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.
So please tell me...HOW is this NOT political again? For over a decade it has been speculated that the IPCC has held a monopoly on government policy towards climate change as it's scientific base is the standard. Fear monger all you want but this is glorified soothsaying. Time and time again the errors in the analysis have been pointed out and the goalposts have been moved. And this dudes comments are double speak for "telling the policy makers what they want to hear".
Here is the reality: The policymakers haven't the slightest clue of what they are looking at
Then he says it is "the most scrutinized set of documents in the history of science"....flinging poo muchThis "scientific consensus" is just political dogma. And most of the world, Jaymax not excluded, is eating it up.
Can anybody in this thread explain PCA and it's error correction methods in their own words?
How about the importance of independent studies and indie data sets? If so, can anyone verify which data sets by the analysts were made public? How many of them were? Were all of them? Some of them? I mean... we know there were NINE THOUSAND REPORTS..the IPCC says so... how many of them were rubber stamped? What working stiff has the time and resources to look at all these reports?
Can anybody in this thread explain, in detail that we all can "digest", why parallel processing is much better than serial processing (applying the same algorithm to two different global conditions (ocean + atmosphere) )?? We know speed and the volume of raw data in a shorter amount of time can be procured...but what else? If the algorithm is BAD...you can extrapolate for a billion years and it will still be wrong.
I'm honest enough to admit I can't....and this s*** simply cannot be packaged up in a "common sense" delivery.
Those clownish charts can show you the ocean will be a lake of fire in 50 years and you would believe it if some absurdly funded think-tank told you it will.
Amen.
Now go and do your Lords bidding.
Here's the reality: Just because you haven't got the slightest clue of what climate scientists are looking at, doesn't mean they don't.
I can't believe anyone is still trying to have a go at Mann's 1998 hockey stick graph. Do you have any idea how many scientists have looked at different data in different ways and have still come up with the same trends? Even the skeptic physicist Richard Muller (whose 10 year old article you linked to) went around dissing Mann's methodology and results (without understanding them) - until he got his own group of scientists together (BEST), did his own studies and confirmed Mann's results.
Here is what Richard Muller said after he did his own studies:
"CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause"
The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic- Richard Muller
(Pure irony that you linked to one of Muller's articles from 10 years ago )
Also, there is SO much more to climate change and so much more data and evidence available than just surface temperature reconstruction, that you people who are still banging on about Mann's 15 year old hockey stick graph as if that's the only data just look more and more ridiculous.
You're obviously have problems accepting any 'science' that you think doesn't sit well with your worldview.
I do think humans can affect the climate, but I don't think it is that bad provided it doesn't go too fast. From what I see there is no evidence for human induced catastrophic global warming. I think we should reduce pollution somewhat to avoid it going to fast, but I don't think it is the most important issue,
I also think global cooling is a lot worse than global warming. There are hardly any places on earth inhabitable due to being too warm (although some places are too dry). However we have a whole continent inhabitable due to the temperatures being too cold.
I still think we should control pollution, but I think is most important to focus on local pollution. We don't want a fog of pollution like China, we want our rivers to be clean, our forest to be rich of life and the nature to remain beautiful. It is also smart to get less dependent on oil, because oil is just going to get more and more expensive.
So please tell me...HOW is this NOT political again? For over a decade it has been speculated that the IPCC has held a monopoly on government policy towards climate change as it's scientific base is the standard. Fear monger all you want but this is glorified soothsaying. Time and time again the errors in the analysis have been pointed out and the goalposts have been moved. And this dudes comments are double speak for "telling the policy makers what they want to hear".
Here is the reality: The policymakers haven't the slightest clue of what they are looking at
Then he says it is "the most scrutinized set of documents in the history of science"....flinging poo muchThis "scientific consensus" is just political dogma. And most of the world, Jaymax not excluded, is eating it up.
Can anybody in this thread explain PCA and it's error correction methods in their own words?
How about the importance of independent studies and indie data sets? If so, can anyone verify which data sets by the analysts were made public? How many of them were? Were all of them? Some of them? I mean... we know there were NINE THOUSAND REPORTS..the IPCC says so... how many of them were rubber stamped? What working stiff has the time and resources to look at all these reports?
Can anybody in this thread explain, in detail that we all can "digest", why parallel processing is much better than serial processing (applying the same algorithm to two different global conditions (ocean + atmosphere) )?? We know speed and the volume of raw data in a shorter amount of time can be procured...but what else? If the algorithm is BAD...you can extrapolate for a billion years and it will still be wrong.
I'm honest enough to admit I can't....and this s*** simply cannot be packaged up in a "common sense" delivery.
