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.
Funny how this Nomander fella calls me arrogant because he fails to recognize that the scientific community doesn't have time to respond to every conspiracy theorists out there, just like the govt ignores Truthers who simply won't hear anything no matter how many facts you throw at them.
He then says consencus is not a valid position, but complains peer-review was flawed. So there's no peer-review needed? What's it gonna be?
And every argument that doesn't go his way is autmotically 'garbage'. And I'm the arrogant guy.
Weather is such a variable kind of thing to measure, I tend to expect conflicting data. The reason I don't think the case is made to outright IGNORE NOAA or NASA is because they ARE collecting data. They may not be collecting it under ideal circumstances. There may be fudging going on in terms of compiling that data, and the data is certainly open to different interpretations. But incomplete, less than satisfactory data is still data.
We are far from understanding how climate works on this planet, and the computer models are just as subject to GIGO now as they were forty years ago. But the acquisition of data is key to gaining a better understanding. My support is for science, not for any political agenda. I think there are scientists working on figuring out how climate works, because climate does have a big impact on the life forms that exist here. So we need to learn a lot more. Take any predictions with a grain of salt, because with so many variables, the predictions are best-guesses. But let's not entirely discount the data that we do have, because there is some solid data being produced from these studies and observations.
You kind of ignored my later point, which was that the same data in 1999 showed a drop in average mean temps, and then in 2011 they manipulate the data and we now have them showing us a half a degree increase in temps. That is enough for me to ignore them when they make dramatic claims concerning climate change.
Water vapor is the most influential green house gas, and yet we cannot accurately measure the amount of water vapor in our atmosphere, and therefore we cannot accurately determine its affects on climate. So I am extremely skeptical when people claim a few more molecules of CO2 are or will dramatically change our climate, and and those changes will be the doom of mankind. So when I see data get manipulated to show an almost one degree increase, i have to assume the are pushing an agenda.
and here we have it folks. Push them into the corner and they throw down the arrogant trump card!!
This isn't a new card because I got pushed into a corner. I made it clear in my initial comment that your average joe should stop assuming he knows better than scientists in the field.
I simply repeated it and you've decided it's arrogant because it's the latest thing you found into this conversation. (An age old argument used by creationists as well who say it's only "fair" that they get a say in evolution, when really, they don't.)
If you can't follow the chronology of a conversation, there's no point talking to you.
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:
My point was that if YOU use their own data to debunk their conclusions, YOU are saying that their data is not all Garbage.
I'm saying that ALL their data is not Garbage. Some of the data is tainted but not ALL of it. And the problem with climate science is the lack of reliable data. The data that is not tainted is of value to scientists. It may not be of value to a political agenda, and when scientists are part of a political agenda, it's appropriate to question the data, and to question the conclusions. But climate science is really a new field in science. Weather has so many variables, that predicting if it's going to snow in Boston next week is a challenge. Understanding climate, and the relationships between weather patterns and climate is of tremendous value to humans. We should be challenging the scientists to do the science better. But we need to keep on collecting data, and doing what science does, trying to explain the data.
Remember folks, never let conspiracy theorists drag you in an alternate reality of their own making.
It's not worth the effort.
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.
Quick burn more stuff! 
