U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-11-2012, 06:47 AM
 
13,072 posts, read 11,058,661 times
Reputation: 2606

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight View Post
Studies that will convince you doesn't exist, never exist you can chose to ignore all the present science.
That is because the position of CAGW is founded on suppositions derived from models that consistently fail.

Tell me something. How is it that a model can be correct in its forecasting ability, yet fail in hind-casting ability? Answer: it can not. Those models consistently fail to not only forecast even a decade into the future, but can not even properly hind cast the past, and we are to accept them as valid? Why?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-11-2012, 06:52 AM
 
13,072 posts, read 11,058,661 times
Reputation: 2606
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post
Glen Beck's rag The Blaze? LOL Really? NASA has thousands of scientists, so there are bound to be a few nuts among them.
Interesting.

So they are nuts now because they object to poor methods used to establish the position of CAGW. They are nuts? While people like James Hansen politicize the issue with wildly unsupported futuristic claims and who has been arrested numerous times for protesting his political movement.

Yep, those objecting to the poor methodology have to be nuts! They aren't the respected and rational mind of someone like him! /boggle
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-11-2012, 06:54 AM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,894 posts, read 13,093,621 times
Reputation: 3946
Quote:
Originally Posted by doctrain View Post
Oh my! You mean to tell me that NASA hires RWNJ 'Flat Earthers?"
On occasion, yes. In the 1990s for example, NASA had difficulty implementing bar codes for inventory purposes because some of its employees believed they were the Biblical "mark of the beast."

You will find nutjobs in any organization of any respectable size.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-11-2012, 06:55 AM
 
13,072 posts, read 11,058,661 times
Reputation: 2606
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor View Post
You're right. It makes no more sense than having doctors be the only ones who should diagnose an illness. Afterall everyone knows that aerospace engineering is EXACTLY the same as heart surgery. I'm sure the next time you need a bypass you'll be heading over to the nearest airplane factory.




EVERYONE is entitled to an opinion - but not all opinions are EQUAL.

Ken
Is a mathematician qualified to comment on mathematics?

Is a physicist qualified to comment on physics?

Again:

NASA GISS: James E. Hansen

Quote:
Education:
  • B.A., Physics and Mathematics, 1963, University of Iowa
  • M.S., Astronomy, 1965, University of Iowa
  • Ph.D., Physics, 1967, University of Iowa
Where do you see "climate science" as his area of expertise?

Last edited by Nomander; 04-11-2012 at 07:25 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-11-2012, 06:58 AM
 
Location: Londonderry, NH
41,505 posts, read 49,474,339 times
Reputation: 24547
Just more RWNJ's (or paid shills) casting doubt on the obvious. Anyone that has been alive for fifty years or so and still has a functioning memory can tell you the climate has been getting warmer on a year round basis. I have and I will say that I have noticed.

All computer models of either climate or finance are about as reliable as using the entrails of a goat to forecast the future. More accurate, but less verifiable, results can be obtained by studying the factors involved and just think about the problem.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-11-2012, 07:01 AM
 
13,072 posts, read 11,058,661 times
Reputation: 2606
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude View Post
On occasion, yes. In the 1990s for example, NASA had difficulty implementing bar codes for inventory purposes because some of its employees believed they were the Biblical "mark of the beast."

You will find nutjobs in any organization of any respectable size.

And yet Hansen and Schmidt are the ones who have consistently politicized the issue, refused to release their data and methodology when there were inquiries and in the case of Hansen, been arrested numerous times for political activism, used his position in a government agency to put pressure on other countries and agencies outside of the scope of his authority and not to mention taken private money from activist sources to promote his politically oriented opinions.

Yep, nutjob is correct.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-11-2012, 07:06 AM
 
13,072 posts, read 11,058,661 times
Reputation: 2606
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregW View Post
Just more RWNJ's (or paid shills) casting doubt on the obvious. Anyone that has been alive for fifty years or so and still has a functioning memory can tell you the climate has been getting warmer on a year round basis. I have and I will say that I have noticed.

All computer models of either climate or finance are about as reliable as using the entrails of a goat to forecast the future. More accurate, but less verifiable, results can be obtained by studying the factors involved and just think about the problem.
At least we agree on the bold. Problem is, the CAGW position suffers from doubt because it is not practicing science. In science, we do not need to establish "belief" to which "doubt" can have any real meaning. Doubt after all is the basis to which evaluations are made and to which proper verification, validation, and replication alleviate.

The method of evaluation you mention without such process is simply guessing and illogically assuming correlative relation. That is not science, it is hokum.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-11-2012, 07:07 AM
 
14,298 posts, read 7,712,790 times
Reputation: 4243
Quote:
Originally Posted by doctrain View Post
"Just as Jim Hansen, the head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, has recently likened man-made global warming to “a great moral issue” like “slavery,” a group of 49 former NASA scientists issued a letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolton asking for the administration refrain from including “unproven and unsupported remarks” about climate science in its communications."

"The letter, sent at the end of March, includes former scientists, astronauts and two former directors of NASA’s Johnson Space Center who believe climate science is “not settled” and wish for NASA to look at all available scientific data before making claims of carbon dioxide’s “catastrophic impact”.


Former NASA Scientists, Directors, Astronauts Send Letter Stating Climate Science Is Not Settled | TheBlaze.com

Oh my! You mean to tell me that NASA hires RWNJ 'Flat Earthers?"
The political agenda is settled, and science and facts be damned
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-11-2012, 07:32 AM
 
Location: Norman, OK
3,479 posts, read 6,171,423 times
Reputation: 1193
So essentially if I find 49 people to sign a letter stating that the world is flat or that gravity (also a theory) is not true, then the scientific evidence and consensus supporting the opposite is therefore 100% wrong? I welcome people posting published studies by the 49 people on that letter about their research in climate science because, otherwise, this reduces to a mere petition with learned people on it.

I welcome differing opinions on scientific concepts. I don't want people shut out on either side. But these ideas that there is not a consensus or that humans cannot impact climate change are just blatantly false. We can argue about the magnitude of the impact (it is positive and non-zero, however), but not about the fundamentals. And before I get about 30 replies/quotes to this from the anti-AGW folks on this board, please respond intelligently and thoughtfully.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-11-2012, 07:43 AM
 
Location: Wasilla, Alaska
17,850 posts, read 19,567,231 times
Reputation: 6473
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714 View Post
Yes. It is called a Milankovitch Cycle. It can tell you which way the change in the climate should be headed. The last glacial maxima was 15-20K yrs ago. The last glacial minima was about 4K yrs ago. That means we should be in a slow cooling phase.
I am familiar with the Milankovitch Cycle, and there is a flaw with that model. It does not take into consideration the precession of the ecliptic, which occurs in 70,000 year cycles. The Earth drifts up and down relative to its current orbit. Milankovitch did not take this three-dimensional movement into consideration. However, that does not negate Milankovitch's hypothesis of northern hemisphere insolation.

The 1980 Imbrie study says we should be in a slow cooling phase for the next 23,000 years or so according to the Milankovitch Cycle. However, a more current study (2002) by Berger and Loutre suggests the current warming trend may last another 50,000 years.

Source: An Exceptionally Long Interglacial Ahead?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:38 AM.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top