Those clownish charts can show you the ocean will be a lake of fire in 50 years and you would believe it if some absurdly funded think-tank told you it will.
Amen.
Now go and do your Lords bidding.
Geez, denial is like a religion with you guys as you blind yourself to reality...Those charts you call clownish are not predictions, but recorded events and temperatures...They have nothing to do with computer modeling...
Medieval warming has no relationship with what is happening today.
When we began our study, we felt that skeptics had raised legitimate issues, and we didn't know what we'd find. Our results turned out to be close to those published by prior groups. We think that means that those groups had truly been very careful in their work, despite their inability to convince some skeptics of that. They managed to avoid bias in their data selection, homogenization and other corrections Global warming is real......... Richard A. Muller, October 2011
I do think humans can affect the climate, but I don't think it is that bad provided it doesn't go too fast. From what I see there is no evidence for human induced catastrophic global warming. I think we should reduce pollution somewhat to avoid it going to fast, but I don't think it is the most important issue,
I also think global cooling is a lot worse than global warming. There are hardly any places on earth inhabitable due to being too warm (although some places are too dry). However we have a whole continent inhabitable due to the temperatures being too cold.
I still think we should control pollution, but I think is most important to focus on local pollution. We don't want a fog of pollution like China, we want our rivers to be clean, our forest to be rich of life and the nature to remain beautiful. It is also smart to get less dependent on oil, because oil is just going to get more and more expensive.
"When we began our study, we felt that skeptics had raised legitimate issues, and we didn't know what we'd find. Our results turned out to be close to those published by prior groups. We think that means that those groups had truly been very careful in their work, despite their inability to convince some skeptics of that. They managed to avoid bias in their data selection, homogenization and other corrections Global warming is real"......... Richard A. Muller, October 2011
It was hilarious that he chose an article by Richard Muller to support his views. I've seen a few denialists do the same thing, not being aware that Muller has since completely changed his views.
Which one do you dispute, and why do you think so?
If you are thinking about why I don't believe in catastrophic global warming, then it is because there are no prehistoric precedent. The globe has experienced much larger temperature fluctuations and life still moved on.
Nature is and should be able to adapt to new climates. It would be a problem if it goes really fast. But the evidence suggests that previous estimations were overestimating the CO2 effect on the global temperature.
When we began our study, we felt that skeptics had raised legitimate issues, and we didn't know what we'd find. Our results turned out to be close to those published by prior groups. We think that means that those groups had truly been very careful in their work, despite their inability to convince some skeptics of that. They managed to avoid bias in their data selection, homogenization and other corrections Global warming is real......... Richard A. Muller, October 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaymax
It was hilarious that he chose an article by Richard Muller to support his views. I've seen a few denialists do the same thing, not being aware that Muller has since completely changed his views.
Ooops.
This does not, in any way, fly in the face of the FACT that you both have NO IDEA what you are being prescribed. If you were given the opportunity to hand pick 10 of any of the raw data sets these climatologists collected..you couldn't..
1 - interpret them
and
2 - even explain the methods used
and that is for starters.
You are dependent on the data being EXACTLY what they say it is in their layman terms.
Face it - This is your religion
In addition, you are taking Mullers "change of heart" for face value....
Care to present a breakdown of WHY he changed his mind...??? Has he provided any? Or has he just given you a cozy vote of confidence and, obviously, that is more than enough for you?
This does not, in any way, fly in the face of the FACT that you both have NO IDEA what you are being prescribed. If you were given the opportunity to hand pick 10 of any of the raw data sets these climatologists collected..you couldn't..
1 - interpret them
and
2 - even explain the methods used
and that is for starters.
You are dependent on the data being EXACTLY what they say it is in their layman terms.
Face it - This is your religion
In addition, you are taking Mullers "change of heart" for face value....
Care to present a breakdown of WHY he changed his mind...??? Has he provided any? Or has he just given you a cozy vote of confidence and, obviously, that is more than enough for you?
AMEN...now go in peace and serve the Lord.
You missed a bit while trying to wipe the egg off your face .... yet again.
Is it any surprise that some of the loudest voices ranting about the 'global warming hoax!" are religious zealots and Biblical Creationists who are signatories to the Creationist Cornwall Alliance's:
"We believe Earth and its ecosystems – created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence – are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history.
The Cornwall Declaration further sets forth an articulate and Biblically-grounded set of beliefs and aspirations in which God can be glorified through a world in which "human beings care wisely and humbly for all creatures" and "widespread economic freedom…makes sound ecological stewardship available to ever greater numbers."
How often do we see these names amongst the denialists?
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.
)
