brenthutch 444
Recommended Posts
skinnay 0
QuoteQuoteDid I say something about skeptics and greed?
Post 170: "It seems as though there would be a level playing field between these billions of dollars and research grants, and the billions of dollars in exxon mobile profits."
I'm not suggesting skeptics are driven by money. I'm just saying there's plenty of money coming from both sides.
Quote
QuoteI'm actually more willing to believe that they're just not scientists and don't have the slightest clue about climate science.
You're talking about the AGW crowd, right? What with changing data to fit the hypothesis and not the other way around...
It wouldn't surprise me if a few scientists had an agenda or tampered data. If thousands did globally, that would surprise me.
Quote
QuoteI'm more willing to believe that 97% of the world's climate scientists are smarter than america's christian conservatives.
Ah, yes.. that 75 of 77 respondents to an online survey... all hail the 97 percent!
Must be a pretty lame argument if you have to bring in religion and politics as a counter.
This is the 97% I'm talking about. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Surveys_of_scientists_and_scientific_literature
Quote
QuoteDon't get me wrong.. I LOVE a good conspiracy. But for climate scientists to orchestrate the scam you're accusing them of would take the cake for the greatest scam in the history of mankind. But simply the fact that there's 80 billion in global funding for research, doesn't make a great case.
Classic confirmation bias.
This would actually be "classic confirmation bias" if I was a skeptic. I'd love to believe this, but I don't.
skinnay 0
QuoteQuoteJust out of curiosity, why do you think it is that 97% of scientists disagree with you? Is it all part of the liberal agenda? or are they just plain stupid?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Surveys_of_scientists_and_scientific_literature
Not exactly peer reviewed science.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaADQTeZRCY
That's why there are citations.
brenthutch 444
If you take a look at the original post you will see that the climate scientists did not even trust that their numbers were correct. When the data did not fit the model they "padded" and made "adjustments" to the data, not their models.
skinnay 0
QuoteIf you take a look at the original post you will see that the climate scientists did not even trust that their numbers were correct. When the data did not fit the model they "padded" and made "adjustments" to the data, not their models.
Oh really? Damn. Well good thing America has conservative scientists like you to set them straight.
QuoteJust out of curiosity, why do you think it is that 97% of scientists disagree with you? Is it all part of the liberal agenda? or are they just plain stupid?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Surveys_of_scientists_and_scientific_literature
For the same reason that George LeMaitre was shunned and disagreed with. For the same reason that John Houbolt couldn't get anyone to even bother to pay attention and was being attacked and villified.
My position on this is well known here. What's the problem as I see it? People are discussing POLICY under the guise of science. Science and policy in climate have become almost inextricable.
THat's what the CRU emails reveal to me - that there are a lot of people with a lot on the line on all sides. Hence, the politics of personal destruction being discussed in the e-mails (not about the science, but destruction of those who put out "contrarian" thought) is an indicator.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
winsor 236
so do you think all climate scientists are just bankrolling tons of cash and ballin' out with tons of hookers and blow every night? 
I'm going to take a wild guess and say that you probably don't work in any scientific industry
If a researcher tries to put their results in a perspective that flies in the face of AGW orthodoxy, they can kiss any further research grant money goodbye.
For the record, it is pretty much a given that there exists a relationship between the proliferation of humanity, the consumption of fossil fuel and the climate. Having said that, the overall relationship is anything but simplistic, and the models put forth by "climate scientists" are routinely found to be grossly in error and updated with "new, improved" models - which are then found to be grossly in error and further updated.
The Holy Grail of Systems Engineering is the Single-Input Single-Output (SISO) system. This is one in which you change one variable, and only one parameter is affected.
In practice, however, the attempt to decouple inputs from secondary outputs is problematic at best. Dealing with even very simple systems makes it clear that interactions tend to be complex by their very nature.
When people with clear conflicts of interest (funding contingent upon politically acceptable findings) represent a complex system using an SISO model, I call bullshit.
The chief proponents of the AGW cult are technically illiterate. Algore is not now qualified to enter my Alma Mater as a Freshman, and the "C" he got in the only Science course he took in college was but a gift to the Senator's kid. To dumb down any technical issue to the extent that he might think he understands it is to oversimplify it to the exent that it is meaningless.
