GOP, businesses torched AOC for doubting existence of smash-and-grab robberies

[JohnLarue]

But a court does listen to days - or even weeks - of competing scientific testimony and then determine which is truth and which is bullshit.

That's a court's job.

In a murder case, a judge might hear two totally different scientific theories about ballistics and bullet trajectories and then make the correct call.

Or the judge may make the incorrect call depending on the relative presentation skills of opposing lawyers, the admission of spurious information or the omission of some relevant information
Had the courts never convicted an innocent man or acquitted a guilty man, you might have an argument
But too bad for you this is not the case


A court does not determine science
Just like an opinion poll does not determine science
Scientific theory is determined by experimental observation.
Taught to you in your first high school science class

BTW:
Galileo spent the last years of his life under house arrest because a court (or church) found his theory that the earth revolved around the sun was blasphemous

 

[JohnLarue]

Modelling could be as much an art as science. The science part
of climate modelling could indeed be correct. The art of it is to figure
out the relevance of the model to the real world. If I were put in charge
of creating a model to predict the effect of injection of carbon dioxide to
a tank containing water and air 1/one-million the volume of Earth I too
would very likely come up with one that predicts increase of temperature
if the tank is subject to the effect of radiation from the Sun. In fact I cannot
see how a model can predict decrease of temperature since carbon dioxide
is a greenhouse gas.

Meanwhile such an experiment would not replicate the effects of convection, the Jet streams, ocean currents, clouds, condensation, the earths rotation, photosynthesis and two massive chucks of ice at either end of the planet
In addition to a whole pile of other factors

But no doubt some damn fool would declare a climate emergency and then glue his face to the pavement

 

[oil&gas]

Meanwhile such an experiment would not replicate the effects of convection, the Jet streams, ocean currents, clouds, condensation, the earths rotation, photosynthesis and two massive chucks of ice at either end of the planet
In addition to a whole pile of other factors

The climate model employed to predict global warming would not
replicate effects of rising temperature on melting of Arctic sea
and Antarctica. Climate scientists had to create separate model for
Arctic sea melting. The scientists who reported Arctic sea melting
in 2004 should have carried on their research to figure out how much
less emission it would take to save the world from the impending catastrophe.
But I guess that is a lot of work to modify their model.

But no doubt some damn fool would declare a climate emergency and then glue his face to the pavement

Most undergraduates in science have had no hands on experience of
modelling. Many years ago I crossed path with a physics graduate who
was unable to write a simple code of Monte Carlo simulation of the
thermodynamic properties of a 3 particle fluid based on an algorithm
provided to him. It is difficult stuff. You can safely bet those stooges
in the UN who invited Greta Thunberg to deliver her speech on
the end of the world know shit about climate modelling.

 

[poker]

The climate model employed to predict global warming would not
replicate effects of rising temperature on melting of Arctic sea
and Antarctica. Climate scientists had to create separate model for
Arctic sea melting. The scientists who reported Arctic sea melting
in 2004 should have carried on their research to figure out how much
less emission it would take to save the world from the impending catastrophe.
But I guess that is a lot of work to modify their model.




Most undergraduates in science have had no hands on experience of
modelling. Many years ago I crossed path with a physics graduate who
was unable to write a simple code of Monte Carlo simulation of the
thermodynamic properties of a 3 particle fluid based on an algorithm
provided to him. It is difficult stuff. You can safely bet those stooges
in the UN who invited Greta Thunberg to deliver her speech on
the end of the world know shit about climate modelling.

Carbon traps heat. Carbon in our atmosphere is measurable. Carbon emissions are also measurable.

 

[mandrill]

Or the judge may make the incorrect call depending on the relative presentation skills of opposing lawyers, the admission of spurious information or the omission of some relevant information
Had the courts never convicted an innocent man or acquitted a guilty man, you might have an argument
But too bad for you this is not the case
A court does not determine science
Just like an opinion poll does not determine science
Scientific theory is determined by experimental observation.
Taught to you in your first high school science class
BTW:
Galileo spent the last years of his life under house arrest because a court (or church) found his theory that the earth revolved around the sun was blasphemous

John, things have changed in the 350 years since Galileo. Just thought I'd let you know.

