Climate-gate

[Quantum Quack]

you are intentionally trying to obfuscate and sow discord, while also undermining and maligning science, the scientific method and then you add in your conspiratorial leanings as justification for ignoring the science
claiming innocence regarding the topic even though your posts are plainly designed to add hysteria and confusion as well as undermine or distract from the valid scientific findings is very disingenuous
is it intentional?

What I try to do is apply a reality check to the science and it's outcomes. I attempt to suggest to those that are unrealistically proud, that current science is limited to the veracity of it's current and potentially flawed understandings.

I do not attempt to obfuscate nor do I wish to denigrate or humiliate... Science with it's inherent hubris can do all of that quite well on it's own.

One day you may realize that with out logic (philosophy) science would be non-existent.
In philosophy we question everything and presume nothing...

Just one fundamental example of many :
You say the laws of physics apply universally and have not applied the scientific method to make such a declaration.
You do not even have a theoretical mechanism that allows for such a proposition. So it is pure fantasy until you do apply the scientific method and support your proposition IMO.
I have sited at least 3 credible observations that discredit the notion... and you choose to ignore them why?

May be you just don't like me being tough and demanding that science do it's job properly ..is that it?

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

you site one undated paper that has an obvious and declared petro chemical vested interest. (PDF)
and then you site an article published in 2003.

I suppose that makes you feel credible.... it doesn't to me sorry.

try again...

and again, you are not arguing any science with science, only conjecture

1- is the PDF wrong? it is about "Differentiating Anthropogenic and Natural Hydrocarbon Releases" and it matches other studies
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?h...pogenic+CO2+sources&btnG=&as_sdt=1,4&as_sdtp=

saying it is wrong without justification, evidence or pointing out a specific flaw, then proving said flaw with, say, another study debunking it is like saying "fairy farts cause hurricanes"

2- logical fallacy - older papers do not mean bad science. can you prove the 2003 paper is wrong?
nope again (can i just call this the "fairy fart" excuse?)

3- i don't care how you think i feel.
it is not about how i feel... credibility is established by being able to provide evidence supporting a conclusion.
i've given links to scientific studies supporting my conclusions, you've given only conjecture and personal perspective

if one were to judge (rationally) between two arguments that were presented in the same manner, the logical conclusion would be to accept the argument that can prove it's point
you've not been able to prove anything except that you are not rational and you fear a global conspiracy WRT science
This is well established in your anecdotal post about Ozone depletion and assertions of the "lack of scientific credibility"
if you like, i can provide your direct quotes (but that will not likely matter in this case)

 

[Quantum Quack]

if one were to judge (rationally) between two arguments that were presented in the same manner, the logical conclusion would be to accept the argument that can prove it's point
you've not been able to prove anything except that you are not rational and you fear a global conspiracy WRT science
This is well established in your anecdotal post about Ozone depletion and assertions of the "lack of scientific credibility"
if you like, i can provide your direct quotes (but that will not likely matter in this case)

it is your fear of conspiracy that is driving you not mine...

Are all the boogey skeptics out to get science or what?

as if a conspiracy theorist nutter is going to make a difference any how...

 

[Quantum Quack]

This is well established in your anecdotal post about Ozone depletion and assertions of the "lack of scientific credibility"

Science said that CFC's were harmless post WW2 did they not?
They were proved wrong were they not?
Maybe us Aussies suffering and often dying from basal cell -melanoma can take a class action and get some compensation for failed science? No?

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

What I try to do is apply a reality check to the science and it's outcomes. I attempt to suggest to those that are unrealistically proud, that current science is limited to the veracity of it's current and potentially flawed understandings.

demonstrating your lack of understanding of the scientific method
logical fallacy again... you've provided no empirical evidence of anything other than you have personal beliefs that are not logical

I do not attempt to obfuscate nor do I wish to denigrate or humiliate... Science with it's inherent hubris can do all of that quite well on it's own.

another logical fallacy
you continue to assign human characteristics to the inanimate... although you likely mean scientists, you continue to broadly paint the methodology with the same brush without comprehension of the method

One day you may realize that with out logic (philosophy) science would be non-existent.

logical fallacy. i am using logic, and therefore i am versed well enough to comprehend
science is all about logic, it is your inability to comprehend the logic of the methodology that makes you continue to promote illogical beliefs
you are the one failing to keep, promote or maintain a logical string of reasoning

In philosophy we question everything and presume nothing...

one of the basis of the scientific method
of course, proof in the case of the scientific method is far more clear and concise as well as tangible, whereas philo talk is about making it sound good enough

You say the laws of physics apply universally and have not applied the scientific method to make such a declaration.

