Greenhouse effect may not cause greater temperature variability after all

Originally posted by Metal Brain
"what is wrong or unscientific with a test of a theory by seeing if it correctly predicts past events?"

Because we already know past events. Predicting future events is real proof because nobody knows the future. You only have one chance to get it right. Past events can be predicted by trial and error before facing the real test in front of others.

Because we already know past events.

how does that explain “"what is wrong or unscientific with a test of a theory by seeing if it correctly predicts past events?" ?
….
your give no explanation whatsoever here unless you logic is so warped that you think that actually is an “explanation”! -which it isn't.

...because nobody knows the future.

false premiss:
Can I not know that the Sun will rise tomorrow?

I have also noticed that you have chosen to completely ignore and/or avoid answering wolfgang59's perfectly good questions: -I assume this is because you know they implicitly prove your warped reasoning wrong.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Oh, first of all, eh? The most important flaw in my reasoning is a Spelling error? Okay, the rest is okay?

This is also a sign of fundamentility - if you cannot complain of anything else, complain about the language. Du fattar att engelska inte är mitt modersmål eller? Jag skulle vilja se hur du uttrycker dej på svenska. If you get my Point.

I don't ...[text shortened]... .

What will be your next move in this debate? Personal attacks? Denial? Straw men? Avoidance?

"I don't discuss the climat with you, that is futile, exactly why it is futile to discuss science with a creationist."

So you lie and say I am a creationist when I previously said I was an atheist? Many on this forum know I am an atheist. Just because I correctly point out flaws with climate models doesn't mean you should take it personally. I know a guy that sells Ford vehicles and when I mention I like Toyotas because they are more reliable than American vehicles he doesn't take it personally. He didn't design them. Did you design a climate model?

Originally posted by humy

Because we already know past events.

how does that explain “"what is wrong or unscientific with a test of a theory by seeing if it correctly predicts past events?" ?
….
your give no explanation whatsoever here unless you logic is so warped that you think that actually is an “explanation”! -which it isn't.
[quote] ...because nobody kn ...[text shortened]... questions: -I assume this is because you know they implicitly prove your warped reasoning wrong.

WOW! It completely went over your head.

How many times did it take them to get it right by trial and error? Do you seriously think they only tried once?

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Q. What is your prediction of the total I throw on 2 dice?

Q. Would you say '7' is the best prediction?

Q. After I roll '9' does that mean '7' wasn't the best prediction?

I predict a number will show on the top of each of the two dice.

There is no best prediction.

No, unless you are predicting the past. If I already know the answer was '9' I will always predict it right. Now do you see the flaw of predicting the past?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
"I don't discuss the climat with you, that is futile, exactly why it is futile to discuss science with a creationist."

So you lie and say I am a creationist when I previously said I was an atheist? Many on this forum know I am an atheist. Just because I correctly point out flaws with climate models doesn't mean you should take it personally. I know a ...[text shortened]... n vehicles he doesn't take it personally. He didn't design them. Did you design a climate model?

You say that I've said that you are a creationist. No, I haven't. I've said that your rhetorics and a creationists rhetoric are very similar. I believe you when you say that you are an atheist. Yet you employ creationistic rhetorics.

You say that take your twisted ideas about our climate as personal. No, I don't. I cannot figure out how you have came to that conclusion. You are among the minority, and you don't know much about scientific methodology, how can I take this personally? What does Toyota (one of the best car in the world) and American vehicles into the discussion, is nothing more than straw men, like you know already know that you are wrong and try to repair your mistakes. Creationists use this method too. Doesn't lead to anything.

You ask if I designed a climate model? This has nothing to do with what I've told you before. You know the answer, why do you want me to answer?

My point all the way is - you use creationist's rhetorics. Doesn't that bother you?

By the way, you say that I lie, is this meant to be a personal attack? Then I was right when I assumed this to be your next step, wasn't I?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
You say that I've said that you are a creationist. No, I haven't. I've said that your rhetorics and a creationists rhetoric are very similar. I believe you when you say that you are an atheist. Yet you employ creationistic rhetorics.

You say that take your twisted ideas about our climate as personal. No, I don't. I cannot figure out how you have came t ...[text shortened]... nt to be a personal attack? Then I was right when I assumed this to be your next step, wasn't I?

"You are among the minority, and you don't know much about scientific methodology, how can I take this personally?"

I told you before that I am not in the minority in regards to claims of global warming alarmists and I challenged you to prove it and you have not done that. Are you too lazy to find the proof or did you try and fail like I said you would?

Most climate scientists do NOT believe global warming will lead to a lot more droughts, floods, hurricanes and sea level rises that will force people to move within 2 generations.

Prove it!

