New to forum - define "woo-wooism"

[Dorian Gray]

Please? I think I know what it means, but I am not quite sure.

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

This should explain it.

http://media.ebaumsworld.com/index.php?e=bubbrubb.wmv

[Tricky]

And if you need help recognizing them, The Woo Woo Credo. (http://www.watchingyou.com/woowoo.html)

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by Tricky
And if you need help recognizing them, The Woo Woo Credo. (http://www.watchingyou.com/woowoo.html)

:D :D :D

"22. Refer to anyone who does not immediately agree with you as being uneducated on the matter, lacking in important information, or just plain too stupid to understand your magnificent statements."

BINGO!!!
:)

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by Tricky
And if you need help recognizing them, The Woo Woo Credo. (http://www.watchingyou.com/woowoo.html)

Ah yes. My other favorite is The Crackpot Index (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html).

[Dorian Gray]

So is this one example?

This guy claims that his Venusian friends told him that there is an atmosphere on the moon - and on all planets and moons. Why? He says there must be an atmosphere pressing inward to counter the geothermal forces pushing outward or else the planet/moon will explode.

Also, he said about alien genetic cloning on Earth:
http://forums.atlantisrising.com/ubb/Forum5/HTML/000179.html
Mutilations are simply a way for the Saurians or the Havenites to gather undifferentiated cells for cloning and hybridization.
In English... basically when a sperm and egg cell come together the cells are in their basic state. As they grow they take on different functions, the heart, liver, lungs, brain, etc. Before they specialize in function they are called undifferentiated.

The Saurians and Havenites are both using human and animal cells to introduce human DNA into their own populations.

The Venusians only interfere when they get reckless and pose a danger to Earth humanity. This explains the red, orange, yellow, and green lights.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
So is this one example?


Sure, for some examples of our best resident woo-woo, check out this
link (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/search.php?s=&action=showresults&searchid=153494)

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by EvilYeti

Sure, for some examples of our best resident woo-woo, check out this
link (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/search.php?s=&action=showresults&searchid=153494) No, no, no. He's got nothing on the one who came up with these (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27173) (I'm not talking about Tricky, I'm talking about the one he compiled the list from).

[xouper]

EvilYeti: Sure, for some examples of our best resident woo-woo, check out this link (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/search.php?s=&action=showresults&searchid=153494)If you are claiming that Shane is an example of a woowoo on JREF, you are simply being spiteful. You may disagree with his politics or his debating style, but Shane is no woowoo. My choice for best example of a woowoo on JREF is Lucianarchy.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by xouper
If you are claiming that Shane is an example of a woowoo on JREF, you are simply being spiteful. You may disagree with his politics or his debating style, but Shane is no woowoo. My choice for best example of a woowoo on JREF is Lucianarchy.

Need I remind the forum that shanek endorses the use of astrology as a legitimate means for the prediction of El Nino's?

Shanek is the number one woowoo because he claims to be a skeptic. I do not recall Lucianarchy ever making such a claim, so he/she/it is at least somewhat honest in that regard. I may be wrong about it, however, as I do not read it's posts much.

[xouper]

EvilYeti: Need I remind the forum that shanek endorses the use of astrology as a legitimate means for the prediction of El Nino's?That's simply not true. Shane does not endorse astrology for anything. Your comments again are simply spiteful.

Shanek is the number one woowoo because he claims to be a skeptic. I do not recall Lucianarchy ever making such a claim,Luci has claimed many times to be a skeptic and that the rest of us are pseudo-skeptics. What planet are YOU on?

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by xouper
That's simply not true. Shane does not endorse astrology for anything. Your comments again are simply spiteful.
Shane endorses Dr Theodor Landscheidts work on climate prediction, as published on John Daly's website. Landscheidt is an astrologer and all his predictions are based on astrology. This has been debated ad nauseum and settled in other threads.

Luci has claimed many times to be a skeptic and that the rest of us are pseudo-skeptics. What planet are YOU on?

The planet where shaneks record 8,600+ posts makes him the biggest woo-woo.

[xouper]

EvilYeti: Shane endorses Dr Theodor Landscheidts work on climate prediction, as published on John Daly's website. Landscheidt is an astrologer and all his predictions are based on astrology. This has been debated ad nauseum and settled in other threads. Once again you are distorting the truth. You are not being honest.

The planet where shaneks record 8,600+ posts makes him the biggest woo-woo.And here we see yet another logical fallacy and spiteful comment from you, since the total number of posts is not the determining factor for how big a woowoo is.

Shane does not endorse astrology and is not a woowoo. That you continue to tell these lise is a disgrace to your credibility.

[shanek]

Originally posted by xouper
Shane does not endorse astrology and is not a woowoo. That you continue to tell these lise is a disgrace to your credibility.

What credibility?

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
Please? I think I know what it means, but I am not quite sure.

If you're beguiled by those who dowse,
If you think you live in a haunted house,
If like Nancy Reagan you believe in astrology,
If you think your ills cured by foot reflexology,

If you sniff aromatherapy's perfumes,
If you think you see God when you eat the 'shrooms,
If you think you can possibly propitiate Cthulhu,
There's a very good chance that you are a woo-woo!

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by xouper
Once again you are distorting the truth. You are not being honest.

Really? I can post dozens of references that Landscheidt is an astrologer and uses astrology to predict El Ninos and that shanek endorses that methodology. Can you provide anything to the contrary?

And here we see yet another logical fallacy and spiteful comment from you, since the total number of posts is not the determining factor for how big a woowoo is.

If 99% of his posts are falsehoods and junk science, then I think the fact that HE HAS OVER EIGHT THOUSAND POSTS is evidence enough that he is WooWoo #1 around these parts.

Shane does not endorse astrology and is not a woowoo. That you continue to tell these lise is a disgrace to your credibility.

Sorry, Xoup, looks like you be a woowoo too. Astrology isn't physics or astronomy. I would have thought you knew better, but I guess I was wrong.

A real man can admit his mistakes. you know.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by shanek


What credibility?

Hi Shanek,

Does chocolate have caffeine in it?

Was the film "Reefer Madness" financed with Government funds?

I'm eagerly awaiting your reply.

[xouper]

EvilYeti: Sorry, Xoup, looks like you be a woowoo too. Astrology isn't physics or astronomy. I would have thought you knew better, but I guess I was wrong.OK, moron, you have now crossed the line.

I know full well the difference between astrology and astronomy, and I do not endorse astrology. You can't possibly have any evidence that I believe in astrology, since I do not believe in it. The mere fact that you can't resist making that false accusation against me is quite revealing that you have no integrity at all.

Take a hike, troll.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by xouper
OK, moron, you have now crossed the line.

I know full well the difference between astrology and astronomy, and I do not endorse astrology. You can't possibly have any evidence that I believe in astrology, since I do not believe in it. The mere fact that you can't resist making that false accusation against me is quite revealing that you have no integrity at all.

Take a hike, troll.

Uh-oh, here come the ad-homs. Shanek usually resorts to this right when the evidence starts rolling in.

For the record, Shanek endorses the following paper as valid scientific research.

Solar Activity Controls El Niño and La Niña (http://www.john-daly.com/sun-enso/sun-enso.htm)

Do you agree? A yes or no answer will suffice.

[xouper]

EvilYeti: Uh-oh, here come the ad-homs.You called me a woowoo and then have the nerve to complain when I call you names right back? You really ARE a moron.

For the record, Shanek endorses the following paper as valid scientific research.

Solar Activity Controls El Niño and La Niña (http://www.john-daly.com/sun-enso/sun-enso.htm)

Do you agree? A yes or no answer will suffice.I won't be suckered into debating this with a troll. Take a hike.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by xouper
You called me a woowoo and then have the nerve to complain when I call you names right back? You really ARE a moron.

I called you a woowoo because...

I won't be suckered into debating this with a troll. Take a hike.

... you endorse shaneks woowoo beliefs.

Have fun with your tarot cards!

[The Fool]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


Uh-oh, here come the ad-homs. Shanek usually resorts to this right when the evidence starts rolling in.

For the record, Shanek endorses the following paper as valid scientific research.

Solar Activity Controls El Niño and La Niña (http://www.john-daly.com/sun-enso/sun-enso.htm)

Do you agree? A yes or no answer will suffice.
Evil Yeti.
I do agree with you that sometimes Shane's absolute refusal to back down on anything even if its just a trivial error makes him way open to "poking fun at the fundie" games. .....But on the point of that El Nino article...The Author may very well have written stuff on Astrology and I admit I have only skimmed the article and know very little about climatology but can you point out the Astrology in it? I could not see any at first reading... It may very well be crap science but how can using this article to support a point be considered endorsing Astrology?

[xouper]

EvilYeti: ... you endorse shaneks woowoo beliefs.You are having a severe failure of logic, pinhead.

[Chaon]

How do you classify someone who averages more than 10 posts a day to this board? They don't necessarily hold or espouse any woo-woo beliefs, but there is something about the kind of personality who would post so often that is definitely woo-wooesque. I mean, the person may not be a woo-woo, but they can see woo-woo from where they are standing. Woo.

Along the same line of thinking, who on this board has the highest post per day average?

[fishbob]

Well, Dorian - As you can see from xouper and Evil Yeti's cleverly scripted demonstration, with able assistance by Shanek and Fool, woo woos can be anywhere. Be vigilant.

Thanks guys, good job.

[xouper]

Chaon: Along the same line of thinking, who on this board has the highest post per day average?That would be arcticpenguin (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/member.php?s=&action=getinfo&userid=3038), who's daily posting rate is more than twice that of Shane's, and who has some 8823 posts, which is about 200 more than Shane. And arcticpenguin is by no means a woowoo.

fishbob: Thanks guys, good job. Glad I could help. :D

[Chaon]

OK, not a woo woo. What's a hip, catchy slang phase for "Obsessive-Compulsive"?

[The Fool]

Originally posted by fishbob
Well, Dorian - As you can see from xouper and Evil Yeti's cleverly scripted demonstration, with able assistance by Shanek and Fool, woo woos can be anywhere. Be vigilant.

Thanks guys, good job.
Come on fishbob...I know for a fact you use lucky crystals either side of the swivels in your rigs...;)

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by The Fool

Evil Yeti.
I do agree with you that sometimes Shane's absolute refusal to back down on anything even if its just a trivial error makes him way open to "poking fun at the fundie" games. .....But on the point of that El Nino article...The Author may very well have written stuff on Astrology and I admit I have only skimmed the article and know very little about climatology but can you point out the Astrology in it? I could not see any at first reading... It may very well be crap science but how can using this article to support a point be considered endorsing Astrology?

