Which is more likely...

[ ] that Marvin is right, that AWG is nothing more than
scientifically illiterate frauds

[ ] climatologists, related researchers and the published
research papers make a very compelling case for AGW,
and that Marvin simply doesn't understand the climate
science

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
...
Which is more likely...

[ ] that Marvin is right, that AWG is nothing more than
scientifically illiterate frauds


is more likely,
as Water Vapor, the dominant component of all the greenhouse gasses, was
left out

In sci.physics sanebow wrote:

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
...
Which is more likely...

[ ] that Marvin is right, that AWG is nothing more than
scientifically illiterate frauds


is more likely,
as Water Vapor, the dominant component of all the greenhouse gasses, was
left out

Kruger and Dunning argue that for a given skill, incompetent people will:
1. tend to overestimate their own level of skill;
2. fail to recognize genuine skill in others;
3. fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy;
4. recognize and acknowledge their own previous lack of skill, only if
they can be trained to substantially improve.

Dunning later drew an analogy with anosognosia in which a person who
suffers a physical disability because of brain injury seems unaware of
or denies the existence of the disability, even for dramatic
impairments such as blindness or paralysis.

Dunning & Kruger & others concluded that the root cause is that, in
contrast to high performers, "poor performers do not learn from
feedback suggesting a need to improve".

Ehrlinger, Joyce; Johnson, Kerri; Banner, Matthew; Dunning, David;
Kruger, Justin (2008). "Why the unskilled are unawa Further
explorations of (absent) self-insight among the incompetent".
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 105 (105): 98-121.

On Apr 24, 6:24*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
Which is more likely...

* *[ ] that Marvin is right, that AWG is nothing more than
* * * *scientifically illiterate frauds

* *[ ] climatologists, related researchers and the published
* * * *research papers make a very compelling case for AGW,
* * * *and that Marvin simply doesn't understand the climate
* * * *science

It isnt compelling, hasnt happened, and many other scientists disagree
with them.

What is compelling is the desperation of you lot as AGW enters its
final death spiral.

On 4/24/12 11:37 AM, sanebow wrote:
"Sam wrote in message
...
Which is more likely...

[ ] that Marvin is right, that AWG is nothing more than
scientifically illiterate frauds


is more likely,
as Water Vapor, the dominant component of all the greenhouse gasses, was
left out




Which is more likely...

[ ] Climate Scientists understand the role of water vapor in
climate research.

[ ] Climate Scientists ignore an important greenhouse gas.

On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 10:09:57 -0700 (PDT), matt_sykes
wrote:

On Apr 24, 6:24*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
Which is more likely...

* *[ ] that Marvin is right, that AWG is nothing more than
* * * *scientifically illiterate frauds

* *[ ] climatologists, related researchers and the published
* * * *research papers make a very compelling case for AGW,
* * * *and that Marvin simply doesn't understand the climate
* * * *science

It isnt compelling, hasnt happened, and many other scientists disagree
with them.

What is compelling is the desperation of you lot as AGW enters its
final death spiral.

You dropped way too much acid back in the 60's, didn't you?

--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]

On 4/24/2012 12:24 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
Which is more likely...

[X] that Marvin is right, that AWG is nothing more than
scientifically illiterate frauds

[ ] climatologists, related researchers and the published
research papers make a very compelling case for AGW,
and that Marvin simply doesn't understand the climate
science

Obviously, Sam, Marvin is FAR more scientifically educated than you and
understands the intricacies of "climate science" FAR better than any
dimbulb astronomy type ever will. Add to that the fact that the
published case for AGW is mostly media based and hence lies. Add to that
the dishonesty of politicians driven by a trillion dollars (at least)
per year in taxes. And add to that the fact that Marvin is honest,
understands logic and the scientific method and you and your's who
probably DO understand what science should be are purposely ignoring
valid scientific methods.

The very FACT that above you are trying to turn a scientific question
into a democratic vote is PROOF that you are ignorant of science and
scientific methods. The fact that your "climate science" "hero" Hansen,
is an astronomer and not a climatologist is MORE proof. The fact that
CO2 is a MINOR atmospheric gas proven to only have a MINOR POSSIBLE
warming effect and the human produced portion of THAT is a minor
fraction shows a purposeful distortion of facts. All you have is some
made-up computer models that haven't made correct predictions yet. And
Marvin has pointed all these things out time and time again. You never
answer them. All you know how to do is say Marvin (or anyone who does
not blindly accept your propaganda) is stooopid. Which is the final
icing on the cake that you are engaged in a political promotion here
that is merely using "science" as a cover.

