"Settled Science"??

Lagboltz said:

I already said I would, but you didn't answer my question which is how could you possibly discuss climate science if you think the science is fraudulent bullshit? It's a legitimate and fair question. If you are going to maintain the attitude that the QM is bullshit, it will simply turn into another game.

Click to expand...

Clearly, you won't. You keep going back to ground you have already lost. Face it, you can provide no evidence of backradiation and the AGW hypothesis depends upon it. You lose before you ever get started and you know it which is why you prefer to argue about QM rather than the epic failure of a hypothesis based on backradiation which is derived, but still unobserved from QM. Here, I suggest you read a couple of books discussing the crisis in post modern physics.

Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics, 1956/57
The Logic of Scientific Discovery, 1934
Quantum Theory and the Flight from Realism by Christopher Norris
The Strange Story of The Quantum by Banesh Hoffman

palerider said:

Clearly, you won't. You keep going back to ground you have already lost. Face it, you can provide no evidence of backradiation and the AGW hypothesis depends upon it. You lose before you ever get started and you know it which is why you prefer to argue about QM rather than the epic failure of a hypothesis based on backradiation which is derived, but still unobserved from QM.

Click to expand...

Nope, you keep going back to ground that you have already lost. You continue to challenge the existence of electrons, photons, carbon, oxygen, carbon dioxide, and exchange radiation. If you insist that no theory or particle exists or is valid unless it has been directly observed, you are in the dark ages of science, and join Aristotle in being unable to understand climate science. That is why you prefer to argue AWG without the benefit of modern science.

palerider said:

Here, I suggest you read a couple of books discussing the crisis in post modern physics.
Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics, 1956/57
The Logic of Scientific Discovery, 1934
Quantum Theory and the Flight from Realism by Christopher Norris
The Strange Story of The Quantum by Banesh Hoffman

Click to expand...

I have read a number of books such as those. None of those authors or philosophies or philosophers or experiments repudiates the well-established theory and observational results and predictions of QM. I am already intimately familiar with the quantum paradoxes and I am already intimately familiar with the plethora of failed attempts to bring these phenomena into the realm of human intuition such as Copenhagen theory, Bohm pilot waves, Cramer's transactional interpretation, EPR realism, hidden variables, etc.

Even scientists in the anti-AGW Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) believe in QM and that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, albeit not effective. The only person ever, professional or layman, I have seen deny the predictions of QM is you.

You might be interested in the lecture series by the famous physicist Roger Penrose.
Fashion, Faith and Fantasy in the New Physics of the Universe
http://www.listeningtowords.com/person.php?id=460
The second lecture is Faith in QM.

Still not ready to discuss the epic failure of climate science and the AGW hypothesis I see. Predictable.

The epic failure is that you are anti-science and haven't said how you can discuss climate science without using science. It's an oxymoron.

Even when it has been publicly predicted what stupid thing you will do next, you continue to do it. If the science were actually as you claim, climate science would be right instead of being a colossal failure.

palerider said:

Even when it has been publicly predicted what stupid thing you will do next, you continue to do it.

Click to expand...

Just what did you predict? That I would claim an anti-science guy discussing science is an oxymoron? You give a new meaning to the last two syllables of oxymoron.

palerider said:

If the science were actually as you claim, climate science would be right instead of being a colossal failure.

Click to expand...

Well, the science is "actually as I claim". So you conclude "climate science would be right." You just made my whole point. I don't think you meant what you said. When you open your mouth, it is only to change feet.

Are you just afraid to discuss why climate pseudoscience has failed so miserably?

palerider said:

Are you just afraid to discuss why climate pseudoscience has failed so miserably?

Click to expand...

Not afraid. OK, let's discuss climate science. Climate science requires you to understand back-scattering. But first you have to understand the science, so for homework, first read, Quantum Physics For Dummies by Steve Holzner "Coverage includes: The Schrodinger Equation and its Applications, ... Scattering Theory, Angular Momentum, and more." Then get back to me and we can get started.

Lagboltz said:

Not afraid. OK, let's discuss climate science. Climate science requires you to understand back-scattering. But first you have to understand the science, so for homework, first read, Quantum Physics For Dummies by Steve Holzner "Coverage includes: The Schrodinger Equation and its Applications, ... Scattering Theory, Angular Momentum, and more." Then get back to me and we can get started.

Click to expand...

You boys have batted the ole science thing for ages. I believe pale was looking to shift to why the message just got no traction.

dogtowner said:

You boys have batted the ole science thing for ages. I believe pale was looking to shift to why the message just got no traction.

Click to expand...

He just wants to play a game. I'm willing to talk about climate science. But I think he is pretending not to believe in the science because he knows he will lose. If he wants to be caustic and play games, I will have fun with it.

Suit yourself

Lagboltz said:

He just wants to play a game. I'm willing to talk about climate science. But I think he is pretending not to believe in the science because he knows he will lose. If he wants to be caustic and play games, I will have fun with it.

Click to expand...

Mi casa es su casa

Lagboltz said:

Not afraid. OK, let's discuss climate science. Climate science requires you to understand back-scattering. But first you have to understand the science, so for homework, first read, Quantum Physics For Dummies by Steve Holzner "Coverage includes: The Schrodinger Equation and its Applications, ... Scattering Theory, Angular Momentum, and more." Then get back to me and we can get started.

Click to expand...

Still afraid I see. If the physics were correct, ie back radiation, then the predicted hot spot would be present in the troposphere and a multitude of other predicted effects of more so called greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere would be visible....they are not because there is no back radiation...the fundamental requirement of the greenhosue effect as described by climate science. The hot spot in the troposphere is supposed to be the fingerprint of manmade warming....no fingerprint because we aren't causing any warming. Climate models are the physics used to describe the greenhouse effect incarnate and they have failed spectacularly precisely because they got the physics wrong.

palerider said:

Still afraid I see. If the physics were correct, ie back radiation, then the predicted hot spot would be present in the troposphere and a multitude of other predicted effects of more so called greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere would be visible....they are not because there is no back radiation...the fundamental requirement of the greenhosue effect as described by climate science. The hot spot in the troposphere is supposed to be the fingerprint of manmade warming....no fingerprint because we aren't causing any warming. Climate models are the physics used to describe the greenhouse effect incarnate and they have failed spectacularly precisely because they got the physics wrong.

Click to expand...

The "hot spot" is not a fingerprint of green house gasses. Ignorant skeptics invented a fantasy that anthropogenic warming somehow requires the existence of the tropospheric “hot spot”. It does not. The hot spot prediction comes from a general inaccuracy of climate modeling, not from CO2 back-scatter modeling.

The earth, warmed by the sun, emits long wave radiation.

Specific bands of earth's radiation are resonantly absorbed and scattered by gasses in the atmosphere.

Some of the radiation in those bands are scattered back to earth.

The back-scattered radiation prevents the earth from losing as much heat as it would if those gasses were not present.

Lagboltz said:

The "hot spot" is not a fingerprint of green house gasses. Ignorant skeptics invented a fantasy that anthropogenic warming somehow requires the existence of the tropospheric “hot spot”. It does not. The hot spot prediction comes from a general inaccuracy of climate modeling, not from CO2 back-scatter modeling.

Click to expand...

The hot spot does not exist. The greenhouse hypothesis predicts it, and yet, it is not there. FAIL. One failed prediction is sufficient reason in real science to discard a hypothesis. No hot spot, failed hypothesis. If the greenhouse hypothesis is incorrect, then by default, the AGW hypothesis is incorrect.