So it is pure fantasy until you do apply the scientific method and support your proposition IMO.

neither have you been able to demonstrate that they are not universal

EVERY experiment that is done and published in a study from any branch of science is evidence of the universal nature of the laws of physics, whereas all you can provide is speculation that there "might be" somewhere it is not applied
that is not evidence, that is speculation, therefore it can be dismissed as illogical and not relevant due to lack of evidence

May be you just don't like me being tough and demanding that science do it's job properly ..is that it?

i reiterate
you've provided no evidence at all supporting your conclusions other than personal conjecture
IOW - the Fairy Fart argument
where is your proof?

it is your fear of conspiracy that is driving you not mine...

i am an investigator. i believe nothing till it can be proven at least in a manner that would be consistent with the rules of evidence required for the US Courts system and the governing rules for physical evidence (i do not accept any personal anecdotal or eyewitness testimony on the word of the individual unless corroborated with other non-biased sources)
The scientific method is used regularly in the courts system to establish the validity of a proclamation or assertion

Are all the boogey skeptics out to get science or what?

i don't know
i haven't met them all...
are you?

They were proved wrong were they not?

again, until you can comprehend the Scientific method, there is no point arguing this post.
the method allows for change based upon empirical evidence

read up on "relativity vs Newtonian mechanics" and then re-read the link i gave defining the scientific method

 

[Quantum Quack]

EVERY experiment that is done and published in a study from any branch of science is evidence of the universal nature of the laws of physics, whereas all you can provide is speculation that there "might be" somewhere it is not applied
that is not evidence, that is speculation, therefore it can be dismissed as illogical and not relevant due to lack of evidence

nah you do it yourself...

1. The great attractor,
2. Dark Flow
3. Eridanus super void.
4. Accelerating cosmic metric expansion

Just to name four...
Not speculation but pure scientific observation that the Known laws of physics are not correct or simply do not apply

 

[Quantum Quack]

i am an investigator. i believe nothing till it can be proven at least in a manner that would be consistent with the rules of evidence required for the US Courts system and the governing rules for physical evidence (i do not accept any personal anecdotal or eyewitness testimony on the word of the individual unless corroborated with other non-biased sources)
The scientific method is used regularly in the courts system to establish the validity of a proclamation or assertion

and the value of purely circumstantial evidence is what?
the what does "beyond reasonable doubt" mean...

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

Science said that CFC's were harmless post WW2 did they not?
They were proved wrong were they not?
Maybe us Aussies suffering and often dying from basal cell -melanoma can take a class action and get some compensation for failed science? No?

your argument here is with the industry who created the problem and (most likely) funded the "research" that proved how safe the CFC's are
much like leaded gasoline

This is actually relevant because we are in the same situation right now
you are accepting the reasoning from the anti-science crowd, funded by big oil/business while assuming IT is the most correct while ignoring the scientists and science of the refuting side... in this case, you are in the (very) minority.
There really IS an underground movement being funded by big oil etc to promote false science and undermine actual science
this is proven here: http://www.drexel.edu/~/media/Files/now/pdfs/Institutionalizing Delay - Climatic Change.ashx
Note, i am giving the link to the STUDY, which contains empirical evidence
there is also an ARTICLE that you can read here: http://phys.org/news/2013-12-koch-brothers-reveals-funders-climate.html

the difference: an article is not empirical evidence of anything other than a person having a perspective... the study, however, is based upon empirical evidence and observation as well as provable data

IOW - you are accepting the lie for the sake of protecting your own world view, as i established above
http://www.plosone.org/article/fetc....1371/journal.pone.0075637&representation=PDF

1. The great attractor,
2. Dark Flow
3. Eridanus super void.
4. Accelerating cosmic metric expansion

Just to name four...
Not speculation but pure scientific observation that the Known laws of physics are not correct or simply do not apply

you have provided NO evidence still
just because you can throw out names doesn't mean you can prove anything

what about those above are evidence that the laws of physics are not universal?

is there ANY study published in a reputable peer reviewed journal with an impact in the subject of the study that proves your assertions of non-universal physics?

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

and the value of purely circumstantial evidence is what?

very low

in fact, in the face of empirical evidence (especially scientific evidence) which directly refutes it, it is worthless
that is the case here
you've provided circumstantial evidence based solely upon your personal interpretation of events
the science says otherwise

 

[Quantum Quack]

you have provided NO evidence still
just because you can throw out names doesn't mean you can prove anything

what about those above are evidence that the laws of physics are not universal?

is there ANY study published in a reputable peer reviewed journal with an impact in the subject of the study that proves your assertions of non-universal physics?

do a quick google on any or all..

"The Great Attractor is a gravity anomaly in intergalactic space within the vicinity of the Hydra-Centaurus Supercluster at the center of the Laniakea Supercluster that reveals the existence of a localized concentration of mass tens of thousands of times more massive than the Milky Way. This mass is observable by its effect on the motion of galaxies and their associated clusters over a region hundreds of millions of light-years across.

These galaxies are all redshifted, in accordance with the Hubble Flow, indicating that they are receding relative to us and to each other, but the variations in their redshift are sufficient to reveal the existence of the anomaly. The variations in their redshifts are known as peculiar velocities, and cover a range from about +700 km/s to −700 km/s, depending on the angular deviation from the direction to the Great Attractor."
src = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Attractor

*A gravity anomaly is the difference between the observed acceleration of a planet's gravity and a value predicted from a model. A location with a positive anomaly exhibits more gravity than predicted, while a negative anomaly exhibits a lower value than predicted. The anomaly is the body or effect that causes the deviation from the "ideal" gravity model. Many data corrections must be made to the measured gravity value in order to extract the response of the local anomaly, or local geology, which is typically the goal of applied geophysics.

