NortonH

OK. Let me out in another way. The energy is missing. N^2 particles produces quite a lot of energy.

Thank you for your response. Please re-read lines 4-6 of my original post. I think they cover that. If you think that fossil can be subsidised then please explain where the energy comes from to subsidize it. In reality it is not possible to subsidize the cheapest source of energy (assuming we believe in the conservation of mass/energy)

I propose that we stop sending aid to Somalia or anywhere else for that matter. I do not see mass emigration as a solution. I see it as part of the problem and something else we should stop. It is a drain on the only resource these countries have and, to be honest, the migrants are no great benefit to the countries they migrate to. I find odd that many people were horrified when I bought some old pot from a dealer in Kabul because I was 'stealing the cultural heritage of Afghanistan' but are quite OK with draining the able bodied and brightest people from third world countries. eg I met a taxi driver in London who had been a doctor in Sudan. Was that really a net win for the world?

When new sources of energy are being proposed there is often an impetus to subsidize them. Currently we have a lot of wind farms being subsidized. I am of the opinion that this is pure theatre and self delusion. If the energy source cannot survive without subsidy then it is clearly not producing more energy that it consumes. This discussion often gets bogged down when people try to redefine the word 'subsidy' and include things like tax rebates in the definition. So I will use a definition here - a subsidy is a net flow of energy into a system from outside. I will also add that as a corollary to this the Cost of something is a very good measure of the Energy that went into creating and running it. If wind farms cost more to build and maintain than they produce in a free market then they are not net producers or energy, they are absorbers.

Aid to Somalia (my former neighbour) is worse than a waste of time. In fact Aid to Africa is a destructive force. Countries can recover from war but i have yet to see an African country recover from aid. Has anyone been to Somalia? If not then I suggest you read some books like Dead Aid by Dambisa Moyo.

That theory has been around for a bit and raises and interesting problem. If it is assumed that matter and anti-matter were created from a random process (if!), then the imbalance today gives an indication of the likely total produced before annihilation. This is a vast amount and the MLE is N^2 where N is the number of particles of matter today. The radiation from the annihilation is missing.

I think that is an excellent idea. Please tell us how it goes and good luck with it.

If peer popularity is considered an important factor when people decide what opinions they are going to hold then the voting system is important. If.

What?? I think you are confused. I suggest you actually read what I have written. Being told to believe something simply because someone tells you to and without evidence being produced as argument from authority. Not sure how much clearer I can make it. I have not rejected the process of science. For about the tenth time i am happy to accept things if they are not contradicted by evidence. I DO NOT accept things where there is clearly evidence LACKING. Actually science DOES demand evidence at every step. In reality the evidence is usually available and understood. Sometimes we reach a step where there is NOT evidence. That is where we are now. That is when people try to bluff with arguement from authority instead of evidence. Newton showed F=ma and it is easily demonstrated and never countered with contrary evidence. But here is the point - if I DO happen to ask for proof then evidence can be produced. If however the ONLY answer I get is that Newton said so then that is NOT a scientifically credible answer because that is argument from authority. Do you get it yet?? If you bother to read the thread you will see that someone above ( I lost track of who,probably beecee) tried to tell me that a quantitative model was not required. So i am not rejecting the SM. I seem to be the only person here who understands and adheres to it. Really? SO why is it that the best I can get is a link to a bunch of models for some minor components of the global climate? Why no global model? Are you saying the climate is a separable system? I asked a couple of people whether they had ever seen the models and I was told that they were happy to 'know' they exist but not interested in seeing them. So if you are so sure that the global model exist then give me a link . Well that is rather telling! You have obviously not seen it. The fact that you are happy with it being secret or semi-secret is odd. Totally contrary to the SM, by the way. Great. Let me describe my pet unicorn. So you claim. But produce no evidence of that. Have you ever seen one? I knew that you would be bothered by WUWT. It is funny that you put up links to a global warming opinion site but get uncomfortable with a graph simply because the messenger is WUWT. I guess if the WUWT reports a fact then that fact immediately becomes wrong. LOL Yes that graph was Greenland. The reason is that ice cores have not survived so long on the african plains.' Plenty of other reconstructions of temperature indicate that your theory, that our current climate is unique in some way, is quite absurd. I cannot imagine how you can believe something in the face of so much historic counter-evidence. Yet at the same time you get upset because i refuse to take seriously your unverifiable computer predictions!! It is amazing how obtuse people can get when they really do not want to concede that they are wrong. A text book is a way of propagating knowledge. A fact does not become true because it is in a textbook. Unless there has been an error, a fact is in a textbook because it is true. Because I refuse to accept a claim without evidence as proven that does not mean that any claim without evidence is definitely wrong. Once again, if people cannot do basic set theory then they get confused about these things. Things can be true despite no evidence being produced. When evidence is produced then things are not false. Honestly strange, it is clear that you understand quite clearly what the situation is but choose to waste my time. Obviously I am new to this forum and naively fell for your ploy. All part of the fun but it is a trick that only works once.

