corrupt
adjective


b : characterized by improper conduct (such as bribery or the selling of favors)
corrupt judges

3 : adulterated or debased by change from an original or correct condition
a corrupt version of the text

Whoop-t-do....

I dismiss your claim to your precision of language. You are a fraud in that regard.

I am usually reasonably precise. I will confess to occasionally speaking in common parlance. I am a human who functions in the real world.

(Thank you for debasing that which I have done which you have not even been able to attempt, though. It is nice to know that you heap opprobrium on those who do things you seem incapable or unwilling to do.)[/quote]

 

[Lord of Planar]

Why do I care what YOU would refer to? I'm saying that unfair distribution of funds not based on the merits is corrupt.

Unfair distribution of funds is too ambiguous. From the perspective of those granting then, they probably see it as fair. Maybe those deciding who to fund think those wanting to study global coud coverage over time caused by CO2 has no merit?

Does that make it corrupt?

 

[istodolez]

Unfair distribution of funds is too ambiguous. From the perspective of those granting then, they probably see it as fair. Maybe those deciding who to fund think those wanting to study global coud coverage over time caused by CO2 has no merit?

Does that make it corrupt?

I don't know where to go with this. You claim that legitimate, albeit fringe, science is being ignored by grant agencies but you don't think it is through some sort of malfeasance? It is due to the expert/reviewers being less-than-capable of judging good science investments?

It seems that the ONLY metric by which you'd be satisfied is if either EVERY ONE GOT MONEY or people whose hypotheses YOU like got money.

I can see a way for you to correct this: become an expert in the field (clearly you already feel you are more than halfway there), publish, present, get known in the field, then get in a position to work on review committees.

At that point you can take your massive expertise and right any wrongs, true-up any unfairness and ensure that your favorite hypotheses are supported to the level that you feel is appropriate.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I don't know where to go with this. You claim that legitimate, albeit fringe, science is being ignored by grant agencies but you don't think it is through some sort of malfeasance? It is due to the expert/reviewers being less-than-capable of judging good science investments?

It seems that the ONLY metric by which you'd be satisfied is if either EVERY ONE GOT MONEY or people whose hypotheses YOU like got money.

I can see a way for you to correct this: become an expert in the field (clearly you already feel you are more than halfway there), publish, present, get known in the field, then get in a position to work on review committees.

At that point you can take your massive expertise and right any wrongs, true-up any unfairness and ensure that your favorite hypotheses are supported to the level that you feel is appropriate.

It does get funded by other people, but then the AGW community cries it was bought and paid for. I am not speaking of fringe science. Why do you keep being so narrow-minded and try to pigeonhole people?

You are a remarkable hard-headed person. You refuse to change your perspective when told you are wrong.

Then, you wonder why I treat you with such disregard and disrespect.

Respect is earned. Not aquared by crying "I have papers. I have a PhD, etc.

 

[istodolez]

I am not speaking of fringe science. Why do you keep being so narrow-minded and try to pigeonhole people?

Why do you have such a problem with the English language. Fringe is not a bad word. It is used merely to suggest science that doesn't have much support within the community. It doesn't mean it is wrong, it just means that few if any really feel it is a likely true hypothesis.

Jack Hays likes to talk a lot about "scientific revolutions"...remember they all started with fringe science. Quantum Mechanics was once fringe.

You are a remarkable hard-headed person. You refuse to change your perspective when told you are wrong.

I honestly can't understand why you get "triggered" by so many words. You really need to chill out on this. Or maybe you could learn more about the language I presume is your first language. If I am mistaken about your native language, then may apologies. I can help you with standard issue English if you like.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Why do you have such a problem with the English language. Fringe is not a bad word. It is used merely to suggest science that doesn't have much support within the community. It doesn't mean it is wrong, it just means that few if any really feel it is a likely true hypothesis.

Jack Hays likes to talk a lot about "scientific revolutions"...remember they all started with fringe science. Quantum Mechanics was once fringe.



I honestly can't understand why you get "triggered" by so many words. You really need to chill out on this. Or maybe you could learn more about the language I presume is your first language. If I am mistaken about your native language, then may apologies. I can help you with standard issue English if you like.

