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.
Dr. Richard Lindzen, MIT
Dr. Will Happer, Princeton
Dr. Patrick Moore, Greenpeace
You linked to Martin Armstrong. Twice.
Anyway, you said all climatologists are on the take? Why is Dr. Lindsey different? Oh wait because you think he supports your cause.
Except, that isn't the case.
He doesn't argue about existence of anthropogenic climate change, just the maginitude of its effect. His iris hypothesis only works if there is anthropogenic climate change to begin with and his issues with modeling have to do with his concern (contradicted by Lin using satellite data from MODIS) that iris isn't included.
If you want to use Dr. Lindzen the you are clearly accepting the reality of anthropogenic climate change as he does.
I think I remember this. Wasn't it just a matter of them normalizing the data and people got all up in arms because they didn't understand that normalizing data is standard practice and necessary?
No, it is not. Cite the scientific method steps it takes to proceed from hypothesis to theory.
This should be in caps.
HYPOTHESES DO NOT CHANGE INTO THEORIES.
A theory has a body of evidence, it makes predictions, it is falsifiable.
A hypothesis is a single prediction. It is a piece of a much larger pie that is a theory.
Theories cannot be proven, they are only supported, and they constantly change as more information is added to the body of evidence.
A hypothesis is either supported or disprove. After which it may inspire a new hypothesis, or its testing become part of a body of evidence. It does not become a theory. That is not how science works.
Here is a high school level explanation of your misconception that even you should be able to understand.
Not to cite his opinion, but to indicate three of the prominent scientist dissenters. Had you bothered to follow through on info provided to you, you would have found it linked to further info with far more extensive info provided by those three.
Having a closed mind is unscientific.
You seem to be adhering to a religious-like belief in AGW/ACC rather than actual science. Why? Cui bono?
I think I remember this. Wasn't it just a matter of them normalizing the data and people got all up in arms because they didn't understand that normalizing data is standard practice and necessary?
Yes. Dr. Bates has repeatedly stated his concerns have nothing to do with the validity of anthropogenic climate change and are just a disagreement over methodology.
"The issue here is not an issue of tampering with data, but rather really of timing of a release of a paper that had not properly disclosed everything it was"
Not to cite his opinion, but to indicate three of the prominent scientist dissenters. Had you bothered to follow through on info provided to you, you would have found it linked to further info with far more extensive info provided by those three.
Having a closed mind is unscientific.
You seem to be adhering to a religious-like belief in AGW/ACC rather than actual science. Why? Cui bono?
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714
You linked to Martin Armstrong. Twice.
Anyway, you said all climatologists are on the take? Why is Dr. Lindsey different? Oh wait because you think he supports your cause.
Except, that isn't the case.
He doesn't argue about existence of anthropogenic climate change, just the maginitude of its effect. His iris hypothesis only works if there is anthropogenic climate change to begin with and his issues with modeling have to do with his concern (contradicted by Lin using satellite data from MODIS) that iris isn't included.
If you want to use Dr. Lindzen the you are clearly accepting the reality of anthropogenic climate change as he does.
Except Dr. Lindzen is not a denier of anthropogenic climate change, your source, a felon, was wrong about that. As you are.
Actually, in fact, given verification, they do. Theories are formulated FROM hypotheses.
Lookee, lookee, you said HYPOTHESES as in plural. Yes, it takes many, hypothesES to make a theory. Because they make up part of the body of evidence and there are still yet other parts. See he can learn.
But just because a house is made of trees, doesn't mean a tree BECOMES a house.
Actually, in fact, given verification, they do. Theories are formulated FROM hypotheses.
That is why I gave up. It is obvious the posters education level in science is that of a liberal arts major or some other field that has minimal hard science and math requirements. It is pointless. Either they are ignorant or they are activists trying to promote at all costs. Either way, this is a waste of time.
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.