By the way, that graph above is from the WattsUpWithThat site. Is that a problem for you?

No. Those who make claims about future climate are obliged to show their model and provide the falsification criteria. That is the SM. Oh I have seen those. But I have also seen a bit more context as well. By that I mean temperature reconstructions for the past 300, 1000, 10,000, 100,000 years etc. So my claim is not 'trivially wrong' at all. If you think that my null hypothesis is wrong then, as i asked before, please show it has been overturned. Demonstrate some evidence that what has happened over the past 100 years is new or unique. Propose a theory along with a quantitaive model and faslification criteria etc. Surely this must be easy for you to do. It has been done hasn't it?

I quite agree. So tell the people on this thread who have been telling me that I have to accept an argument because a phD says it is true rather than produces evidence. Do you grasp it yet?! I know you are a tight little community but when someone tells me that i should believe what I am told and NOT demand evidence then that IS an attempt to get me to fall for an argument from authority so rather than keep repeating the uncontested obvious to me I suggest you actually deal with those misguided people who really do think that argument from authority is valid. Up to you. I don't care what you do if you are not going to adhere to the SM. If you say F=ma that does not mean it is true. If you provide EVIDENCE then you have a case. Without evidence you have no case. I am happy to draw a picture if you really need it. I have not gotten to the point of discussing individual journals yet because I am still trying to establish how the SM works. So far most people here do not think that a quantitative model is even necessary for a scientific theory. Until we establish that factor there is no point going further. I claimed that I have not been able to find a model which can make usefully accurate predicitons of future climate and i suspected that it was because it does not exist. I cannot prove the non-existence of unicorns either. Given that such a model would be the first thing that was needed it is odd that, if it does exist, it is being kept hidden. As I said I cannot prove it does not exist but the onus is not on me to do so. Anyone making claims about future climate is obliged to show the model used as a basis for the claims.

This goes back to what I said about set theory. Just because i accept some does not mean that I accept all. That is something that requires some evidence. Up to you to produce. My null hypothesis says that everything is natural so please overturn my null hypothesis. I covered that above at least twice when the mods decided to ask me (but not bother to read the answers I gave the first one) :Let me repeat for about the third or fourth time. My sons teacher gave him a project which sparked my interest and got me investigating which led me to the conclusion that what we have been sold and a closed case 'science is settled' is anything but a closed case and so I am now following my own interests because my sons project has been sufficiently addressed and pretty much put to bed and jeez i hope you grasp all this so that I don't have to keep repeating stuff to people who are quite capable of grasping these rather tangential and irrelevant details but choose to quibble because the fact is they cannot actually deal with what we both know is the main topic of this thread. I hope that helps.

That is because climate 'science' is making lots of wild claims which impact my life. Many of these claims are absurd and have been shown to be baseless. eg no snow in Europe. no rain in Australia etc. HENCE I decide I want investigate further. I also not the bizarre, near religious fervor with which I am attacked by people unable to mount scientific arguments but who prefer to call me names rather than debate in a scientific way.

I dealt with this entire post much earlier. I will repeat myself for those too lazy to read. If I find some claim to be credible and have no reason to seriously doubt then I am happy to accept that it is probably true and act accordingly. That does NOT mean that I have verified it, it just means that i am content to accept the probable truth. eg someone says they saw a blue car today. Occasionally it is critical that I establish the truth of something, eg someone says they saw my husband murder someone. Then, in that case, I decide that i will not just take someone word for it, I will seek evidence. As I have said, ALL of what I have said here is basic high school science and it is getting tedious having to repeat it to someone who clearly knows it already. If i do not refuse to accept something because it lacks evidence that does not mean that i refuse to accept anything because it lacks evidence (see my note above). I do not accept authority as evidence that does not mean that i refuse to accept evidence just because someone has also claimed authority. Look at your basic set theory, specifically intersections of sets etc. It will become clear.

That just indicates that you have ignored or failed to read what I wrote. Nowhere on this thread have I said that the climate does not change. Please stop with the strawman stuff. There is but it is no different from what has happened before? (Also false, based on the evidence.) Please first define what you mean by 'different'. Every change is different in some way from previous changes. I see no evidence that there is anything happening today that is 'significantly different' from the past. By that I mean that measurable parameters are similar to what they were in the past.

