Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There is actual proof that asteroids or meteors have wiped out life on earth.
I'd put my money towards finding ways to divert catastrophic strikes from those than working on the phantom "global warming".
And, I'm in the solar business!
I make my living consulting people and businesses on the benefits of solar energy.
I have a solar array which is making me money!
And, it's very lucrative. I'll be retired in 5 years, thank you "global warming" fanatics, at age 53!
How do you like that?
Wow. Something we agree on. A very real risk, though probably not likely in our lifetimes, it is pretty scary when you think about it. One of the few things that could end the whole story.
This is an image of Jupiter after impact by the Shoemaker-Levy comet fragments. Each fireball is larger than the Earth!
I disagree with you. Data is data. Data that has been changed is not data. But there is raw data that is being collected. Right now, we simply don't have sufficient data to reliably make conclusions about the climate. We can identify trends, but even then, we don't actually understand what has created those trends because this is a branch of science that is underdeveloped. But you don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.
correct, data that is changed is not valid data unless it properly shows its change and properly accounts for the adjustments. You do realize that a lot of the problems we are seeing is that the homogenized data is showing large warming bias while the raw data is not? You do realize that a big problem is that those agencies who are adjusting the data are not releasing the methods to which they make the adjustments leading to these FOIA requests? You do realize that this is really one of the largest problems with the surface records, the grid celling process that NASA uses, and the manner to which they account for UHI and the like? That is... they... are using data that they have changed and it conflicts with the raw data.
Heck, that is why I prefer using DMI over NASA because DMI actually goes out and checks it stations regularly while NASA uses mathematical assumptions to figure changes to stations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
And Nomander, you cannot logically say: J"ust recently they claimed 2010 the warmest year on record, yet by their very own records, this is false," and then say that their records are garbage. If you use their own records to dispute their findings, you are saying that some of the data has value.
Check it yourself. My point is that by their own data, their claim is not supported. This suggests they have been playing with the data to get their claim:
Some of the data has value. These organizations are collecting data that has value. Therefore, the organizations have some value as well. And yes, I agree with you that challenging their conclusions is the very nature of science. As I said earlier, I'm an advocate of science on this issue, not of a political agenda.
The data has no value if it is garbage data. Let me explain. If you have a station that is sitting next to an air conditioner or some other heat source (tarmac) and it shows a warming bias, yet you do not look into that specific and simply account for it as normal, then what you have is garbage. IT isn't useful, it isn't helpful because it is out of context. That is, you would then be mislead that the temp you collected is correct when in fact is is severely biased due to the influence and it would lead you to conclusions that are invalid. Garbage in, Garbage out.
Depends on who does the questionning. Anchors on TV shows and people who live in trailer parks do not apply.
Arrogant response in my opinion. It believes that unless the person asking a questions holds a PHD in that specific field, then their questions are invalid. This is a fallacy, an arrogant one to boot and often used to avoid answering to a failure in ones position. Point is, its an avoid the question, attack the person asking it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeorgeLucasLongLostChin
Experts who are not in their respective field of expertise that are given a mic to make some noise do no count either.
Again, another arrogant attempt to avoid the issue and dismiss them. That argument would gain you an F in intro to logic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeorgeLucasLongLostChin
All kinds of science gets questionned everyday. The problem in this case is that the unqualified think they're qualified.
Need I provide you with the educational backgrounds of many of the people you believe are qualified to hold the positions you accept from them? I think you might be surprised to see how many of your "climate scientists" do not have educations in climate science disciplines. Though again, you are dismissing the issue. Tell me how a mathematician such as McIntyre is not qualified to object to a statistically invalid method used by a climate scientist? Which one is the expert in math again?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeorgeLucasLongLostChin
So far, the scientific community has a concensus on global warming. If they change their mind, I'll change mine. People listen to their doctors for medical advice, why shouldn't you listen to climate scientist for climate?
Consensus is not a valid position in the scientific process. Consensus is irrelevant to the scientific method. Consensus is worthless and simply a political tool to convince sheep to agree with the cool crowd.
Medicine is a practice and people don't "listen", they evaluate the advice of the practitioner and then seek other opinions if they find it lacking.
Thankfully, science does not require us to accept the word of such, which is why it contains a process to which properly shows the position of a scientist to be evident. I could care less what a scientist "thinks", I am only concerned with that which they can properly show to be evident. If they can't then well.. they are simply lobbing spit balls of opinion.
More garbage. Sorry Sickofnyc, I have mopped the floor with you on this subject in the past. I am not going to do it all over again because you ignored the evidence.
Theories and hypothesis are not beliefs. Only a christian could mistake these words.
Do you know what a hypothesis is? It's not a belief.
"For a hypothesis to be put forward as a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it. Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot satisfactorily be explained with the available scientific theories. Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously in common and informal usage, a scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory. A working hypothesis is a provisionally accepted hypothesis"""
Don't be obtuse.
Quote:
hy·poth·e·sis
1.
a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts.
2.
a proposition assumed as a premise in an argument.
3.
the antecedent of a conditional proposition.
4.
a mere assumption or guess.
It is a belief that a set of circumstances conclude a particular reaction or result.
If several events are known and they have simliarties, it would be my belief that they are connected by some specific factor. This would be my hypothesis to which I would test such a belief to see if it is evident. If my tests are consistently shown to be evident (contain no unexplained divergence) and it can be replicated by another, then my hypothesis is therefore shown to be valid.
Seriously, cut the stupid arguments out. Its childish.
Whatever you say about climategate doesn't change the scientific concensus on global warming. Convince them, not me.
Consensus is a pointless argument and not to mention a BS one as there is no consensus, simply administrations, activist groups, and individuals making claims of such when they do not exist. Or have you forgot the fiasco with several agencies being dropped membership because they attempted to claim its membership supported their summary statements on the issue. Seriously, you are arguing a 2 year old position and it was beat to death and shown to be garbage. Catch up with the times, you are behind.
You don't have the credentials to argue against scientific concensus.
You stated you're a consultant on solar energy.
I know this is the infromation age, but people need to stop thinking they know better than actual experts.
and here we have it folks. Push them into the corner and they throw down the arrogant trump card!
Remember folks, you can not possibly even attempt to comment on this issue as you are all stupid and don't hold a candle to the brilliant minds of the climate science community!!
Shut up all you peasants, the lords of climate have spoken!
Fallacious arguments are so fun! weeeee!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