I am not refering to ideas that are highly speculative or refuted. You obviously assume that.

 

[istodolez]

I am not refering to ideas that are highly speculative or refuted. You obviously assume that.

You trigger on "fringe" and you spin off into some screed against my use of the language. I'm just trying (TRYING) to convince you that the word applies. It is not necessarily a negative. It is a descriptive term meant to convey it's lack of mainstream acceptance.

If you would dial your screeds back a bit and stop trying to insult me at every turn it might be more productive.

As I said I will be glad to help you with English if you like. I am more than capable.

 

[Lord of Planar]

You trigger on "fringe" and you spin off into some screed against my use of the language. I'm just trying (TRYING) to convince you that the word applies. It is not necessarily a negative. It is a descriptive term meant to convey it's lack of mainstream acceptance.

If you would dial your screeds back a bit and stop trying to insult me at every turn it might be more productive.

As I said I will be glad to help you with English if you like. I am more than capable.

Maybe because you use such words as an insult. I have not shown any evidence of looking at "fringe science" but you automatically go there, repeatedly. The firs time is one thing, but when repeated, it's very annoying. Especially when at one point I asked you to define hoe you were using it.

Do you really think your intellectual deceptions are going anywhere? Maybe the common viewer is duped by you, but I see you as a joke, and someone who intentionally taunts, in subtle ways.

Do your coworkers actually respect you when you do that?

 

[istodolez]

Maybe because you use such words as an insult.

So now you are a MIND READER? Even when I tell you the way I'm using the word?

I have not shown any evidence of looking at "fringe science" but you automatically go there, repeatedly.

Because you are constantly supporting science that is NOT generally accepted by the mainstream. Your insistence the SOLAR is the key factor is offset by the mainstream science saying that changes in solar factors cannot explain the warming over the last 50 years by themselves is but one example.

Do you really think your intellectual deceptions are going anywhere?

Jeeezus dude. It is NOT deception to use a common word in the English language!

What is your malfunction????

Maybe the common viewer is duped by you, but I see you as a joke.

OK.

 

[Lord of Planar]

So now you are a MIND READER? Even when I tell you the way I'm using the word?



Because you are constantly supporting science that is NOT generally accepted by the mainstream. Your insistence the SOLAR is the key factor is offset by the mainstream science saying that changes in solar factors cannot explain the warming over the last 50 years by themselves is but one example.



Jeeezus dude. It is NOT deception to use a common word in the English language!

What is your malfunction????



OK.

Not being within the consensus does not make it fringe science.

As for common phrases... One you claimed before, I only found in a search a few places. It was uncommon. Not common.

 

[istodolez]

Not being within the consensus does not make it fringe science.

OMG.

Get a dictionary.

 

[Lord of Planar]

OMG.

Get a dictionary.

Now, look up the term "fringe science."

 

[istodolez]

Now, look up the term "fringe science."

Not part of the mainstream.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Not part of the mainstream.

LOL...

So it's taboo if it isn't part of the mainstream?

This is the type of search responses I get when looking for the term "fringe science."

Notes on the Nature of Fringe Science.
Dutch, Steven I.
Journal of Geological Education, v30 n1 p6-13 Jan 1982
Identifies three classifications of scientific ideas (center, frontier, fringe) and defines fringe as a region where ideas are highly speculative or weakly confirmed. Points out the factual and logical fallacies of fringe science through questions based upon scientific methodology, discussion, and numerous examples from the past and present. (DC)

ERIC - EJ260409 - Notes on the Nature of Fringe Science., Journal of Geological Education, 1982-Jan

Identifies three classifications of scientific ideas (center, frontier, fringe) and defines fringe as a region where ideas are highly speculative or weakly confirmed. Points out the factual and logical fallacies of fringe science through questions based upon scientific methodology, discussion...

eric.ed.gov

Maybe you like wiki better:

Fringe science refers to ideas whose attributes include being highly speculative or relying on premises already refuted.

I am not referring to this type of science. Your assumptions continue to fail you. I don't get how you could have achieved the positions you have claimed to.