And yeah, science is done by scientists and they know how to do science. Gotcha. But judging is done by judges and they're pretty good at it. Lay persons think that trials are performative. They're not. They're information-crunching. It becomes a guess when you have to compare one person's story to another's about who pulled out a gun first and who then defended himself. But comparing discredited bullshit science to consensus science on global warming doesn't involve guesswork. It involves listening to how the anti global warming faction is totally discredited by other scientists and believed only by a minority of overly opinionated dunderheads who build their personalities and world view around denialism and the court then drawing the obvious conclusion.

 

[oil&gas]

Carbon traps heat. Carbon in our atmosphere is measurable. Carbon emissions are also measurable.

Water vapour also traps heat. It is in fact way more potent than
carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. A model designed to emulate
effect of water vapour dumped into the atmosphere in a world where
all ICE cars are replaced by hydrogen-powered car could also predict
worsening global warming.

 

[poker]

If it’s measurable, it’s manageable.

 

[oil&gas]

John, things have changed in the 350 years since Galileo. Just thought I'd let you know.

And yeah, science is done by scientists and they know how to do science. Gotcha. But judging is done by judges and they're pretty good at it. Lay persons think that trials are performative. They're not. They're information-crunching. It becomes a guess when you have to compare one person's story to another's about who pulled out a gun first and who then defended himself. But comparing discredited bullshit science to consensus science on global warming doesn't involve guesswork. It involves listening to how the anti global warming faction is totally discredited by other scientists and believed only by a minority of overly opinionated dunderheads who build their personalities and world view around denialism and the court then drawing the obvious conclusion.

Does the judge presiding over the case have any experience of the
science of climate simulation?

 

[oil&gas]

If it’s measurable, it’s manageable.

You have any idea how measurable global temperature is?
You won't even be able to define a single yearly temperature
of Ontario that is measurable.

 

[mandrill]

Does the judge presiding over the case have any experience of the
science of climate simulation?

It would be explained to him at length, perhaps for days or even weeks.

 

[JohnLarue]

]John, things have changed in the 350 years since Galileo. Just thought I'd let you know.

.Yeah OJ Simpson was acquitted
David Milgaard spent 23 years in prison hell labeled as a rapist and murder

And yeah, science is done by scientists and they know how to do science. Gotcha.

Make sure you understand the difference between a scientist and an activist wearing a lab jacket

But judging is done by judges and they're pretty good at it. Lay persons think that trials are performative. They're not. They're information-crunching. It becomes a guess when you have to compare one person's story to another's about who pulled out a gun first and who then defended himself

So guesswork based on what is presented or not presented or ignored

My guess is this will not be presented

“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [TRENBERTH] and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

– Phil Jones email to Michael Mann 2004

But comparing discredited bullshit science to consensus science on global warming doesn't involve guesswork.

How many times do you need to be told consensus does not determine science !!!!! ???????!!!!!!
Why do you fail to understand this?


Bullshit science??
The Bear Lambert Law is a scientific law which has stood the test of time
Absorption of infrared radiation is logarithmic wrt concentration and the absorption is saturated @ the 15 micron wavelength



The bullshit science is believing in models which have consistently been wrong while ignoring the physical laws of nature and the fact our climate is a chaotic system with many independant inpts

It involves listening to how the anti global warming faction is totally discredited by other scientists and believed only by a minority of overly opinionated dunderheads who build their personalities and world view around denialism and the court then drawing the obvious conclusion.

again "discredited" ??? WTF ???
Sorry cancel culture does not work when it comes to scientific truth
Galileo was discredited , so was David Milgard

Simple question why have Michael Mann / Phil Jones not been cancelled/ discredited ?
They only perpetuated a fraud and corrupted the peer-review process


and yet the polar bears are doing just fine, acres burnt by wild fires is down in the last 100 years, the Antarctic ice is not melting away, it is colder yesterday in Northern Europe , Russia and Australia than decades ago and the satellite dats shows next to no warming over the past 30years

All of which is inconsistent with the continue rise in CO2 levels and inconsistent bullshit "consensus" / "settled" science promoting CO2 as the control knob for climate

If you truly believe the courts can settle scientific questions, you have absolutely zero business commenting on any scientific matter[/quote]

 

[JohnLarue]

Carbon traps heat. Carbon in our atmosphere is measurable. Carbon emissions are also measurable.