Mr. Fool,

First and foremost, the paper I linked to is by no means a legitimate work of science as it has not been published in a journal and submitted to peer review. Of course this does not make it astrology, but it definately does not make it science.

Second, as has been demonstrated previously, the author has no science background, is not published in any reputable journals and has authored numerous books on astrology. This should give any critical thinker his pause. Again this does not mean he used astrology in this paper, rather that we should be extra-careful to examine any of his claims with a critical eye.

Thirdly, you should be aware that Landscheidts particular brand of astrology is known as "mundane astrology". That is not a joke, it is a serious term used by astrologers to describe applying astrological predictions to worldly events; El Nino's and global warming for example. This differentiates it from something like natal astrology, where birth charts are used to predict a persons future, personality, etc. It's all ******** of course.

Lastly, remember what all forms of astrology have in common.

Astrology is the study of correlations of celestial events with behavior on earth, particularly correlations which cannot be explained by gravitation, magnetism, or other forces that are well-established in physics or other sciences.

This is an absolutely critical point. There is no known mechanism for sunspots to force El Nino type events. NOAA has researched this in depth and found nothing to support the hypothesis. In fact, Landscheidt even admits this in his paper:

Though there are no strict physical arguments that could explain in detail how solar activity causes ENSO events, it is quite possible to develop working hypotheses that suggest potential connections.
In the following paragraphs he is just making guesses as to the mechanism. Nothing of what he says has any basis in science.

In the acknowledgements section he says

I owe special thanks to Nigel Calder for his suggestion to investigate associations between El Niños and special phases in the 11-year sunspot cycle. I am a convert in this respect. Before Nigel Calder’s stimulating intervention I thought that only cycles based on the sun’s motion about the center of mass of the solar system could affect ENSO events.


So we see him here swapping one type of celestial event for another. Astrology. No different then claiming that Mars in retrograde leads to instability in the mideast or that Neptune causes earthquakes. And shanek apparently feels this is a valid way to do science.

If you google "mundane astrology" along with keywords like "sunspots" and "solar cycle", you will find numerous other astrologers claiming that solar cycles drive political events, economics, etc. Why should it come as a surprise to anyone that an astrologer would use astrology to try and predicit weather patterns?

[Dorian Gray]

FishBob, no need to worry. I am so cynical, I suspect some cynical people of faking it. My bullsh!t detector is always on 11. My sarcasm knows no bounds.

At least, that's what the voices in my head told me while I was in Atlantis.

[Nikk]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
FishBob, no need to worry. I am so cynical, I suspect some cynical people of faking it. My bullsh!t detector is always on 11. My sarcasm knows no bounds.

At least, that's what the voices in my head told me while I was in Atlantis.

I hope you appreciated the way in which the progress of this debate illustrated the restraint, attention to detail, courtesy and good humour expected from all who post here. :D

[dsm]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
There is no known mechanism for sunspots to force El Nino type events. NOAA has researched this in depth and found nothing to support the hypothesis.

Hmmm. I don't agree or disagree, but I'd like to see some references. Got any?

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by dsm

Hmmm. I don't agree or disagree, but I'd like to see some references. Got any?

You are asking me to prove a negative, which I can't do, sorry.

The NOAA faq on El Nino's does say the following.


Why does El Niño occur?

El Niño results from interaction between the surface layers of the ocean and the overlying atmosphere in tropical Pacific. It is the internal dynamics of the coupled ocean-atmosphere system that determine the onset and termination of El Niño events. The physical processes are complicated, but they involve unstable air-sea interaction and planetary scale oceanic waves. The system oscillates between warm (El Niño) to neutral (or cold) conditions with a natural periodicity of roughly 3-4 years. External forcing from volcanic eruptions (submarine or terrestial) have no connnection with El Niño. Nor do sunspots as far as we know.


Source (http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/tao/elnino/faq.html)

[shanek]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
So we see him here swapping one type of celestial event for another. Astrology. No different then claiming that Mars in retrograde leads to instability in the mideast or that Neptune causes earthquakes.

Oh, yeah, what an idiot that guy is, thinking that the sun can affect weather patterns! :rolleyes:

[shanek]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
You are asking me to prove a negative, which I can't do, sorry.

No, he isn't. He's asking you to back up your claim that the NOAA did research and found no connection between sunspots and El Niños. YOU made that claim, and it's a positive claim, not a negative one. If this research exists, point to it.

[dsm]

Originally posted by EvilYeti

You are asking me to prove a negative, which I can't do, sorry.


Huh? I asked nothing of the sort. You said that NOAA had studied the possible effects of sunspots on El Ninos "in depth". I simply asked for references to those studies.


Source (http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/tao/elnino/faq.html)

Okay, I'll look at that.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by dsm

Huh? I asked nothing of the sort. You said that NOAA had studied the possible effects of sunspots on El Ninos "in depth". I simply asked for references to those studies.

I read that as you were asking me to prove they didn't find anything.

Okay, I'll look at that.

Unfortunately, if you want more detailed information you are going to have to contact NOAA yourself. I'm sure they would be happy to provide more information, but you will probably need access to a University library to check their references.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by shanek


Oh, yeah, what an idiot that guy is, thinking that the sun can affect weather patterns! :rolleyes:
Shane, you are being naughty again. Sunspots, not the sun, its sunspots...

[shanek]

Originally posted by The Fool
Shane, you are being naughty again. Sunspots, not the sun, its sunspots...

What's the diff? We know that sunspots cause trouble with communication satellites. Is that astrology? Why is it astrology to suggest that sunspots may have an effect on the weather, particularly El Niño cycles? You can argue that it isn't the case, but that still doesn't make it astrology.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by shanek


What's the diff? We know that sunspots cause trouble with communication satellites. Is that astrology? Why is it astrology to suggest that sunspots may have an effect on the weather, particularly El Niño cycles? You can argue that it isn't the case, but that still doesn't make it astrology.

communications satellites? I think the process that links sunspot cycles to comms interferance is well known. I think Evil Yeti's point is that there is no process known or proposed by the Author that links sunspots to el-nino, he's just looking up at the heavens and looking for celestial events that he can draw a correlation too....Given the Authors history of publications on astrology I tend to agree with Evil Yeti that this work is astrology dressed up as science. I disagree with Evil yeti that using this stuff to support an argument is somehow supporting Astrology. At least until the fact that it is astrology disguised as science is firmly established....it seems to be heading that way.

But here lies your main problem shane. The more I debate with you the more it becomes obvious that you have no mechanism for reviewing or modifying an initial position. Once you state something you would rather crash and burn than change your position based on further evidence. I have no doubt you will now go down in flames on this issue as you now seem totally commited to one of your usual heel digging sessions. Does this author deserve your support? The more I look into it he seems like a crank.... Let him go shane, no need to go down with this particular leaky boat.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by shanek

What's the diff? We know that sunspots cause trouble with communication satellites. Is that astrology?

No, because the mechanism of how sunspots affect communication satellites is well known.

Why is it astrology to suggest that sunspots may have an effect on the weather, particularly El Niño cycles? You can argue that it isn't the case, but that still doesn't make it astrology.
Because there is no mechanism for solar flares to force El Nino. Read the definition of astrology again.

Astrology is the study of correlations of celestial events with behavior on earth, particularly correlations which cannot be explained by gravitation, magnetism, or other forces that are well-established in physics or other sciences.

[xouper]

EvilYeti: Because there is no mechanism for solar flares to force El Nino.I'd like to see how you prove that claim.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by xouper
I'd like to see how you prove that claim.

I'd like to see anyone prove a negative.

If you think solar cycles drive ENSO events, the burden of proof is on YOU to provide the mechanism and evidence to support the hypothesis. Until then it remains in the realm of astrology.

Sorry.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by xouper
I'd like to see how you prove that claim.

And there is no mechanism for my breakfast to affect el-nino but i'd like to see anyone prove that too. Maybe Evil Yeti could have used "known Mechanism".

The more I read it this author seems to have taken two things that happen in cycles and said gee wiz look how they appear to match up....but makes no effort in the how or why department... Now if your trying to convince me that the cycle of day and night and the cycle of air temperature match strongly then you've got me on board because I can see a process that links sunlight with temperature....but sunspots and el-nino? What is the process? If Mrs Fools menstral cycle correlates with the Dow Jones I'm still not going to use it as investment advice....Unless someone at least suggests a possible reason why they match up..... Until then, Evil yeti has a point that you may as well say mars does it as sunspots do it......

Shane may find Evil Yeti annoying but digging in like a fundie to support this authors "science" is going to end in tears.....

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by The Fool

And there is no mechanism for my breakfast to affect el-nino but i'd like to see anyone prove that too. Maybe Evil Yeti could have used "known Mechanism".


I intentionally left that out, as woo-woo's like shanek and xouper will try and twist that around to claim a mechanism exists, just no one has discovered it yet.

Unfortunately for them, thats not how science works. One has to be pessimistic and assume that until evidence of such a mechanism is discovered, it doesn't exist. Faith and science are mutually exclusive.

[xouper]

The Fool: And there is no mechanism for my breakfast to affect el-nino but i'd like to see anyone prove that too. I get your point, despite that your analogy is weak because no one has demonstrated a correlation between your breakfast and el-nino. When no correlation is known, why bother looking for a mechanism. If a correlation can be found, it is sometimes reasonable to wonder about the existence of a mechanism. With astrology, as I understand it, no known correlations even exist, so it is ridiculous to characterise what Landscheidts did as astrology, even though he pro-astrology.

EvilYeti: If you think solar cycles drive ENSO events, the burden of proof is on YOU to provide the mechanism and evidence to support the hypothesis.I have made no such claim.

Until then it remains in the realm of astrology.Non sequitur. It is illogical to automatically infer that if a mechanism is not yet known, that the correlation is woowoo. Science is full of such discoveries where the correlation was noticed first and the mechanism discovered later. Do you know of a mechanism for the "twin photon" phenomenon (as demonstrated in recent EPR experiments)? Do you also claim that that correlation is woowoo because the mechanism is not yet known? If not, then you must concede that lack of a known mechaism is not all by itself proof the correlation is woowoo.

I intentionally left that out, as woo-woo's like shanek and xouper will try and twist that around to claim a mechanism exists, just no one has discovered it yet.This is yet another example of your dishonesty. I have made no claim that a mechanism exists, nor have I tried to twist anything around to make such a claim, nor do I intend to do so. So for you to say I did or will is totally dishonest.

What I did do is point out that the way you phrased your comment is indeed a positive claim which by your own admission is up to you to prove. You can say that no one yet knows of a mechanism, but you cannot legitimately claim no mechanism exists. I am trying to keep you honest in your choice of language, something you seem to have little regard for. As a someone who claims scientific training, you should know better.