We face some massive problems, compared to which AGW is trivial. If Carbon emission was anywhere near the biggest issue we faced, we would be in comparatively fantastic shape. As it is, Carbon emissions are way down the list of immediate perils, and the problem is ultimately self-correcting in any event.
It annoys me to no end that nitwits (and some otherwise cognizant individuals) have focused on a comparitive non-issue instead of attempting to address the elements of our self-destruction as a species.
To focus on AGW (or whatever you want to call it) is akin to inventorying the silverware aboard the Titanic after hitting the iceberg.
BSBD,
Winsor
skinnay 0
Ah yes, I'm sure America's conservatives will go down in history as the copernicus of our time.
brenthutch 444
Quote>Oh sorry I forgot that I am replying to Amazon. Let me start over.
>BWAHBWAHBWAHVWAH Butt sore, Koch brothers, Bla Bla Bla George Bush, snort
>snort, Halliburton, big oil yada yada big coal, billionaire overlords wacka wacka wacka.
And your one warning.
OK I will play nice.
brenthutch 444
QuoteJust out of curiosity, why do you think it is that 97% of scientists disagree with you? Is it all part of the liberal agenda? or are they just plain stupid?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Surveys_of_scientists_and_scientific_literature
Do you mean THESE scientists?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/11/29/climategate-ii-more-smoking-guns-from-the-global-warming-establishment/2/
brenthutch 444
Global temp. rise, sea level rise, floods, tornadoes, tropical diseases, glacier melting, ocean acidification, coral reef die-off, wildfires, and all of the other Chicken Little predictions have all been proven to be wrong.
(Links to all of the scientific studies are at the bottom of the page)
http://www.c3headlines.com/predictionsforecasts/
You would think that people would be happy about it.
(Links to all of the scientific studies are at the bottom of the page)
http://www.c3headlines.com/predictionsforecasts/
You would think that people would be happy about it.
QuoteAh yes, I'm sure America's conservatives will go down in history as the copernicus of our time.
You’re being silly. And of course, you are showing the sort of cliquish ridicule that people like me have problems with. You may have noticed that there has been some stuff put out about neutrinos traveling more quickly than the speed of light. A challenge to what has been considered a fundamental law of physics was met with excitement and intrigue and not ridicule.
Meanwhile, those who would dare challenge the predictions of a computer model are met with scorn and ridicule. 90% of my problem with “climate science” is “climate prediction.” There are “predictions” made by computer models. Science is: hypothesis, test, result. Computer models are hypotheses. They’re being tested right now! But – the present results are not in agreement with the computer model predictions. This is explained (legitimately, by the way) with the statement that the accuracy of the models increases over time as signal and noise are separated.
The problem with it is that we will not know whether the models are accurate until starting about 2080. Until then we have scientific wild ass guesses because of the vast number of unknown variables faced in the future.
I compare climate prediction to predicting the boiling point of water. It’s pretty commonly known that water boils at 212 degrees, Fahrenheit (100 degrees C). So if I were pose the hypothetical, “In 2080, there will be a pot of water somewhere on the surface of the earth. At what temperature will it boil?” a person may well be tempted to respond, “212 degrees.” Would the person be wrong? PROBABLY! That’s the boiling point of pure water at standard pressure. To predict the boiling point of water, you’ve got to know variables, i.e.: (1) the atmospheric pressure; (2) the composition of the water (is it deionized water, tap water, salt water, what concentration of impurities, etc.?).
A computer model WILL make a prediction by applications of the formulae it is provided and factoring in the variables assigned to make a prediction of what the boiling point of the notional water in 2080. It performs a statistical analysis by taking into account mean elevation, mean atmospheric pressure, mean water purity, etc., to create a likely scenario. But given that the water can be anywhere between the Dead Sea and Mt. Everest, you’ve got a 55 degree Fahrenheit difference in the possible boiling points of pure water just through differences in elevation.
THIS is why computer predictions are just that – PREDICTIONS. Statistical analyses of possibilities and probabilities. Seeing as how vapor pressure of water is but one of thousands of variables and relationships that each have their own weights assigned, I have difficulty with accepting them as truth. They are not settled science – they are science in the making. Predictions that are being tested as we speak.
I like those who ask questions. I tend to side on those who question what they are told and ask why, how, etc. It is what drives advances. We know the science is not settled - otherwise we wouldn't keep reading about new developments.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
Not exactly peer reviewed science.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaADQTeZRCY
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites