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.
Look, the places you get your info from are way too biased. I'd be ignorant to accept their claims up front. The real big issue is, what is their goal? A "Carbon tax that goes to where, the UN? Really, how am I ignorant, and a low information voter for wondering about those issues? As for football, I don't waste my time on foolishness like that.
As for certain UN IPCC officials, Ottmar Edenhofer has said it was not about climate, but massive looting ( think carbon tax ), however that story has vanished from the thegwpf.org website.
How exactly are you any different with your bias information? What's your side's goal? You realize you are guilty of everything you claim to despise or be against?
I ask for a link to prove that NASA and NOAA claim that AGW has stopped for 18 years, and the best you can come up with is this anti science creation believing crank?
Booker has also claimed that asbestos is chemically identical to talcum powder, and harmless...Tell that to the many people who suffer from the many diseases caused by asbestos.
He makes similar claims for tobacco, and DDT....Yeah this is proof alright!
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,920,960 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur
I ask for a link to prove that NASA and NOAA claim that AGW has stopped for 18 years, and the best you can come up with is this anti science creation believing crank?
Booker has also claimed that asbestos is chemically identical to talcum powder, and harmless...Tell that to the many people who suffer from the many diseases caused by asbestos.
He makes similar claims for tobacco, and DDT....Yeah this is proof alright!
Thank for the laugh...
lookby4youcross is still trying to figure out if he answers what the scientific method is if it ruins his arguments.
Computer modeling is used in most every hard science discipline. We've reached that stage where the vast data is beyond our human processing.
Thanks for the link to an opinion piece.
How sad that more and more people think that just because it is becoming more costly and time consuming to collect and process data in the manner we do now so we must abandon real data and rely upon computer models.
There is another way - automate the collection of real data and then use all that computer power to process that real data.
There is no retailer in the nation that would rely upon computer models in order to manage their inventories. The auto industry would never rely upon computer models to keep track of the parts they need to assemble their products. UPS and FED EX would never use computer modeling to track your package. I'm pretty sure that the oil and gas industries do not use computer modeling to determine where to drill. I'm pretty sure that NASA does not use computer modeling to calculate velocities and orbits.
Pretty much all the aforementioned industries process vast amounts of data in real time on any given day.
I wonder why so many in the scientific field would do differently than highly successful non science industries...
Once again, you totally are avoiding answering the following:
Perhaps it would be a worthwhile discussion what you think the scientific method is, what is its strong points, and what its weak points are.
I have not pointed to any 'places'. I am asking what YOUR understanding of the scientific method is. There is no sense discussing the other issues if we can't even agree whether the road we are talking about is paved or gravel.
There is no scientific method being used! It is just data that is over played and stretched.
I ask for a link to prove that NASA and NOAA claim that AGW has stopped for 18 years, and the best you can come up with is this anti science creation believing crank?
Booker has also claimed that asbestos is chemically identical to talcum powder, and harmless...Tell that to the many people who suffer from the many diseases caused by asbestos.
He makes similar claims for tobacco, and DDT....Yeah this is proof alright!
Thank for the laugh...
Look, you're the ones that are spewing the global warming/climate change agenda, YOU need to prove to me that it is actually happening, without the usual government and UN websites, and left leaning sources. How can someone be anti-science. You sure have the 25 rules of disinfo down, pat.
You conspiracy theorists are trying to pull out all the stops to try and win one of these climate change/global warming threads, now that is FUNNY! You'll have to play dirty like you usually due, to get it locked.
How exactly are you any different with your bias information? What's your side's goal? You realize you are guilty of everything you claim to despise or be against?
So not having carbon tax is still going to destroy the economy, is that what you're saying? What am I guilty of despising, or being against?
How sad that more and more people think that just because it is becoming more costly and time consuming to collect and process data in the manner we do now so we must abandon real data and rely upon computer models.
You already rely on computer models and algorithms. You seem to be misunderstanding the difference between climate models and algorithms/computer models.
Quote:
There is another way - automate the collection of real data and then use all that computer power to process that real data.
Yes, that is what models do. They rely on us creating algorithms in order to process that data.... the computers have to be told how to act.
Quote:
There is no retailer in the nation that would rely upon computer models in order to manage their inventories. The auto industry would never rely upon computer models to keep track of the parts they need to assemble their products. UPS and FED EX would never use computer modeling to track your package. I'm pretty sure that the oil and gas industries do not use computer modeling to determine where to drill. I'm pretty sure that NASA does not use computer modeling to calculate velocities and orbits.
Pretty much all the aforementioned industries process vast amounts of data in real time on any given day.
You don't seem to understand.
Quote:
I wonder why so many in the scientific field would do differently than highly successful non science industries...
Look, you're the ones that are spewing the global warming/climate change agenda, YOU need to prove to me that it is actually happening, without the usual government and UN websites, and left leaning sources. How can someone be anti-science. You sure have the 25 rules of disinfo down, pat.
You conspiracy theorists are trying to pull out all the stops to try and win one of these climate change/global warming threads, now that is FUNNY! You'll have to play dirty like you usually due, to get it locked.
The information is actually out there.... If you really cared, like seriously, you could cough up some many to pay for subscription to any number of journals. Or at the very least use google scholar and get the information yourself.
Lastly, why are looking for proof on an internet forum? Seems like you're not that serious.
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.
How can someone be anti-science. You sure have the 25 rules of disinfo down, pat.