I am not trying to defend or endorse Landscheidts or his paper on el-nino, but rather I am commenting on the fallacies of your criticism of him. That you mistake that for endorsement is another example of your faulty logic.

[dsm]

Originally posted by The Fool
...but sunspots and el-nino? What is the process?

What about section 2 (and 3 and 4) of this (http://www.john-daly.com/sun-enso/revisit.htm)?

:confused:

[xouper]

EvilYeti: Until then it remains in the realm of astrology.If it's astrology, as you claim (but have not proven), then his predictions should be eligible for the JREF million. Will Randi accept such a challenge from Landscheidt? If not, then it is not astrology.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by xouper
When no correlation is known, why bother looking for a mechanism. If a correlation can be found, it is sometimes reasonable to wonder about the existence of a mechanism.

Except no one in the scientific community accepts that Landscheidt has even found a correlation. Thats why no one will publish his work, its ********.

I have made no such claim.

Then whats your point?

Non sequitur. It is illogical to automatically infer that if a mechanism is not yet known, that the correlation is woowoo.

There is no correlation. It's woo-woo for you to accept it just based on Landscheidts word, especially considering his history. All of Landscheidts work is self published and has not passed peer review. There is no scientifically accepted correlation between the sunspot cycle and El Nino events. Landscheidt made it up using typical astrological and numerogical cheats. Notice how he can find a correlation with the suns rotation on its axis as well (which according him also drives the stock market).

This is yet another example of your dishonesty. I have made no claim that a mechanism exists, nor have I tried to twist anything around to make such a claim, nor do I intend to do so. So for you to say I did or will is totally dishonest.

You believe there is a correlation, where none exists, based on the word of an astrologer. Thats textbook woowoo.

I am trying to keep you honest in your choice of language, something you seem to have little regard for. As a someone who claims scientific training, you should know better.
As a scientist, in the absense of evidence its up to me to decide whether I want to wasted time with hypotheticals. I choose not to. Until evidence turns up it doesn't exist as far as I'm concerned. Just like Unicorns and the Easter Bunny.

I am not trying to defend or endorse Landscheidts or his paper on el-nino, but rather I am commenting on the fallacies of your criticism of him. That you mistake that for endorsement is another example of your faulty logic.

The fact you see a correlation where none exists, based only on the word of a self-published astrologer, is the only faulty logic here.

[xouper]

EvilYeti: Except no one in the scientific community accepts that Landscheidt has even found a correlation. Thats why no one will publish his work, its ********.That sounds like a claim. Can you prove it?

xouper: I have made no such claim.

EvilYeti: Then whats your point?I explained my point. What didn't you comprehend as you read my previous reply?

There is no correlation.That's sounds like a claim. Prove it.

It's woo-woo for you to accept it just based on Landscheidts word, especially considering his history.Let me set the record straight. I am not accepting it on his word. I have no idea if there's a correlation or not. I am simply pointing out that he claims there's a correlation. You are claiming there is no correlation. Fine. Prove your claim.

All of Landscheidts work is self published and has not passed peer review.That has no bearing on the truth of his paper. If you are claiming to be his peer and asserting that his correlations do not exist, then let's see your proof.

There is no scientifically accepted correlation between the sunspot cycle and El Nino events.And that sounds like yet another claim to me. Prove it. But I accept that if there is no independent confirmation of his findings, that's sufficient reason to consider them provisional.

Landscheidt made it up using typical astrological and numerogical cheats.That sounds like a claim to me. Prove it.

Notice how he can find a correlation with the suns rotation on its axis as well (which according him also drives the stock market).Quote where he says it is a causal relationship.

You believe there is a correlation, where none exists, based on the word of an astrologer. Thats textbook woowoo.I am getting tired of your false accusations. You obviously have no honor.

As a scientist, ...As a scientist you should know better than to make spurious accusations, fling ad hominems, use imprecise language, and generally criticize others on the basis of your own faulty logic.

As a scientist, in the absense of evidence its up to me to decide whether I want to wasted time with hypotheticals.Agreed.

The fact you see a correlation where none exists, based only on the word of a self-published astrologer, is the only faulty logic here.You have an exceedingly poor grasp of the facts. Pretty sad for someone who claims to be a scientist.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by xouper
If it's astrology, as you claim (but have not proven), then his predictions should be eligible for the JREF million. Will Randi accept such a challenge from Landscheidt? If not, then it is not astrology.

Landscheidt sues anyone that calls him an astrologer, so I highly doubt he would approach the jref as a paranormalist. And it doesn't matter one whit regardless, he's still doing astrology. He's been trying to distance himself from the title as of late, as he discovered no one will give astrologers research grants.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by xouper
Blah blah blah....

I've contacted a NOAA scientist and have all the information, plus more, to blow you and shanek out of the water.

Plus a bombshell revelation that will shock and excite. Stay tuned, I shall return tomorrow.

[xouper]

EvilYeti: Landscheidt sues anyone that calls him an astrologer, Have a cite for that?

And it doesn't matter one whit regardless, he's still doing astrology.Then I should be eligible to use his predictions to win the JREF prize. Randi allows any astrology based claim. Will Randi agree with you that it is woowoo and thus eligible for the prize? But if Randi says it doesn't qualify as astrology, I think that puts a big dent in your claim. But we shall see what you post tomorrow, as you said.

He's been trying to distance himself from the title as of late, as he discovered no one will give astrologers research grants.So maybe there's hope for him yet? :)

I've contacted a NOAA scientist and have all the information, plus more, to blow you and shanek out of the water. Plus a bombshell revelation that will shock and excite. Stay tuned, I shall return tomorrow.I'm prefectly willing to be shown wrong, given sufficient evidence. But given your penchant for exaggeration, however, I'm not holding my breath.

[shanek]

Originally posted by The Fool
I think the process that links sunspot cycles to comms interferance is well known. I think Evil Yeti's point is that there is no process known or proposed by the Author that links sunspots to el-nino,

If there's no such mechanism, that doesn't make it astrology. It just makes it wrong.

Does this author deserve your support?

I'm not supporting this author in any way. I'm using his predictions to ask questions, questions that EvilYeti refuses to answer. That's why he keeps bringing up the astrology thing—so he doesn't have to deal with the data in the paper. He can just dismiss it outright.

[shanek]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
Because there is no mechanism for solar flares to force El Nino.

If Landscheidt is right, there is, it just hasn't been determined yet.

150 years ago, you'd be all against this Periodic Table thing because it was alchemy. At the time, they didn't have a mechanism for it; they were just looking at effects. The mechanisms and the theory came later. That would have passed you by completely. That's the problem with the pigheaded attitude you've taken towards this.

Or, are you saying it's IMPOSSIBLE for sunspots to affect weather patterns? If so, I'd love to see your reasoning for that...

[shanek]

Originally posted by The Fool
but sunspots and el-nino? What is the process? If Mrs Fools menstral cycle correlates with the Dow Jones I'm still not going to use it as investment advice.

Surely you're not equating the two? We know sunspots have an effect on communications...we know they generate a lot of energy and spew it towards the Earth (and every other direction). It's hardly incomprehensible that that energy could have some effect on weather patterns. Whether it does or not is another question, but it's not exactly the same as two things where we have no idea how information could be getting one to the other.

Besides, if Mrs. Fools started using her menstrual cycle to successfully predict the Dow Jones, I'm sure we'd all be interested!

Shane may find Evil Yeti annoying but digging in like a fundie to support this authors "science" is going to end in tears.....

I'm not the one "digging in like a fundie." EY's the one that keeps bringing it up in unrelated threads.

[shanek]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
The fact you see a correlation where none exists,

Are you saying there is no correlation? Then how do you explain his successful predictions?

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by xouper
That sounds like a claim. Can you prove it?

Read this thread (http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&safe=off&threadm=39F9ACFF.566C3D28%40math.nwu.edu&rnum=2&prev=/groups%3Fq%3DLandscheidt%2Bsue%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%2 6ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26safe%3Doff%26selm%3D39F9ACFF.566C3D28%2540math .nwu.edu%26rnum%3D2)

That's sounds like a claim. Prove it.

Its impossible to prove a negative. The burden of proof is on Landscheidt to prove there IS one. No one in the climatology community agrees he has found one.

Let me set the record straight. I am not accepting it on his word. I have no idea if there's a correlation or not. I am simply pointing out that he claims there's a correlation. You are claiming there is no correlation. Fine. Prove your claim.

The burden of proof is not on me. Its impossible to prove a negative.

That has no bearing on the truth of his paper. If you are claiming to be his peer and asserting that his correlations do not exist, then let's see your proof.

Its impossible to prove a negative.

And that sounds like yet another claim to me. Prove it. But I accept that if there is no independent confirmation of his findings, that's sufficient reason to consider them provisional.

Its impossible to prove a negative. I have found no independent, third party collaboration of his claims, nor has Landscheidt provided any.

That sounds like a claim to me. Prove it.

Google "golden section" and astrology.

Quote where he says it is a causal relationship.

Its in his book "Sun-Earth-Man". Go look it up yourself.

I am getting tired of your false accusations. You obviously have no honor.

I'm getting tired of you rampant defense of astrology as science.

As a scientist you should know better than to make spurious accusations, fling ad hominems, use imprecise language, and generally criticize others on the basis of your own faulty logic.

I've done nothing of the sort. You've done nothing but demand, ad nauseum, that I provide proof of non-existence. That is an impossible task and a rhetorical cheat.

You have an exceedingly poor grasp of the facts. Pretty sad for someone who claims to be a scientist.

I'm apparently the only one here that can spot astrology gift-wrapped as solar physics and climatology. Pretty sad indeed.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by xouper
Have a cite for that?

Read the thread cited above, in its entirety.

Then I should be eligible to use his predictions to win the JREF prize. Randi allows any astrology based claim. Will Randi agree with you that it is woowoo and thus eligible for the prize? But if Randi says it doesn't qualify as astrology, I think that puts a big dent in your claim. But we shall see what you post tomorrow, as you said.

He is not elegible for the prize, as the only way to win would be make enough correct El Nino predictions to prove its not just random chance. That would take dozens of years.

So maybe there's hope for him yet? :)

Nope. He has not changed his methodlogy at all. He still uses astrology exclusively in his predictions. The only reason he rejects the "astrologer" title is no one will give astrologers grant money or publish their crap in scientific journals.

I'm prefectly willing to be shown wrong, given sufficient evidence. But given your penchant for exaggeration, however, I'm not holding my breath.