GR is thus demonstrably compromised.

and so on...

*my assertion is not as you have described.
My assertion is again:

Not speculation but pure scientific observation that the Known laws of physics are not correct or simply do not apply

and if they are wrong or do not apply for the Great Attractor then how does this effect credibility in any court of law?

 

[Daecon]

GR is wrong? I guess all of those physicists and mathematicians who have been working with it didn't notice because...?

 

[Quantum Quack]

well apply it to the great attractor and see how you fare?
Like wise apply it to dark flow or the Eridanus void...

They are considered by science to be anomalies for a reason .....

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

do a quick google on any or all..

the only google i will use is google scholar
that is not the point: you've made a claim
where is the study backing your claim that there are points in space that are demonstrably proven to not have the same universal laws of physics that we have

where is the specific study that "GR is thus demonstrably compromised" so that i can review and search for a refute or other knowledge

again, you've made an assertion with very tenuous links
and again, you can support anything you want with a google search and link...

here is a good case in point:
I chose something that has absolutely NO empirical evidence at all whatsoever of existence, and then paired it with another like entity to form a google search for what SHOULD be a very hard to find series of links or data

if you Google "faerie angels" you can find

About 756,000 results
(0.41 seconds)

https://www.google.com/search?num=2...edr...0...1c.1.64.hp..8.18.2521.0.OjILN8XM_UA

Does that mean that they are real?

no

provide specifics or you are simply arguing (again) from conjecture or pseudoscience

this is common among the bulk of the pseudoscience cosmological posters as well: see almost every argument from the electric universe or that idiot zephir of the aether acolyte stupidity

Relativity is a bad one to poke the stick at anyway... it is very well established as proven as well as demonstrated
it is the reason you don't get lost as well as the reason you can communicate with worldwide efficiency on the internet

 

[Trippy]

GR is thus demonstrably compromised.

You realize that it's GR that allowws us to infer the existence of the great attractor in the first place, right?

 

[Quantum Quack]

the only google i will use is google scholar
that is not the point: you've made a claim
where is the study backing your claim that there are points in space that are demonstrably proven to not have the same universal laws of physics that we have

where is the specific study that "GR is thus demonstrably compromised" so that i can review and search for a refute or other knowledge

again, you've made an assertion with very tenuous links
and again, you can support anything you want with a google search and link...

here is a good case in point:
I chose something that has absolutely NO empirical evidence at all whatsoever of existence, and then paired it with another like entity to form a google search for what SHOULD be a very hard to find series of links or data

if you Google "faerie angels" you can find https://www.google.com/search?num=20&newwindow=1&site=&source=hp&q=faerie angels&oq=faerie angels&gs_l=hp.3..0i22i30l2.3262.24560.0.26209.26.24.0.2.2.0.245.2739.0j16j1.17.0.msedr...0...1c.1.64.hp..8.18.2521.0.OjILN8XM_UA

Does that mean that they are real?

no

provide specifics or you are simply arguing (again) from conjecture or pseudoscience

this is common among the bulk of the pseudoscience cosmological posters as well: see almost every argument from the electric universe or that idiot zephir of the aether acolyte stupidity

Relativity is a bad one to poke the stick at anyway... it is very well established as proven as well as demonstrated
it is the reason you don't get lost as well as the reason you can communicate with worldwide efficiency on the internet

Ahh so you ARE a Troll!.. well done

 

[Quantum Quack]

double post

 

[Quantum Quack]

You realize that it's GR that allowws us to infer the existence of the great attractor in the first place, right?

of course... so what's your point?

 

[Quantum Quack]

GR proves itself to be invalid by finding it's own anomaly... OMG!!
That is what the scientific method can do after all. (when applied properly) find anomalies with currently accepted theory.
*Special note for Truck


Gosh this is old news ..

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

Ahh so you ARE a Troll!.. well done

@Quack
how is it trolling to point out that your irrelevant OT post is simply about your acceptance of articles over studies?
you will accept an article that something is true as long as it sounds good (philosophy) simply based upon the argument without knowledge of the physics...

and as Trippy points out:

You realize that it's GR that allowws us to infer the existence of the great attractor in the first place, right?

So [Still @Quack] you have STILL provided NO evidence other than your personal conjecture and a series of claims with the caveat "go look for the evidence yourself because it must be there because i said it is"

THAT is TROLLING 101, the perfect example of being off topic, irrelevant, stupid, pointless, non-specific AND non-scientific
vague claims with a "go find it" claim

and i say again:
you have provided NO empirical evidence supporting your ASSertions or conjectures

 

[Quantum Quack]

@truck

I gave you a link to a basic understanding of the Gravitational anomaly that the Great Attractor poses.
You refuse to even entertain the idea...
that is the definition of trolling101
The anomaly has been declared as such for ages..(1973 - and again in 1978). and you didn't even know of it...

gosh.. it is only one of the greatest gravitational sources in this universe ....and it simply does not fit in with our current understanding. Hence it is considered... an anomaly..