You mean carbon dioxide?

Its ability to absorb infrared radiation is determine by the Beer-Lambert Law
The absorption is a logarithmic function of concentration and sadly for you the absorption is saturated by Co2 and water Vapor at the all important 15 micron wavelength




It is very much like painting a barn red
The first few coats turn the barn red, the next one makes it appear a bit more red, however the 10th or 20th coat do not change the appearance

So sorry but you are wrong again

The other problem is measuring the temperature accurately and there are all kinds of issues there
the Urban Heat Island effect being just one

 

[poker]

You mean carbon dioxide?

Its ability to absorb infrared radiation is determine by the Beer-Lambert Law
The absorption is a logarithmic function of concentration and sadly for you the absorption is saturated by Co2 and water Vapor at the all important 15 micron wavelength


View attachment 106202

It is very much like painting a barn red
The first few coats turn the barn red, the next one makes it appear a bit more red, however the 10th or 20th coat do not change the appearance

So sorry but you are wrong again

The other problem is measuring the temperature accurately and there are all kinds of issues there
the Urban Heat Island effect being just one

View attachment 106210

Again…. You are arguing with memes.

So I doubt anyone at the IIPC has made a public statement saying “we were wrong”. I doubt the new studies they posted were even a “gotcha” moment. I bet somebody saw a new study posted, then said “see! They were wrong about the other stuff”. Spin. That’s all your meme is, spin. Please stop posting spin.

Now… I am not a scientist. However, when scientists at oil companies (and the legal teams), agree with experts (please note I did not say activists in lab coats… I said experts) that the climate science is real, and humans are causing the climate to change…. Then I tend to believe them over you. They are experts, you are not.

You can post formulas, memes, and say 15 microns until your head explodes. It does not change the proven fact that humans are burning fossil fuels at an alarming rate, and that has environmental consequences. That is so painfully obvious that I should not have to explain it to a grown up who professes to understand the science. Yet here we are again.

I don’t know why the cognitive dissonance has such a hold on you… mind you, most of the GOP still believe the election was stolen (even when the media and Trumps lawyer said they were not responsible for fact checking fraud claims, and courts shot them down)… so the fact the righties hate the left so much that they can’t bring themselves to see the burning Forrest through the trees should not surprise me.

I think your Politics has blinded you.

 

[Valcazar]

I have no idea if similar study of Antarctica has been reported. If Arctic
Sea is going to be free of ice it seems probable Antarctica will be affected
as well.

At this point I don't know why it was even brought up.

 

[Valcazar]

Scientific theory is determined by experimental observation.
Taught to you in your first high school science class

New catchphrase on repeat!

This is a good one though. LaRue admitting his understanding of science is stuck at the high school level is clarifying.

 

[oil&gas]

Now… I am not a scientist. However, when scientists at oil companies (and the legal teams), agree with experts (please note I did not say activists in lab coats… I said experts) that the climate science is real, and humans are causing the climate to change…. Then I tend to believe them over you. They are experts, you are not.

In today's political climate people running oil companies, both scientists
and non-scientists, have good reason to agree with climate scientists. You
have to be quite gullible to believe them. Do you know there are more oilers
than representatives of any single country in COP26?

Norway says its new giant oil field is actually good for the environment.

Norway says its new giant oil field is actually good for the environment. Critics call it climate hypocrisy

eos.co.id

 

[richaceg]

Wouldn't AOC pass any IQ test with flying colours?.....

Getting into Boston College probably puts her in the top 10 - 20% of the population or better. Tell me where Boebert went to college, Kirk?

Getting into Boston College automatically means high IQ? Doubt it....

 

[Valcazar]

Galileo spent the last years of his life under house arrest because a court (or church) found his theory that the earth revolved around the sun was blasphemous

You mean that they objected to his model, specifically.

 

[Valcazar]

Again…. You are arguing with memes.

Of course he is arguing with memes.
What else does he have?

 

[y2kmark]

You mean that they objected to his model, specifically.

I always liked Christie Brinkley best...