Given that you accepted Landscheidts work as valid without even examining it, I'm not holding my breath either.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by shanek

If there's no such mechanism, that doesn't make it astrology. It just makes it wrong.

Read the defintion of astrology, again.

Astrology is the study of correlations of celestial events with behavior on earth, particularly correlations which cannot be explained by gravitation, magnetism, or other forces that are well-established in physics or other sciences.

An ASTROLOGER has CORRELATED a CELESTIAL event with behavior on EARTH which CANNOT BE EXPLAINED by PHYSICS OR OTHER SCIENCES.

Its astrology, pure and simple.

I'm not supporting this author in any way. I'm using his predictions to ask questions, questions that EvilYeti refuses to answer. That's why he keeps bringing up the astrology thing—so he doesn't have to deal with the data in the paper. He can just dismiss it outright.

Landscheidt provides no data on the mechanism of solar forcing of El Ninos. He states it himself.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by shanek

If Landscheidt is right, there is, it just hasn't been determined yet.


If you had even the slightest idea what an El Nino was, you would realize how silly the whole idea is.

150 years ago, you'd be all against this Periodic Table thing because it was alchemy. At the time, they didn't have a mechanism for it; they were just looking at effects. The mechanisms and the theory came later. That would have passed you by completely. That's the problem with the pigheaded attitude you've taken towards this.

First you compare Landscheidt to Newton and Einstein, now Meyer and Mendeleyev. Fanatastic! The humilation will begin shortly.

Or, are you saying it's IMPOSSIBLE for sunspots to affect weather patterns? If so, I'd love to see your reasoning for that...

No, neither is it impossible for the arrangement of the planets to affect your birth. But both are highly unlikely.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by shanek

Are you saying there is no correlation? Then how do you explain his successful predictions?

Anyone can find correlations in two irregular time series if you are allowed to cherry pick signifigant events, like Landscheidt has. That doesn't make them valid.

Landscheidt has made one prediction, of a semi-annual event, with a margin of error of one year. I would put the odds of getting that right just by chance somewhere between 20% and 50%. That can easily be explained by chance and is totally meaningless. No different then predicting two coin tosses in a row, one time.

[dsm]

Originally posted by EvilYeti

Anyone can find correlations in two irregular time series if you are allowed to cherry pick signifigant events, like Landscheidt has.


To say he "cherry picked" is to say he left something out to make his case. What did he leave out?

[xouper]

EvilYeti: There is no correlation.

xouper: That's sounds like a claim. Prove it.

EvilYeti: Its impossible to prove a negative.Then quit making claims of the negative. As a scientist, you should know better, but apparently not. When you claim there is no correlation, you are making a direct claim. As a scientist you should KNOW that you cannot make such a claim. But still you do. That tells us a lot about your dishonest debating style.

EvilYeti: Except no one in the scientific community accepts that Landscheidt has even found a correlation. Thats why no one will publish his work, its ********.

xouper: That sounds like a claim. Can you prove it?

EvitYeti: Read this threadNowhere in that message you linked is there any evidence for your claim. If it is somewhere else in that thread, then please point directly to it instead of making me go on fishing trips.

Google "golden section" and astrology.:rolleyes: Use of the golden ratio does not imply astrology. If that's your best argument, you have failed miserably.

I'm getting tired of you rampant defense of astrology as science.I have made no defense of astrology as science, let alone a "rampant" defense. That you continue to repeat this blatant falsehood shows just how dishonest your debating style is.

xouper: As a scientist you should know better than to make spurious accusations, fling ad hominems, use imprecise language, and generally criticize others on the basis of your own faulty logic.

EvilYeti: I've done nothing of the sort. Pardon, but the proof is right here in this thread. You have called me a woowoo and a defender of astrology, both of which are false, not to mention ad hominems. That you can baldly claim that you have not done this is yet more proof of your dishonesty.

You've done nothing but demand, ad nauseum, that I provide proof of non-existence. That is an impossible task and a rhetorical cheat.It is not a rhetorical cheat to ask you to back up YOUR claims, direct claims that YOU made. What kind of dishonest tactic are you trying to pull here??? YOU are the one repeatedly making claims that you now say cannot be proven. If they cannot be proven, then you are being dishonest in making those claims in the first place. As a scientist you should know better. And you have the nerve to accuse ME of rhetorical cheats.

I'm apparently the only one here that can spot astrology gift-wrapped as solar physics and climatology.We're still waiting for proof of that claim. You keep claiming that what he did is astrology, but you have yet to prove that claim.

An ASTROLOGER has CORRELATED a CELESTIAL event with behavior on EARTH which CANNOT BE EXPLAINED by PHYSICS OR OTHER SCIENCES. Its astrology, pure and simple.Here you go again making a claim of the negative (claiming that a mechanism CANNOT be found), a claim which you admit cannot be proven. Therefore your conclusion that it's astrology is not logically valid. You can repeat the definition of astrology until the Sun blows up, but you have not proven that Landscheidt's paper fits that definition.

EvilYeti: Landscheidt sues anyone that calls him an astrologer,

xouper: Have a cite for that?

EvilYeti: Read the thread cited above, in its entirety.Near the bottom of that message you linked, I read a claim by someone that Landscheidt has threatened to sue, but not only is that not sufficient evidence (I would need to see the actual threat), but it is not evidence that he has actually sued anyone, as you so boldy claimed.

It is this kind of exaggeration on your part that completely destroys your credibility. I would have thought a scientist would know better than to do engage in such nonsense. Apperently you don't know better.

You claimed he has sued people. Give me a case number and the name of the court.

He is not elegible for the prize, as the only way to win would be make enough correct El Nino predictions to prove its not just random chance. That would take dozens of years.So what. The prize will still be around then. The question is will Randi accept it as a claim of astrology. I think not. But if you can get Randi to agree it's astrology, then I assume some sort of protocol can be worked out for the million dollars. The point I'm trying to make is, if Randi does not agree that it's astrology, then I would consider your claim refuted. Shall we ask him?

Given that you accepted Landscheidts work as valid without even examining it, I'm not holding my breath either.That is most certainly not a "given". Where have I said I accept his work as valid?

Considering that you do not debate honestly and that you continue to lie and distort the truth, I am no longer interested in anything you have to say about anything, even if you might be right on rare occasions.

From your behavior on this forum, I am tempted to suspect you are not really a scientist, but a smart-ass punk teenager pretending to be a scientist. But if you truly are a scientist, then grow up and act like one.

Feel free to have the last word. I wouild like to remind you though, that it will not be logical or reasonable to interpret my lack of response as any sort of tacit agreement with your comments. Attack me all you want, but I trust that the rest of this forum can see that your accusations about me are bogus.

Good-bye, sir.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


I've contacted a NOAA scientist and have all the information, plus more, to blow you and shanek out of the water.

Plus a bombshell revelation that will shock and excite. Stay tuned, I shall return tomorrow.

Here's a portion of the response I recieved from a NOAA researcher, reprinted with his permission. He expressed the desire to remain anonymous.

There have been a steady stream of pseudo-scientists who simply
cannot accept the complexity and richness of possibility in a
nonlinear system like the climate of the earth. They must find
a simple reason behind phenomena like El Nino. More commonly,
these people like volcanoes or deep-sea vents or comet near-misses.
They send me graphs like Daly's Fig 7 or 8, purporting to show
the obvious connection that for some unfathomable reason the
scientific community is ignoring, if not actually conspiring to
suppress. The fact is that when you take two irregular time series,
and get to select the events that you claim are significant, you
can ALWAYS show a decent correlation if you want to. This kind
of thing has fooled narrow minds since correlation has been
invented. It is even more prevalent in medicine, where you find
similar crackpots who are convinced that AIDS is not caused by
the HIV virus, that all cancer is due to some clean simple
vitamin deficiency, etc, etc, etc. Then there are the
Roswell/Area 51 theorists who think that the government is
covering up a flying saucer crash. Talking only to a few
like-minded souls, they become convinced of a conspiracy
against them, and the steady rejection of their ideas is just
more evidence that they must have discovered something truly
extraordinary. Physics it ain't. It's metaphysics; if you
just believe, then every piece of evidence can be twisted to
fit the preconception.

Real scientists are desperate to make their careers by discovering
something important about the climate system. If there was anything
to these ideas, they would be jumped on by eager researchers hoping
to get the credit. No one gets anything out of ignoring them, and
believe me, all kinds of nutty ideas are batted around all the time,
before being discarded after a closer look in the cold light of
morning.

I do not say that sunspots, or volcanoes, or comet dust do not
affect the climate. They most certainly are part of the background
influences that nudge the climate state to and fro over the
millenia. But there is just no need to invoke these things to
explain the chaotic phenomena, from tornadoes to El Nino, that
we see in the weather. The climate system is very well capable
of generating episodic, apparently unusual phenomena on its own,
some of which (like El Nino) become very dramatic collapses that
cascade into a variety of large anomalies. To take El Nino as an
example, the usual situation is that the trade winds push water
towards the west, such that sea level at Indonesia is about half
a meter higher than at Peru. As long as the trades keep blowing,
this situation is stable. Think of an unsharpened pencil balanced
on end. You can give it a tiny push, and it will rock a bit and
then settle down. But the stability is only apparent, for if the
push is a little harder, the pencil will fall. Note carefully that
the energy released when the pencil finally falls over is very much
more than the small push you gave it. That's because the act of
setting it on end stored potential energy that can be extracted
with the right, small, kick. In El Nino, the potential energy is
the piling up of water in the western Pacific, and it is susceptible
to the right push that starts a cascade eastward, releasing energy
stored up by years of trade winds.

More information is available here (http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/%7Ekessler/occasionally-asked-questions.html#q9)

The above url explains why singular events, like volcanoes or sea floor venting, are not necessary to explain the El Nino effect. Sunspots are no different. Weather is a non-linear system, its not dependent on a single variable to function.

After some discussion with my contact, I think I've thought up a better analogy to demonstrate the fallaciousness of Landscheidt's and shanek's position.

Consider the hypothesis that birds cause hurricanes. Silly right? Or is it? Lets look at the evidence.

Birds have been seen flapping their wings before a hurricane.

The flapping of bird wings creates air currents.

Hurricanes are formed of air currents.

Birds flapping their wings therefore cause hurricanes.

The last statement is obviously false. But the others are true. It would even be true to say the air currents from the flapping affected the hurricane in some small way. But it certainly didn't cause it. The same way solar variablity contributes to weather, but isn't the driving force behind every meteorolgical event.

I promised a bombshell revelation and I by no means wish to dissapoint, so here it is.