If you wish to limit your knowledge gains by not hearing what people have to say, and stay hard-headed... then so be it.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I guess real science just isn't part of the in-crowd any more....

 

[istodolez]

LOL...

So it's taboo if it isn't part of the mainstream?

Did I say that???? Gosh I don't remember saying that! Nope...I DIDN'T say that.

If you wish to limit your knowledge gains by not hearing what people have to say, and stay hard-headed... then so be it.

No, I just use the language in all its manifold ways. It is a deep and rich language.

Yes, I KNOW that sometimes it is a pejorative term! Wow! But that doesn't mean it ALWAYS is.

 

[istodolez]

I guess real science just isn't part of the in-crowd any more....

And you would know "real science" exactly how? Does it involve true Scotsmen?

 

[Ahlevah]

The simple answer is they would find the causes is they stopped trying to convict CO2, and looked more closely at the variables they keep ignoring. As long as they ignore these other variables, they will never find the truth.

I look at the source of this climate change boondoggle: the UN. The masses of developing nations and their political supporters in Western nations have always tried to figure out how to transfer wealth from the "haves" to the a "have nots." No doubt: the industrial economies of Western nations were built on fossil fuels: coal, petroleum, and natural gas. If one can prove the CO2 created by these nations has negatively impacted the the planet and everybody on it, then an argument can be made for monetary reparations or aid to non-industrialized nations. So the real impetus behind the "CO2 is the cause" argument is what it usually is in cases like this: money. You don't need truth to realize your vision. You just need to convince others that it's true, and cancel or marginalize those who make the opposite argument.

 

[istodolez]

I look at the source of this climate change boondoggle: the UN. The masses of developing nations and their political supporters in Western nations have always tried to figure out how to transfer wealth from the "haves" to the a "have nots." No doubt: the industrial economies of Western nations were built on fossil fuels: coal, petroleum, and natural gas. If one can prove the CO2 created by these nations has negatively impacted the the planet and everybody on it, then an argument can be made for monetary reparations or aid to non-industrialized nations. So the real impetus behind the "CO2 is the cause" argument is what it usually is in cases like this: money. You don't need truth to realize your vision. You just need to convince others that it's true, and cancel or marginalize those who make the opposite argument.

That’s a pretty convincing theory if one ignores all the science.

 

[Ahlevah]

That’s a pretty convincing theory if one ignores all the science.

There's the rub. Some of what passes for science hasn't been properly peer-reviewed because scientists who've attempted to question some of the assumptions used in these models are looked upon as modern-day heretics. You can't question the dogma.

 

[istodolez]

There's the rub. Some of what passes for science hasn't been properly peer-reviewed because scientists who've attempted to question some of the assumptions used in these models are looked upon as modern-day heretics. You can't question the dogma.

Actually most of it has been peer reviewed. It's pretty straightforward at its core and the difficult stuff aren't as controversial among the majority of the experts as many "skeptics" would prefer.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I look at the source of this climate change boondoggle: the UN. The masses of developing nations and their political supporters in Western nations have always tried to figure out how to transfer wealth from the "haves" to the a "have nots." No doubt: the industrial economies of Western nations were built on fossil fuels: coal, petroleum, and natural gas. If one can prove the CO2 created by these nations has negatively impacted the the planet and everybody on it, then an argument can be made for monetary reparations or aid to non-industrialized nations. So the real impetus behind the "CO2 is the cause" argument is what it usually is in cases like this: money. You don't need truth to realize your vision. You just need to convince others that it's true, and cancel or marginalize those who make the opposite argument.

That's what many people see I think. I'm not against these developing nations using coal and other fossil fuels. I just want them to use better practices. Learn by our mistakes and use the latest technology. And if its in our best interest to subsidize them to be a clean world neighbor, then so be it.

 

[Lord of Planar]

That’s a pretty convincing theory if one ignores all the science.

Yes, the statistics out of the sciences when leaving out certain variables, with the broken models we have, says CO2 is a problem.

 

[Lord of Planar]

There's the rub. Some of what passes for science hasn't been properly peer-reviewed because scientists who've attempted to question some of the assumptions used in these models are looked upon as modern-day heretics. You can't question the dogma.

Like I am, here.