you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

There's no way you could estimate a climate model on a desktop computer.

You are missing the point. I don't ever need to run their model. Ever.

The point I am making is the fact that their models aren't generating predictions that come remotely close to the climate that actually exists. That is easy to check. It is basic arithmetic. Anyone can do this.

You continue to change the terms of the conversation.

They the climate scientists need to prove that their models work. The onus is in them.

Man made global warming, was renamed to man made climate change, because the climate wasn't warming, and their predictions were disgraceful failures..

Can your explain why they changed the name form global warming? It's obvious. The game is up, but the fraud continues.

Next: I didn't invent any terms. Look them up. Climate science is not in the physics department.
Physics depts realize that this is a joke. It's propaganda.

They like to bandy the word physics around (theoretical physics, physics models, etc, but it's bogus).

[–]endopassing 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

their predictions were disgraceful failures..

Says who?

I see no one, literally not a single person with insight or relevant knowledge who would agree with you on that.

So, you picked some random scientific field and decided that you know more than every single scientist in that field.

Well done.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

Says who?

I see no one, literally not a single person with insight or relevant knowledge who would agree with you on that.

How about a Nobel Laureate in physics? A legit qualification. Feel free to attempt to pick his arguments apart.
Good luck.
Nobel Laureate in Physics; "Global Warming is Pseudoscience"

[–]endopassing 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

Now I watched it. While he sprinkles a few true statements his argumentation is simply not worthy of a scientist. It's really a shame that a scientist is willing to embarrass himself like that. I don't know what happens to some scientists when they stop being active. After this performance I would definitely question his research in general.

This video is full of ad hominem and strawman arguments: He holds a grudge against Obama, why would that be relevant to reiterate in a scientific talk? That alone is enough for me to totally dismiss him as relevant.

But more importantly: Notice how many times he makes up an ad hoc theory he then claims to be a global warming theory with specific expected consequences, which he then goes on to prove wrong. It should be obvious even to someone with a minimum of scientific experience that most of those strawman theories are totally bogus. This is why you shouldn't trust someone like him, and shouldn't take "Nobel laureate" as guarantee for quality.

I suggest you start by writing down every single theory he presents in his talk and figure out how he arrived at them and how he determined them as valid expressions of what climate researchers have to say.

It's easy enough to construct all kinds of far fetched theories which you can then prove wrong. If you ascribe those theories to someone else your aim is to prove them wrong on the basis of something they never claimed themselves. In this case his strawmen are even very simplistic and unsophisticated. I would have expected better from someone who's won a Nobel prize.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

He makes the assumption that he is doing to an informed and educated audience. There's no reason for him to go into detail about absurdities.

It's not surprising that you didn't understand the facts.

[–]endopassing 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

See my second reply.

This guy has stopped doing science and is instead cashing in on his "Nobel laureate" title doing pseudo science shows.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

There publishing and Grant cartels punish independent thinkers.

People lose their careers over voicing their disagreement. That is why the majority of public dissenters are retired, or will be soon.

The grant and publishing cartels have frightened the scientific community into silence.

[–]endopassing 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

There publishing and Grant cartels punish independent thinkers.

The grant and publishing cartels have frightened the scientific community into silence.

If you want to keep that claim you also need to show why it doesn't have the exact opposite effect: The obvious conclusion to that argument is that climate researchers have consistently been intimidated to under-report and tone down the seriousness of global warming. Thus, you're in fact arguing that climate change likely is much worse than climate researchers have claimed.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

The cartels are pushing the global warming hoax.

If you oppose them, then they punish you.

If you believe in the hoax, then they lavish you with publishing your articles, and awarding grant money, and creating awards to give you.
They make those who truly internalize and believe in the hoax into celebrities.

[–]endopassing 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

The cartels are pushing the global warming hoax.

No, they're pushing the anti-warming hoax. It's glaringly obvious, I've tried to explain that to you in several different ways, how can you not see it? You even posted a video of some Nobel laureate who clearly was presenting a lie and who was not very good at lying.

EDIT:

You've been emotional caught by their narrative just like the antivaxxers: They tell you an emotional sob-story of someone unjustly shunned by the community wrapped in a hilariously bad pseudo-scientific explanation and you've fallen for it hook, line and sinker.

I gave you a simple assignment: In the video you posted:

  1. write down every single theory he presents as a climate theory

  2. Identify how he derived at that theory

  3. Identify how he decided that it was a valid expression of what climate scientists have to say

I think you will find that almost all of his "theories" are invented by him out of thin air so that he can "prove" the wrong and claim he is proving the climate scientists wrong while in fact just telling an irrelevant story exploiting the fact that he once was awarded the Nobel prize.