During my research into Theodor Landscheidt's astrological past I came across a few references to "Transpluto", a "discovery" made by him in the 60's. My curiosity eventually got the better of me so I researched this a bit more. It turns out "Transpluto" is a name given to a hypothetical massive extra solar planet, which Landscheidt "proved" via the analyses of the oribits of comets. Others have since ran with this "evidence" but chose a different name, originally coined at the turn of the century. You guessed it folks, its Planet X!

So Theodor Landscheidt, a modern day Galileo to Diamond/Titanpoint, Einstein and Newton rolled into one for shanek and dutifully defended by xouper has the dubious distinction of being the godfather of the modern Planet X movement. Oh the irony. :rolleyes:

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by dsm

To say he "cherry picked" is to say he left something out to make his case. What did he leave out?

The years where El Nino events were not correlated with solar activity.

Read the following to learn more about spurious correlations.

Spurious Correlations (http://www.burns.com/wcbspurcorl.htm)

[xouper]

EvilYeti: Read the following to learn more about spurious correlations. Spurious Correlations (http://www.burns.com/wcbspurcorl.htm)Good link.

So are you now retracting your previous claim of "no correlations" and revising it to be a claim of "spurious correlations"? If so, then you need to back up your claim by showing why the correlations are spurious.

[shanek]

From EY's quoted soruce:

Originally posted by EvilYeti
I do not say that sunspots, or volcanoes, or comet dust do not affect the climate. They most certainly are part of the background influences that nudge the climate state to and fro over the millenia.

This completely and soundly contradicts your reason for calling Landscheidt's work "astrology." It also completely and soundly contradicts your claim that there is NO MECHANISM (not simply "no known mechanism") for sunspots contributing to the El Niño effect. He is simply saying that these influences are too small to have any measurable effect on them.

Now, you initially brought up this astrology nonsense in order to avoid discussing what was in the paper, which was all I wanted to do. I wanted to examine his claims of the effects of sunspots and you avoided it. Ever since then, you have brought up this "astrology" nonsense in practically every thread I've been in as a pathetic attempt to discredit me.

YOUR VERY OWN SOURCE has contradicted your personal insult of both Landscheidt and me. I ask that you now never repeat the insult, that I brought up astrology in a scientific discussion, and point out that if you do so again, you brand yourself a liar (though not for the first time).

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by xouper
So what. The prize will still be around then. The question is will Randi accept it as a claim of astrology. I think not. But if you can get Randi to agree it's astrology, then I assume some sort of protocol can be worked out for the million dollars. The point I'm trying to make is, if Randi does not agree that it's astrology, then I would consider your claim refuted. Shall we ask him?

Just did and he agreed, its astrology.

Thats good enough for me.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by shanek
From EY's quoted soruce:
This completely and soundly contradicts your reason for calling Landscheidt's work "astrology." It also completely and soundly contradicts your claim that there is NO MECHANISM (not simply "no known mechanism") for sunspots contributing to the El Niño effect. He is simply saying that these influences are too small to have any measurable effect on them.

Uh-oh, shanek's getting desperate. For the record I said "no known mechanism" first in this thread. I don't like saying that because nutcases like yourself will try and turn that around and claim that means there is an effect, we just haven't found it yet. Which of course you did.

Landscheidt is not claiming sunspots "contribute" to El Nino, he is claiming it "forces" the effect. Meaning the two are inexorably linked. Read the damn paper you endorse so much.

Now, you initially brought up this astrology nonsense in order to avoid discussing what was in the paper, which was all I wanted to do. I wanted to examine his claims of the effects of sunspots and you avoided it. Ever since then, you have brought up this "astrology" nonsense in practically every thread I've been in as a pathetic attempt to discredit me.

The body of the paper is about correlating a celestial cycle (the sunspot cycle) with a terrestrial event (El Nino) using astrological means (the golden section). Thats what makes it astrology. He makes some guesses of a mechanism towards the end, but has ZERO data to back up his assertions.

YOUR VERY OWN SOURCE has contradicted your personal insult of both Landscheidt and me. I ask that you now never repeat the insult, that I brought up astrology in a scientific discussion, and point out that if you do so again, you brand yourself a liar (though not for the first time).

James Randi thinks its astrology as well. Is he a liar too?

[shanek]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
Uh-oh, shanek's getting desperate. For the record I said "no known mechanism" first in this thread.

Several times in this very thread you made the direct claim that there was NO MECHANISM. As others have pointed out to you, simply because there is "no known mechanism" does not necessarily make it astrology.

I don't like saying that because nutcases like yourself will try and turn that around and claim that means there is an effect, we just haven't found it yet. Which of course you did.

No, I didn't, you liar.

Landscheidt is not claiming sunspots "contribute" to El Nino, he is claiming it "forces" the effect. Meaning the two are inexorably linked. Read the damn paper you endorse so much.

I do not nor have I ever endorsed the paper. I merely asked you questions about the data therein, questions you have to this day refused to answer.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by shanek
Several times in this very thread you made the direct claim that there was NO MECHANISM. As others have pointed out to you, simply because there is "no known mechanism" does not necessarily make it astrology.

I've said "no known mechanism" as well. Stop cheating. As I've said, many times now, it's astrology because an astrologer is using astrological methods to correlate celestial events with wordly phenomena. No different then claiming Mars in retrograde causes stock market fluctuations. Are you claiming because there is no known mechanism for that its not astrology either? Astrology isn't astrology?

Mr. Randi agrees that the paper is astrology. Are you saying he is wrong, or is a liar?

No, I didn't, you liar.

You have, several times in the thread, erroneously proposed that sunspots force El Nino events. Your reference to communication sattelites, for example.

I do not nor have I ever endorsed the paper. I merely asked you questions about the data therein, questions you have to this day refused to answer.

You don't endorse it? Then you admit to deliberately presenting pseudoscientific material on a skeptical forum? Is that the case shanek? Are you finally admitting that you will knowingly post fradulent references in order to bolster your position?

Why don't you post these "questions" I supposedly won't "answer"? Go right ahead and present them. I'll answer them and bury you further.

[shanek]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
I've said "no known mechanism" as well.

It doesn't matter what you said as well. You said no mechanism at all, none, period.

As I've said, many times now, it's astrology because an astrologer is using astrological methods

Ah! Now we're getting somewhere. What, precisely, are these astrological methods and how does he implement them in his methodology?

to correlate celestial events with wordly phenomena.

Again, saying "The sun causes temperatures to be warmer when it's higher in the sky" is "correlating celestial events with wordly phenomena." And as has been repeatedly pointed out to you, the difference between that and astrology is a LOT more than whether or not a mechanism has been found.

No different then claiming Mars in retrograde causes stock market fluctuations.

As far as I'm aware, no one has able to successfully predict stock market fluctuations using Mars's orbital pattern.

Mr. Randi agrees that the paper is astrology. Are you saying he is wrong, or is a liar?

You have submitted nothing other than your claim that he agrees. You have not submitted his reply, you haven't even told us what you told him.

You don't endorse it? Then you admit to deliberately presenting pseudoscientific material on a skeptical forum?

I'm ASKING QUESTIONS. Questions that you obviously don't want to consider.

And not endorsing someting is NOT the same thing as admitting it's fraudulent.

Why don't you post these "questions" I supposedly won't "answer"? Go right ahead and present them. I'll answer them and bury you futher.

Okay. For the record, everyone, he asked for it: How do you explain the 800-year lag between a warm period and rising CO₂ levels?
What reason do we have to believe that the current rise in CO₂ levels, correlating with the rises mentioned in the previous question, is simply not a repeat of the trend?
In Landscheidt's methodology is bad, then why did he successfully predict the last three El Niño events, including the one in late 2002 which happened after we examined his prediction here in a previous thread?
Why do the current measured variances in temperatures in the tropics being shown to correlate with the wetness levels, in contradiction with several global warming models, have "nothing to do with global warming" (your words)?
You claimed, "The rate at which the climate warmed over the last 100 years is unheard of in our natural history." But you never did respond to my data showing warming trends every bit as drastic as this over the past 120,000 years.
Do you still stand by the "hockey-stick" graphs even though the method of measurement changed at the precise point where the last upward trend begins?
Why should we even be worried about the current rise in CO₂ levels, given the data I showed you that it is simply going back to the level it was 18,000 years ago?
Even if humans are causing the current rise in CO₂ levels and the current warming trend, or even contributing to it, why is it any more cause for alarm than in these previous trends where the rise in CO₂ was caused by other means? Please do not answer that the current rise is unprecedented without first addressing the data showing similar rises at similar rates in the past 120,000 years and its consistency with the rising trend over the last 18,000 years.
I'm also still waiting for you to explain how a line on a graph showing a single measurement over time can ever be VERTICAL.
When you challenged me to provide evidence of a previous trend of increasing CO₂ levels of 80ppm over a 200-year period, I provided the following references:

"Dual Modes of the Carbon Cycle Since the Last Glacial Maximum," Nature, 400, 248-250

The most conspicuous feature of the record of past climate contained in polar ice is the rapid warming which occurs after long intervals of gradual cooling. During the last four transitions from glacial to interglacial conditions, over which such abrupt warmings occur, ice records indicate that the CO₂ concentration of the atmosphere increased by roughly 80 to 100 parts per million by volume. But the causes of the atmospheric CO₂ concentration increases are unclear. Here we present the stable-carbon-isotopic composition (delta¹³CO₂) of CO₂ extracted from air trapped in ice at Taylor Dome, Antarctica, from the last Glacial Maximum to the onset of Holocene times. The global carbon cycle is shown to have operated in two distinct primary modes on the timescale of thousands of years, one when climate was changing relatively slowly and another when warming was rapid, each with a characteristic average stable-carbon-isotope composition of the net CO₂ exchanged by the atmosphere with the land and oceans. delta¹³CO₂ increased between 16.5 and 9 thousand years ago by slightly more than would be estimated to be caused by the physical effects of a 5 degree C rise in global average sea surface temperature driving a CO₂ efflux from the ocean, but our data do not allow specific causes to be constrained.

"Ice Core Records of Atmospheric CO2 Around the Last Three Glacial Terminations," Science, 283, 1712-1714

Air trapped in bubbles in polar ice cores constitutes an archive for the reconstruction of the global carbon cycle and the relation between greenhouse gases and climate in the past. High-resolution records from Antarctic ice cores show that carbon dioxide concentrations increased by 80 to 100 parts per million by volume 600 ±400 years after the warming of the last three deglaciations. Despite strongly decreasing temperatures, high carbon dioxide concentrations can be sustained for thousands of years during glaciations; the size of this phase lag is probably connected to the duration of the preceding warm period, which controls the change in land ice coverage and the buildup of the terrestrial biosphere.