SHAME ON YOU WORMLEY! That the local community college lets you teach
"classes" shows how dumbed-down American education has become. No wonder
we are bring up the rear in science and math these days.

On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 20:17:44 -0400, bjacoby
wrote:

On 4/24/2012 12:24 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
Which is more likely...

[X] that Marvin is right, that AWG is nothing more than
scientifically illiterate frauds

[ ] climatologists, related researchers and the published
research papers make a very compelling case for AGW,
and that Marvin simply doesn't understand the climate
science

Obviously, Sam, Marvin is FAR more scientifically educated than you

But the dog ate the evidence of it.

and understands the intricacies of "climate science" FAR better than any
dimbulb astronomy type ever will.

Dog ate the evidence again.

Add to that the fact that the published case for AGW is mostly
media based and hence lies.

Dog.

Add to that the dishonesty of politicians driven by a trillion dollars (at least)
per year in taxes.

Bow-wow.

And add to that the fact that Marvin is honest,

Boy, the dog must've *really* pigged out on that one.

understands logic and the scientific method

Bad, *bad* little doggie.

and you and your's who probably DO understand what
science should be are purposely ignoring
valid scientific methods.

Dog.

The very FACT that above you are trying to turn a scientific question
into a democratic vote

Woof, woof.

is PROOF that you are ignorant of science and
scientific methods. The fact that your "climate science" "hero" Hansen,
is an astronomer and not a climatologist is MORE proof.

Doggie.

The fact that
CO2 is a MINOR atmospheric gas proven to only have a MINOR POSSIBLE
warming effect

Doggie.

and the human produced portion of THAT is a minor
fraction shows a purposeful distortion of facts. All you have is some
made-up computer models that haven't made correct predictions yet.

Doggie, doggie, doggie. Oh, bad bow-wow.

And Marvin has pointed all these things out time and time again.

And that bad bow-wow gobbled up his evidence every time.

You never
answer them. All you know how to do is say Marvin (or anyone who does
not blindly accept your propaganda) is stooopid. Which is the final
icing on the cake that you are engaged in a political promotion here
that is merely using "science" as a cover.

Bad, *bad*, BAD dog!

SHAME ON YOU WORMLEY! That the local community college lets you teach
"classes" shows how dumbed-down American education has become. No wonder
we are bring up the rear in science and math these days.

Nah, it's the dog always eating the kids' homework that's
responsible. I *know* you know how that goes.


--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]

On 4/24/2012 12:49 PM, R Kym Horsell wrote:
In sci.physics wrote:

"Sam wrote in message
...
Which is more likely...

Kruger and Dunning argue that for a given skill, incompetent people will:
1. tend to overestimate their own level of skill;
2. fail to recognize genuine skill in others;
3. fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy;
4. recognize and acknowledge their own previous lack of skill, only if
they can be trained to substantially improve.

Thanks R. Kym. K&D is certainly relevant to your and Wormley's posts.

Note.

1. Wormley is an Astronomy technician who thinks he's a climate science
physicist. (overestimation)

2. Whenever competent analysis is presented by knowledgeable persons
such as Marvin, Wormley says Marvin or they are ignorant of "climate
science".

3. Wormley thinks that giving "free university" classes to geezers and
dumb-ass teens makes him on the same level as a widely published tenured
full professor. (Failure to recognize inadequacy)

4. Since Wormley cannot be trained to acquire scientific skill due to
his obstinate politics, he will NEVER acknowledge his own lack of skill.

5. Note that all of AGW "arguments" are mostly logical fallacies usually
based on personal attacks of critics. The use of politically loaded
words such as "deniers" PROVES this is not a discussion about science.
It is obviously merely a propaganda war. The constant posts by R. Kym.
suggesting that all critics are "insane" without any medical
justification certainly adumbrates political denigration.

And as for you Kym, we will get around giving you the K&D analysis later.

On 4/24/2012 1:16 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 4/24/12 11:37 AM, sanebow wrote:

is more likely,
as Water Vapor, the dominant component of all the greenhouse gasses, was
left out

Which is more likely...

[ ] Climate Scientists understand the role of water vapor in
climate research.

[X] Climate Scientists ignore an important greenhouse gas.


Wrong question, Worm. How about asking which is TRUE. That can be
answered right from publications. Note correct answer given above.

====

Which is more likely...

[ ] climate scientist sincerely worried about global climate carefully
include all factors into their models.

[ ] "famous" spokespersons for climate science when cornered on the fact
that water vapor is THE significant "greenhouse gas", quickly make up
bogus "feedback" theory* to keep blame on CO2 (which can be taxed)
rather than water vapor(which can't).

* Note positive feedback systems are as a rule quite unstable. No
evidence of such instability has been observed.