Now that is just being childish. I suggest you look at basic set theory to answer that one. I have not said I refuse to believe anything told to me, I just point out that for PROOF of something I need evidence, not the word of some authority. The fact that you are still pushing this line shows that really you have no argument against the topic of this thread and are now just bickering for the sake of it. Sad. Yes. I guess when a religious belief is under threat the 'believers' become irrational. That is certainly what i am finding when I dare to even question climate change claims.

It does not matter what I accept. All that matters is whether it is true or not. The truth is determined by a measurement. If it measures at 1.6GHz then that is evidence it does not matter who the messenger is. If it is not 1.6GHz then it does not matter who says that it is, it is false because the evidence disproves the claim. It is bizarre that this basic high school level of science has to be debated on this forum. Did anyone apart from me actually study science ever???

So just to clarify, if a person with a PhD says that Event X causes Event Y then to you that constites a scientifically sound argument does it? If the person does not have a PhD? Or the PhD is from a related discipline? Or an unrelated discipline? Or later turns out to be fake? In all of those situations does the truth of the assertion change? Of course not. The person stating the law is irrelevant to science. All that matters is what evidence can be produced. Do the observations fit the model? Are there any counter examples? etc I cannot believe that I am having to debate this, to be honest. Consensus is nothing to do with science. You don't get to redefine what the scientific method is.

Hi Dr P , thankyou for your response. It does not matter whether it is 1% or 99%. It does not matter whether it is claimed by professors of a subject or by someone in a pub. Argument from authority is of zero scientific value. Science only deals with evidence. What I find off is that in this thread there are at least half a dozen people who know this and have always known it and yet they are prepared to argue AGAINST it simply because they feel some misguided obligation to argue against me. It demonstrates that for some people being in the right group and agreeing with the right groupthink is more important than the truth. Some utterly absurd statements have been made by some of these people on this thread but they will turn a blind eye to each others zany claims because they feel an allegiance to each other. I think that makes climate 'science' almost unique.

Argument from authority is a fallacy. Science requires evidence. So I really do not care how many moderators and 'senior' members of this forum pile on and try to tell me otherwise, it is not going to change the fact. Just consider what was written here - So please tell me how you measure and judge that. How do you measure and area of expertise? Is there an objective measure? etc Too ridiculous to bother pursuing. As I said above - if there is evidence then argument from authority is not needed and if there is no evidence then argument from authority carries no weight anyway. It is funny to see people trashing their own credibility like this. A science forum where the senior members argue AGAINST the scientific method because they feel that they have to oppose some guy who is saying stuff they don't like but cannot refute. Tell me this then Strange, do these models contain any information in their configuration parameters which has been produced by the same data that is used for testing of past periods? A simple Yes or No would clarify that for me. Well I think that line answers my question! The model is compared with the back test data, a discrepency is detected, the model is reconfigured to fit the data. Is that the process you mean or not? What claims are you referring to? My claim that argumen from authority is a fallacy? Or my claim that I have yet to find anywhere a usefully accurate model of the planets climate? I have been provided with links to models but so far nothing has fulfilled the criteria I just mentioned. I will keep looking but the fact remains that if predictions are being made about the planet there needs to be a global model and the onus is on the modellers to provide, not on me to seek it out. Out of interest do you have any pronouncements on the rejection of the SM and the apparent acceptance of argument from authority as being valid?

NO. Glad to be able to clear that up for you. That is training models with back testing. I can give you a model which correctly produces all last years lottery numbers. Would you care to bet on it producing next weeks numbers? Well I have been through all the models suggested by those links and they all attempt to model different components but nowhere is there a model which can be used to make predictions for the climate in 100 years time. So my original question stands - What is being used to make the predictions we keep hearing?

Final attempt - argument from authority has no value ever. I will explain my logic, you explain yours. Rewriting what I write and misrepresenting it as my opinion is just lame.

Not sure how many more times i need to repeat it - if there is evidence there is no need for authority, if there is no evidence then authority is worthless.

Iodine, please read the thread above. I explained that what my son is doing is going on elsewhere. Once I started investigating with him it sparked my interest because it became clear that all is not as open and shut as we were led to believe and i am now pursuing this for my own interest. I have already stated that above and once again here. Is that enough? As you are arguing against what is the accepted and mainstream scientific understanding, the onus is on you to provide evidence to support your claims. What claims are you referring to? My claim that argumen from authority is a fallacy? Or my claim that I have yet to find anywhere a usefully accurate model of the planets climate? I have been provided with links to models but so far nothing has fulfilled the criteria I just mentioned. I will keep looking but the fact remains that if predictions are being made about the planet there needs to be a global model and the onus is on the modellers to provide, not on me to seek it out. Out of interest do you have any pronouncements on the rejection of the SM and the apparent acceptance of argument from authority as being valid?