Please respond to this.
Respond to Wallace S. Broecker, “Was the Medieval Warm Period Global?” Science, 291: 1497-99, February 23, 2001, which not refutes your "hockey-stick" graphs, but also concludes: "The post-1860 natural warming was the most recent in a series of similar warmings spaced at roughly 1500-year intervals throughout the present interglacial, the Holocene."
Regardless of sunspots or other causes, why do you feel Landscheit's method of predicting El Niños by exmining the oscillations between sea surface temperature and air pressure and seeing when they converge at their lowest points is invalid?
How do you explain the correlation between the data in the previous question and the 11-year sunspot cycle, solar wind, and plasma flux from corona holes?
How do you explain his data showing that the phase reversals in the trends mentioned two questions ago is caused by the change in orbital angular momentum?
Defend your claim that scientists should NOT examine the probabilities of all possible outcomes when making their predictions.ALL of these are questions and data you have ignored by your cry of "astrology." And notice that they're not all related to Landscheidt's work. You used this as an excuse to avoid EVERYTHING.

No more. Put up or shut up.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by shanek
No more. Put up or shut up.

I'll answer all of your questions if you answer just one.

Mr. Randi agrees with my assessment of Dr. Landscheidt's research as being astrological in origin.

Is Mr Randi

a). Wrong.

b). A liar.

You may answer "a" or "b".

[xouper]

EvilYeti: Mr. Randi agrees with my assessment of Dr. Landscheidt's research as being astrological in origin.Why should we take your word for it that Randi said this? You have a long history of distorting the truth and making false claims, so pardon my skepticism of your claim here.

[shanek]

I knew he'd weasel out of answering the questions...

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by shanek
I knew he'd weasel out of answering the questions...

Shanek, you are without a doubt not only the biggest woowoo on this forum, but also the biggest liar. I've answered almost all of those questions already, in detail. Everyone who read the threads knows this. And I have offered to answer them, AGAIN, anway. But I'm not, until you come clean on how you feel about the esteemed Mr. Randi's opinion on pseudoscience.

Considering I've already written out detailed responses to the majority of those questions (you being a fraud you of course threw in some new ones) I think its fair for you to answer one question first.

James Randi has rendered his opinion that Dr. Landscheidt's paper on El Nino prediction is based on astrology, not science.

Since you apparently disagree with Mr. Randi, please tell us why. The options are.

a) Randi is wrong.

b) Randi is lying.

Fell free to explain in more detail if you wish.

Since I am going to have type out a dozen+ responses to questions I've already answered, in detail, I think a little one letter response is fair deal.

Or you can tuck your tail between your legs and run off, like a coward. Which won't surprise anyone in the least. We already know you're a fraud. Take a hike and prove it.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by xouper
Why should we take your word for it that Randi said this? You have a long history of distorting the truth and making false claims, so pardon my skepticism of your claim here.

Fine, whatever. You'll be just as correct as you've been previously in this thread, i.e. not at all.

[xouper]

EvilYeti: James Randi has rendered his opinion that Dr. Landscheidt's paper on El Nino prediction is based on astrology, not science.

EvilYeti: Mr. Randi agrees with my assessment of Dr. Landscheidt's research as being astrological in origin.

xouper: Why should we take your word for it that Randi said this?

EvilYeti: Fine, whatever.Your blatant avoidance of a legitimate question and your failure to provide any evidence for your claim is duly noted.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by xouper
Your blatant avoidance of a legitimate question and your failure to provide any evidence for your claim is duly noted.

What would it take for you to believe then?

Think carefully, are you sure you want to piss of Mr. Randi again?

[xouper]

EvilYeti: What would it take for you to believe then?How about showing us what you have so we can evaluate that. Why is this so hard for you to understand? Why all the games to avoid answering a simple and legitimate question. You made the claim. Put your money where your mouth is.

Think carefully, are you sure you want to piss of Mr. Randi again? Ouch!

:rolleyes:

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by xouper
How about showing us what you have so we can evaluate that. Why is this so hard for you to understand? Why all the games to avoid answering a simple and legitimate question. You made the claim. Put your money where your mouth is.

Ouch!

:rolleyes:

I sent an email to Mr. Randi asking him to evaluate the paper in question. I presented a synopsis of my argument and asked him whether he agreed that Landscheidt's claims were astrological in nature. Mr. Randi replied in the affirmative.

And frankly, I don't care whether you believe me or not.

[Dorian Gray]

Criminey. I love it when the ignorant use the irrelevant to argue over the impossible.

Proof that you CAN prove a negative.

Prove I am not a fish.
1) Scientists gather DNA from a statistically significant sample of the world's population and develop clear categories of what is fish and what is not fish.

2) Same scientists collect samples of my DNA and compare to their massive catalog of DNA samples.

3) Same scientists, upon comparison of my DNA to their catalog, clearly establish that I am in the 'not fish' category. Other scientists verify their work.

See?

Now, thanks for all the examples of woo-woo, but I think I have the idea now. Further examples of woo-wooism will be interpreted as hijacking this thread.

[xouper]

EvilYeti: I sent an email to Mr. Randi asking him to evaluate the paper in question. I presented a synopsis of my argument and asked him whether he agreed that Landscheidt's claims were astrological in nature. Mr. Randi replied in the affirmative. Given your proven history of distorting facts, why should anyone believe your spin on this? Show us the unexpurgated emails.

And frankly, I don't care whether you believe me or not.It doesn't matter if you care or not, you clearly want others to believe you and I am challenging you to defend your credibility, which is in serious doubt here, as I said previously:

xouper: Why should we take your word for it that Randi said this? You have a long history of distorting the truth and making false claims, so pardon my skepticism of your claim here.

EvilYeti: Fine, whatever. You'll be just as correct as you've been previously in this thread, i.e. not at all.Are you seriously claiming I am not correct that you have made false claims and distorted the truth? Apart from all the evidence I have already presented to back up my claim, the following is yet another example of your false claims and distortions of the truth:

EvilYeti: All of Landscheidts work is self published and has not passed peer review.All of it? What about this one?

Landscheidt, T. (1999 b): Extrema in sunspot cycle linked to Sun's motion. Solar Physics 189, 413-424.

Are you claiming that Solar Physics (http://www.kluweronline.com/article.asp?PIPS=247157) is not a legitimate peer-reviewed journal that published one of Landscheidt's papers?

And are you really claiming that all the following papers were self-published by Landscheidt:

Landscheidt, T. (1983): Solar oscillations, sunspot cycles, and climatic change. In: McCormac, B. M., ed.: Weather and climate responses to solar variations. Boulder, Associated University Press, 293-308.

Landscheidt, T. (1986 a): Long-range forecast of energetic x-ray bursts based on cycles of flares. In: Simon, P. A., Heckman, G. und Shea, M. A., eds.: Solar-terrestrial predictions. Proceedings of a workshop at Meudon, 18.-22. Juni 1984. Boulder, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 81-89.

Landscheidt, T. (1986 b): Long-range forecast of sunspot cycles. In: Simon, P. A., Heckman, G. und Shea, M. A., eds.: Solar-terrestrial predictions. Proceedings of a workshop at Meudon, 18.-22. Juni 1984. Boulder, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 48-57.

Landscheidt, T. (1987): Long-range forecasts of solar cycles and climate change. In: Rampino, M. R., Sanders, J. E., Newman, W. S. und Königsson, L. K., eds.: Climate History, Periodicity, and predictability. New York, van Nostrand Reinhold, 421-445.

Landscheidt, T. (1988): Solar rotation, impulses of the torque in the Sun's motion, and climatic variation. Climatic Change 12, 265-295.

Landscheidt, T.(1990): Relationship between rainfall in the northern hemisphere and impulses of the torque in the Sun's motion. In: K. H. Schatten and A. Arking, eds.: Climate impact of solar variability. Greenbelt, NASA, 259-266.

Landscheidt, T.(1995): Global warming or Little Ice Age? In: Finkl, C. W., ed.: Holocene cycles. A Jubilee volume in celebration of the 80th birthday of Rhodes W. Fairbridge. Fort Lauderdale, The Coastal Education and Research Foundation (CERF), 371-382.

Landscheidt, T. (1998): Forecast of global temperature, El Niño, and cloud coverage by astronomical means. In:Bate, R., ed.: Global Warming. The continuing debate. Cambridge, The European Science and Environment Forum (ESEF), 172-183.

Landscheidt, T. (2000): River Po discharges and cycles of solar activity. Hydrol. Sci. J. 45, 491-493.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by xouper
Given your proven history of distorting facts, why should anyone believe your spin on this? Show us the unexpurgated emails.

No. They are private correspondence between myself and Mr. Randi. And stop spinning lies about be, you junk science fraud.

It doesn't matter if you care or not, you clearly want others to believe you and I am challenging you to defend your credibility, which is in serious doubt here, as I said previously:

See, there's where your wrong. I don't care. The people that matter, i.e. the scientific community already believe me. The only difference between me and them is that I bother talking to narrow-minded pseudoscience fools like yourself.

Are you seriously claiming I am not correct that you have made false claims and distorted the truth?

You make the claim, prove it. Stop making empty, groundless assertions like your buddy shanek.


All of it? What about this one?


The research we are discussing, all of which has appeared on John Daly's website, is self published in its entirety, without peer review. Are you sure the references you have listed are reviewed? Not every journal is.
I'm not aware of any of his work being published in a peer reviewed science journal, and frankly I'm not interested in researching this guy any more. Reading astrology dressed up as science is a waste of my time.

Since you are so enamoured of him tho, why don't you read this article, published in a peer-reviewed astrology journal.
Theory & Practice of Geocentric Planetary Nodes (http://web.archive.org/web/20020219183236/http://considerations-mag.com/landsheidt.htm)

Here's a nice tidbit:

A special feature of geocentric nodes is that they indicate crucial days in the course of the year. I mentioned earlier that the heliocentric nodes progress very slowly. Consequently, the geocentric nodes, linked as they are to the Earth’s course around the Sun, reach nearly the same position a year or even some years later. If there is a special configuration formed with radix positions, it will recur about the same calendar date. This is especially true for the birthday. So there is more to the birthday than the Solar Return. If you know the trend released by special nodal transits, you can make plans for the year. I myself make good use of the alignment of Mercury’s node, Jupiter’s node and Venus’ node in mid-January and July to get ahead in my work. Yet there are also negative examples: on January 28, 1986 seven U.S. astronauts were killed when the space shuttle Challenger exploded on take-off at Cape Canaveral. On January 27, 1967 a similar accident had occurred that killed three astronauts. In both of these cases Mars’ north node, Uranus’ north node and the Sun’s north node formed a triple conjunction that was related to critical configurations in the respective charts.