Originally posted by Metal Brain
"You are among the minority, and you don't know much about scientific methodology, how can I take this personally?"

I told you before that I am not in the minority in regards to claims of global warming alarmists and I challenged you to prove it and you have not done that. Are you too lazy to find the proof or did you try and fail like I said you woul ...[text shortened]... hurricanes and sea level rises that will force people to move within 2 generations.

Prove it!

I don't have to prove anything. You just are in a small minority among the scientific community. If you had better understanding about science methodology, you would understand this yourself.

I am also among the minority in a totally other field of science. I counter this by learning more about the subject so I am in par with the science community. Not by aggressively debate on the net about it, not by delivering personal attacks, not by showing too abviously my lack of academic education. It would be nice to say 'I told you so' when the Nobel Prize is given to someone with the same opinion as myself, but the world will not come to an end if I am wrong.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
I don't have to prove anything. You just are in a small minority among the scientific community. If you had better understanding about science methodology, you would understand this yourself.

I am also among the minority in a totally other field of science. I counter this by learning more about the subject so I am in par with the science community. Not ...[text shortened]... to someone with the same opinion as myself, but the world will not come to an end if I am wrong.

"You just are in a small minority among the scientific community."

Not true. Most climate scientists are not alarmists.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
WOW! It completely went over your head.

How many times did it take them to get it right by trial and error? Do you seriously think they only tried once?

Again, what does the number of times got to do with it? That number is completely irrelevant which is why, and completely contrary to what you appear to be implying here, I implied very little about the number of times. It doesn't matter if it was just once or a trillion trillion times.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
I predict a number will show on the top of each of the two dice.

There is no best prediction.

No, unless you are predicting the past. If I already know the answer was '9' I will always predict it right. Now do you see the flaw of predicting the past?

I predict a number will show on the top of each of the two dice.

That is an incredibly stupid response even for you. He was asking a genuine question and there is absolutely no cause to show such disrespect with such a stupid response. Please don't be obtuse.

There is no best prediction.

Rubbish! OF COURSE there is a best answer! The best answer is 7 (exactly as he implied by the rhetorical question ) because if you throw the pair of dice a large number of time then it is highly probable that the two throw numbers will add up to 7 more often than any other number thus 7 is the most probable outcome and thus the best prediction.
If you do the maths, which isn't complicated, you will see why.

We can validly predict the PROBABILITY of an outcome (past or future ) and there is nothing unscientific or wrong with doing that.

You fail miserably.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Most climate scientists are not alarmists.

Most climate scientists say there is man made global warming significant enough in magnitude to eventually and potentially cause thousands if not millions of deaths. And yet I have seen you accuse anyone that in-effect makes the same assertion here as being "alarmist" merely for asserting it. How can this be consistent with your above assertion of;
"Most climate scientists are not alarmists"?
How do you reconcile that?

Originally posted by humy
That is an incredibly stupid response even for you. He was asking a genuine question and there is absolutely no cause to show such disrespect with such a stupid response. Please don't be obtuse.

Rubbish! OF COURSE there is a best answer! The best answer is 7 (exactly as he implied by the rhetorical question ) because if you throw the pair of dice a large nu ...[text shortened]... t or future ) and there is nothing unscientific or wrong with doing that.

You fail miserably.

Isn't this covered in the first lesson of "Probability 101"?
Of course the sum of two dice will be 7 is the highest probability. And that doesn't change even if you get 9 in one throw. Everyone knows that. It's obvious.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Isn't this covered in the first lesson of "Probability 101"?
Of course the sum of two dice will be 7 is the highest probability. And that doesn't change even if you get 9 in one throw. Everyone knows that. It's obvious.

what's "Probability 101"? I Googled this and got nothing much.

Originally posted by humy
what's "Probability 101"? I Googled this and got nothing much.

Well, one-oh-one means the basics of a subject. If a book is started with a chapter, like "Probablity 101", that means that this is the basics of the whole course. If someone doesn't grasp these fundamentals, don't bother to read the rest of the book, he wouldn't understand anything about the subject anyway.

As I have understood it anyway. The book I read now starts every new chapter with a 101 where the basics about the chapter are presented. The rest of the chapter is more into details. But if you don't understand the 101-part, then the rest of the chapter is too hard to take in.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Well, one-oh-one means the basics of a subject. If a book is started with a chapter, like "Probablity 101", that means that this is the basics of the whole course. If someone doesn't grasp these fundamentals, don't bother to read the rest of the book, he wouldn't understand anything about the subject anyway.

As I have understood it anyway. The book I r ...[text shortened]... . But if you don't understand the 101-part, then the rest of the chapter is too hard to take in.

understood 🙂
And this very much applies to Mental...er, I mean, Metal Brain.