Obviously true of course, because I can't prove him wrong. Those silly astrounauts, so stupid to launch their space shuttle when the planets were in a triple conjuntion. NASA needs to hire this guy right away. :rolleyes:

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
Criminey. I love it when the ignorant use the irrelevant to argue over the impossible.

Proof that you CAN prove a negative.


It appears Mr. Randi would disagree. Here is an extract from his popular lecture series (which I once attended at Bell Labs)
You must have a reason, I think, for yourself and for others as to why you are skeptical. These things are not likely to be true; therefore, you need proof of them. We're not required to prove a negative; we can't do that. I can't prove telepathy doesn't exist. I remember getting a question years ago. A lady stood up in the audience and said, "Can you prove to me that ESP doesn't exist?" I said, "No, I can't." She sat down with her arms folded and replied "Ah ha." That was a victory for her. I went on to explain that I can't prove a negative. My question is, "Do you believe in it?" She said, "Absolutely." I asked if she could prove that it is so. She said, "Well, I'm quite convinced of it."

"That's not my question," I responded. "Can you prove that it is so? You're the one making the claim." We skeptics, as Michael Shermer clearly pointed out, are not in the business of debunking. If I were in the business of debunking, and I've often had that label pinned on me and I've always resented it and denied it - it means I would go into an investigation convinced that "this ain't so and I'm going to show you that it isn't." I'm not a lawyer; I don't have an advocacy position to take. I go into a situation as an investigator. To be perfectly fair, I can't prove a negative, but I go into this thing prepared to be shown. Am I prejudiced against it? Oh, yes! I have to admit that. But if you've been sitting by a chimney for 63 years on the evening of December 24 and a fat man in a red suit has never bounced down that chimney, you can say, "One hundred percent of my evidence shows me that this claim is not necessarily so. I cannot prove that it isn't, but it's not very likely to be true, based on what we know."

The Santa Claus example may seem trivial and a little inappropriate, but it is actually a good metaphor for so many paranormal and pseudoscientific claims. Another is flying reindeer. This one we can actually test. (Please don't tell the SPCA about this.) I don't really want to do the experiment, but let's walk through it as if I were doing it. It's a thought experiment. Let's select, by some randomizing process, a thousand reindeer. We'll number them and get them all together in a reindeer truck (I don't know what you put reindeer in) and take them to the top of the World Trade Center in New York. We are going to test whether or not reindeer can fly. You have your reindeer all lined up, a video-camera operator standing by, lots of pads of paper and pens at work. The time is now ten past ten in the morning. OK, first experiment. Number one reindeer, please, up to the edge. Camera going? Good. Push. Uhh, write down "no". Really NO! Number two. Push. I don't know what the result of the experiment will be; I suspect strongly what it will be, based upon my meagre knowledge of the aerodynamics of the average reindeer, though I'm not an expert on it. But based upon previous accounts of what reindeer can and cannot do, I think we are going to end up with a pile of very unhappy and broken reindeer at the foot of the World Trade Center. And probably a couple of policemen will be standing by a squad car saying, "I don't know, but here comes another one."

What have we proven with this experiment? Have we proven that reindeer cannot fly? No, of course not. We have only shown that on this occasion, under these conditions of atmospheric pressure, temperature, radiation, at this position geographically, at this season, that these 1000 reindeer either could not or chose not to fly. (If the second is the case, then we certainly know something of the intelligence of the average reindeer.) However, we have not, and can not, prove the negative that reindeer cannot fly, technically, rationally, and philosophically speaking. People will often look at this example and say, "Well, how many reindeer would you have to test?" I'm not going to get into the statistics of the argument; I will only tell you that you cannot prove a negative. The other folks who claim that something is so are required to prove it. It is what we call the burden of proof. In this case, if it's so it's very easy to prove. Just show me one flying reindeer. Then they rationalize, saying, "Oh, no. It's only the eight tiny reindeer that live at the North Pole who can, and will, on the evening of December 24, fly to do that specific job." In that case you have to throw up your hands and say, "Well, I don't think your hypothesis is very testable." Don't spin your wheels!

[a_unique_person]

If you look here

http://www.astrology-books.com/store/Landscheidt_%20Theodore.html



Landscheidt, Theodore

Title: Sun-Earth-Man
Author: Landscheidt, Theodore

Price: $13.00
ISBN: 1871989000
[Add to Cart] [View Cart]
The world's climate, stock market movements, ozone levels, moments of mystical insights and periods of creative inspiration: all these phenomena and many more, are shown by Dr Landscheidt's meticulous research to move in tune with the planetary harmonies of our solar systems. His findings, supported by his successful forecasts, will be of deep interest both to the layman and to anthropologists, astrologers, biologists, ecologists, economists, historians, meteorologists, psychologists, sociologists and indeed students in almost every area of study.
Category: Astrology
Subcategory: Imports, Mundane & Political
Book Review:
Availability: Stock to 2 Weeks



Sounds like an astrologer to me.

The publisher of the book is

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Urania Trust is a registered UK educational charity, founded in 1970, which provides a service to the British and worldwide astrological community.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[a_unique_person]

Also

http://s1.amazon.com/exec/varzea/ts/exchange-glance/Y02Y2292315Y9232060/qid=1066373179/sr=1-1/102-3026151-9798506



Theodor Landscheidt: Cosmic Cybernetics: The Foundations of a Modern Astrology



What the heck is Cosmic Cybernetics?

The whole problem for Shanek is that John Daly is big supporter of Landscheidt, and Daly hosts one of Shanes favourite anti-GW sites.

Here is a thread http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27903&highlight=landscheidt



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Dr Diamond,

You are not persistent, you act like a Grand Inquisitor who treats me like being on trial for a gross violation of a contrived law. You should have the decency to tell me who you are and why you think that you should subject me to an inquiry.

I have written the book "Sun-Earth-Man." It is not an astrology book, but a science book that deals with chaos theory, the forecast of solar activity, geomagnetic storms and related terrestrial events. As the book is not yet out of print, you may buy and read it to see that it quotes 124 science papers and books.

Sincerely

Theodor Landscheidt

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[EvilYeti]

After re-reading one of Mr. Randi's lectures, I think a bit of a clarification is in order.

There is a difference between making a claim and simply stating facts. The only claim being made here is by Dr. Landscheidt, as I've stated several times now there is no known mechanism for solar flares to force el ninos. Just like there is no known evidence the moon is made of green cheese. The burden of proof is not on me to prove the moon is NOT made of green cheese (or even that there is no evidence to the contrary) or that solar flares DON'T force ENSO events, its on the claimant to provide evidence of the claim.

Reading the paper (which I found painful in the extreme) I found no evidence of even the correlation shanek and xouper have spoke of, let alone a plausible causitive mechanism. Lots of talk of golden sections, fractals, little fingers (?) etc..., but no one simple clear chart showing how peaks in the solar cycle correlate with ENSO events. If this were true if would be trivial to overlay two graphs of the history of the solar cycle and ENSO events and look for where they match up. Inexplicably this has not been provided. Landscheidt has failed to produce any evidence to support his hypothesis.

[xouper]

xouper: Are you seriously claiming I am not correct that you have made false claims and distorted the truth?

EvilYeti: You make the claim, prove it. Stop making empty, groundless assertions like your buddy shanek.I did prove it. Several times. Right here in this thread. Example, you claimed all Landscheidt's papers are self published. I clearly and unambiguously proved you wrong. I even gave an example of a paper published in a legitimate, peer reviewed science journal. And that was just one example. I gave many other examples of how you distort the truth, spin the story, and make false claims. I have indeed proven my claim.

a_unique_person: Sounds like an astrologer to me.I don't dispute that Landscheidt is an astologer. That is not the argument here. The argument is whether he has used any astrology in his climate papers, especially the el nino paper. If he has, then let's see the evidence for that claim. It is not logical to say that since he is an astrologer, everything he publishes is astrology. By that non-logic, everything Isaac Asimov wrote is science fiction, which is clearly a false claim. Do you see the point I am trying to make here?



Edited to fix a spellign error.

[xouper]

EvilYeti: There is a difference between making a claim and simply stating facts. The only claim being made here is by Dr. Landscheidt, as I've stated several times now there is no known mechanism for solar flares to force el ninos.Are you now retracting your earlier claims that there is no mechanism?

Just like there is no known evidence the moon is made of green cheese. The burden of proof is not on me to prove the moon is NOT made of green cheese (or even that there is no evidence to the contrary) or that solar flares DON'T force ENSO events, its on the claimant to provide evidence of the claim.I agree. But if you claim the Moon is not made of green cheese, that IS a claim that is your burdon to prove.

[xouper]

I forgot to add:

EvilYeti: Are you sure the references you have listed are reviewed? Not every journal is. You claim to be a scientist, so you tell me if Solar Physics a not a legitimate peer reviewed science journal, since you are the one who made the claim that Landscheidt has never published in a peer reviewed journal.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by xouper
I did prove it. Several times. Right here in this thread. Example, you claimed all Landscheidt's papers are self published. I clearly and unambiguously proved you wrong. I even gave an example of a paper published in a legitimate, peer reviewed science journal. And that was just one example. I gave many other examples of how you distort the truth, spin the story, and make false claims. I have indeed proven my claim.
Edited to fix a spellign error.

If you look at the ones on John Daly's site, they are self published. IIRC, these are the ones that claim to be doing the prediction of El Nino.

[xouper]

a_unique_person: If you look at the ones on John Daly's site, they are self published. IIRC, these are the ones that claim to be doing the prediction of El Nino.I accept that. That was not all EvilYeti claimed, though. Let me repeat his claim:

EvilYeti: All of Landscheidts work is self published and has not passed peer review.Obviously, not ALL of his work is self published. This is an example of the way EvilYeti spins the truth, and it is that dishonest tactic that I am calling him on the carpet for. As a scientist, he should know better than to make false claims like that.

[shanek]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
Shanek, you are without a doubt not only the biggest woowoo on this forum, but also the biggest liar. I've answered almost all of those questions already, in detail.

Then point out where.

And I have offered to answer them, AGAIN, anway.

So why don't you?

But I'm not, until you come clean on how you feel about the esteemed Mr. Randi's opinion on pseudoscience.

Because you haven't given his opinion. There's absolutely no way I can give an answer until I see not only his verbatim reply, but also your verbatim query to him to be able to examine if you in any way misrepresented the situation. Since you have no honor here, I'm sure very few people believe you even contacted him...and if you did, you can't be trusted to give him an honest query.

Post both of those, and then we'll talk.

(you being a fraud you of course threw in some new ones)

There are NO new ones in there. ALL of those are questions I asked you in the other thread. I culled them directly from there. You are a liar.

James Randi has rendered his opinion

No, he hasn't. You have made a claim that he has, a claim which you have not substantiated. In either event, it is absolutely impossible to form an opinion on a statement I have not seen.

My claim is reasonable and you know it. Post this information or stop whining about it.

[shanek]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
I sent an email to Mr. Randi asking him to evaluate the paper in question. I presented a synopsis of my argument and asked him whether he agreed that Landscheidt's claims were astrological in nature. Mr. Randi replied in the affirmative.

Fine. Post the content of both emails. And you might want to post the headers, too, for authentication purposes.

[shanek]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
No. They are private correspondence between myself and Mr. Randi.

Then email him back and ask him for permission to post his response here. In any event, you are at least able to post your query to him here. That would at least tell us how you represented the situation to him.

The research we are discussing,

You are NOT discussing research. You are blasting Landscheidt. By saying he's an astrologer, you have avoided even considering the data presented. Your justification for doing so is that he has not published in peer-reviewed journals. Xouper just pointed out, as I did in the other thread, that he has been published in several peer-reviewed journals. How does that not make him a "real" scientist?

Reading astrology dressed up as science is a waste of my time.

Thank you for proving once again how closed your mind is.

[xouper]

EvilYeti: I sent an email to Mr. Randi asking him to evaluate the paper in question. I presented a synopsis of my argument and asked him whether he agreed that Landscheidt's claims were astrological in nature. Mr. Randi replied in the affirmative.

xouper: Given your proven history of distorting facts, why should anyone believe your spin on this? Show us the unexpurgated emails.

EvilYeti: No. They are private correspondence between myself and Mr. Randi. And stop spinning lies about be, you junk science fraud.I too emailed Randi this morning. Here's what I asked him:

<div style="border: solid black 1px; margin: 0 32px 0 0; padding: 24px; background-color: #fff8f0;">A claim is being made on your message board that you consider some of the claims in the following paper by Theodor Landscheidt to be based on astrology. To clear up any possible confusion or misunderstanding, can you confirm you said anything along those lines, please?

Solar Activity Controls El Niño and La Niña
http://www.john-daly.com/sun-enso/sun-enso.htm

If it wasn't that paper, perhaps it was one of the following three.

Solar Eruptions Linked to North Atlantic Oscillation
http://www.john-daly.com/theodor/solarnao.htm

New Confirmation of Strong Solar Forcing of Climate
http://www.john-daly.com/po.htm

Solar Activity: A Dominant Factor in Climate Dynamics
http://www.john-daly.com/solar/solar.htm

If any of the claims made by Landscheidt in the above papers are based on astrology, are any of those claims elligible for the JREF million dollar challenge, in a manner similar to other claims of astrology? I am not in any way endorsing or defending any of Landscheidt's claims, but rather I am interested in getting clarification of your position on whether any of his claims are astrology or not.

Thank you for your time and consideration.</div>
Here is Randi's reply, complete and unexpurgated:

<div style="border: solid black 1px; margin: 0 32px 0 0; padding: 24px; background-color: #fff8f0;">I don't much care. Such brouhahas could occupy my entire day.

If he wants to apply for the prize, let him do so.

James Randi</div>
So, Randi is not interested in confirming or denying your claim regarding his position on any of Landscheidt's claims. How hard would it have been to simply say "yes I said that" or "no I didn't say that"? He certainly doesn't seem willing to back you up here. This casts huge doubt on your version of what he said.

Quite frankly, I don't believe you have accurately represented his position on the matter. A reasonable guess is that you gave him your interpretation of Landscheidt's paper and Randi merely agreed that your interpretation sounded like astrology. I see no reason to believe that Randi took the time to evaluate Landscheidt's paper, let alone conclude that it is based on astrology. My guess is he told you something similar to what he told me and you have misrepresented his reply as something it's not.

[EvilYeti]

My correspondence with Mr. Randi has been reproduced in thread. (My correspondence has been reproduced in this [URL=http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27903)

[xouper]

Randi's reply to me is also a polite reminder that those of us who are squabbling about his position on the matter need to get a life. I am as guilty of that as anyone, especially since I had the lapse of judgment to suggest we ask him in the first place. What a waste of time that line of inquiry has been, since it has not resolved the issue of whether Landscheidt's el nino claims are astrology or not.

Also, Randi has not said whether he would accept Landscheidt's application or not. I'm guessing Landscheidt (or someone) would have to officially apply for the challenge before Randi bothers evaluating it.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by xouper

So, Randi is not interested in confirming or denying your claim regarding his position on any of Landscheidt's claims. How hard would it have been to simply say "yes I said that" or "no I didn't say that"? He certainly doesn't seem willing to back you up here. This casts huge doubt on your version of what he said.


You are a lying piece of crap. I never brought up the million dollar challenge, you did. It's not Randi's job to search the web looking for paranormal claims, test them and award the prize.

You asked a different question, regarding the million dollar challenge, to which Randi mentioned he didn't care. And you use this to prove my claim false.

Typical tactic of the desperate woo-woo, why am I not surprised.

[shanek]

Both of you, CUT IT OUT about the Randi thing! Really, you're like two children arguing and going to a parent to take sides.

EY, answer my questions.

[xouper]

EvilYeti: You are a lying piece of crap. You asked a different question, regarding the million dollar challenge, to which Randi mentioned he didn't care. And you use this to prove my claim false.Apparently you can't read. I very clearly asked him if he would confirm what he told you.

A claim is being made on your message board that you consider some of the claims in the following paper by Theodor Landscheidt to be based on astrology. To clear up any possible confusion or misunderstanding, can you confirm you said anything along those lines, please? ... I am interested in getting clarification of your position on whether any of his claims are astrology or not.He declined to confirm or deny what his position was. He answered both my questions, the one about the challenge and the one about his position on Landscheidt. Calling me a piece of crap does not refute any of that.

EvilYeti: My correspondence with Mr. Randi has been reproduced in thread.And I posted my rebuttal there.

[xouper]

shanek: Both of you, CUT IT OUT about the Randi thing! Really, you're like two children arguing and going to a parent to take sides.OK, I'm done. Let Mr. EvilYeti have the last word on it, I no longer care. He has failed to make his case.

[shanek]

Bump. And it would be nice to actually have these questions answered:

Originally posted by shanek
How do you explain the 800-year lag between a warm period and rising CO₂ levels?
What reason do we have to believe that the current rise in CO₂ levels, correlating with the rises mentioned in the previous question, is simply not a repeat of the trend?
In Landscheidt's methodology is bad, then why did he successfully predict the last three El Ni&ntilde;o events, including the one in late 2002 which happened after we examined his prediction here in a previous thread?
Why do the current measured variances in temperatures in the tropics being shown to correlate with the wetness levels, in contradiction with several global warming models, have "nothing to do with global warming" (your words)?
You claimed, "The rate at which the climate warmed over the last 100 years is unheard of in our natural history." But you never did respond to my data showing warming trends every bit as drastic as this over the past 120,000 years.
Do you still stand by the "hockey-stick" graphs even though the method of measurement changed at the precise point where the last upward trend begins?
Why should we even be worried about the current rise in CO₂ levels, given the data I showed you that it is simply going back to the level it was 18,000 years ago?
Even if humans are causing the current rise in CO₂ levels and the current warming trend, or even contributing to it, why is it any more cause for alarm than in these previous trends where the rise in CO₂ was caused by other means? Please do not answer that the current rise is unprecedented without first addressing the data showing similar rises at similar rates in the past 120,000 years and its consistency with the rising trend over the last 18,000 years.
I'm also still waiting for you to explain how a line on a graph showing a single measurement over time can ever be VERTICAL.
When you challenged me to provide evidence of a previous trend of increasing CO₂ levels of 80ppm over a 200-year period, I provided the following references:

"Dual Modes of the Carbon Cycle Since the Last Glacial Maximum," Nature, 400, 248-250

The most conspicuous feature of the record of past climate contained in polar ice is the rapid warming which occurs after long intervals of gradual cooling. During the last four transitions from glacial to interglacial conditions, over which such abrupt warmings occur, ice records indicate that the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere increased by roughly 80 to 100 parts per million by volume. But the causes of the atmospheric CO2 concentration increases are unclear. Here we present the stable-carbon-isotopic composition (delta13CO2) of CO2 extracted from air trapped in ice at Taylor Dome, Antarctica, from the last Glacial Maximum to the onset of Holocene times. The global carbon cycle is shown to have operated in two distinct primary modes on the timescale of thousands of years, one when climate was changing relatively slowly and another when warming was rapid, each with a characteristic average stable-carbon-isotope composition of the net CO2 exchanged by the atmosphere with the land and oceans. delta13CO2 increased between 16.5 and 9 thousand years ago by slightly more than would be estimated to be caused by the physical effects of a 5 degree C rise in global average sea surface temperature driving a CO2 efflux from the ocean, but our data do not allow specific causes to be constrained.

"Ice Core Records of Atmospheric CO2 Around the Last Three Glacial Terminations," Science, 283, 1712-1714

Air trapped in bubbles in polar ice cores constitutes an archive for the reconstruction of the global carbon cycle and the relation between greenhouse gases and climate in the past. High-resolution records from Antarctic ice cores show that carbon dioxide concentrations increased by 80 to 100 parts per million by volume 600 ±400 years after the warming of the last three deglaciations. Despite strongly decreasing temperatures, high carbon dioxide concentrations can be sustained for thousands of years during glaciations; the size of this phase lag is probably connected to the duration of the preceding warm period, which controls the change in land ice coverage and the buildup of the terrestrial biosphere.

Please respond to this.
Respond to Wallace S. Broecker, “Was the Medieval Warm Period Global?” Science, 291: 1497-99, February 23, 2001, which not refutes your "hockey-stick" graphs, but also concludes: "The post-1860 natural warming was the most recent in a series of similar warmings spaced at roughly 1500-year intervals throughout the present interglacial, the Holocene."
Regardless of sunspots or other causes, why do you feel Landscheit's method of predicting El Ni&ntilde;os by exmining the oscillations between sea surface temperature and air pressure and seeing when they converge at their lowest points is invalid?
How do you explain the correlation between the data in the previous question and the 11-year sunspot cycle, solar wind, and plasma flux from corona holes?
How do you explain his data showing that the phase reversals in the trends mentioned two questions ago is caused by the change in orbital angular momentum?
Defend your claim that scientists should NOT examine the probabilities of all possible outcomes when making their predictions.