Oh (North) Carolina!

[Hansmeister]

What kind of confidence level are the tests currently producing Hans?

I stopped looking years ago since the climate "scientists" kept being caught in one fraud after another but back then they were citing confidence factors of less than 90% as authoritative, which is of course nonsense, but they were pitching their arguments to people who didn't understand shit about statistic to whom that seemed like a high number.

Note: multiple regression analysis only measures correlation, not causation.  But if you can't even prove one, how are you going to prove the other?  And the correlation of CO2 and global temperatures, however tenuous, only holds up for a relatively short time period from the early '70s to the late '90s.  Any time period prior or after that you might as well just plug in random numbers, that is how little it is correlated.

It is absurd to base your whole believe system in global warming on such a tiny snap shot in time.  Given how often the "scientists" of the global warming hysteria have been caught committing fraud only a moron would believe anything they say.  They sound like Jehovah Witness, who kept believing their founders repeated predictions of the end of the world.  It is a faith for the gullible, and a multi-billion dollar industry.  The apostles are laughing all the way to the bank.  I also always note how the apostles always seem to follow a "do as I say, not as I do" credo.  As with all frauds they always trying to sell you something they would never buy themselves.

[Razgovory]

Oh, so you don't actually know and the proof you request won't actually change your mind.  So this is just crazy bullshit you are spouting.  Tell me, Hans, do you think that if climate scientists were arguing something that required action that benefited the donors of causes that you support you would be so adamant in opposing it?

[Admiral Yi]

Hans:

Are you saying that study after study after study resulted in a t-test of <90% on the CO2 coefficient, or just some?

[Ideologue]

I guess environmentalism is a substitude for religion for the post-modern left.  The whole artifice of the modern environmetalist movement is a bunch of bizarre religious claptrap: organic farming, opposition to GM food, peak oil, population bomb, vegan/vegetarianism, global warming, noble savages (Dances with Wolves, Pocahontas, Avatar), sustainable development.

A bunch of retarded fundies.

Global warming aside, you're also wrong about vegetarianism, which has some pretty solid rational support beneath it.

Overpopulation people weren't wrong twenty or thirty years ago, it's just they haven't looked at any population projections since, which suggest a peak population by about 2050 and slow dieback from then.

Of course, with folks like you still wielding political power, it may be much sooner!

[Ideologue]

Windmills are retarded. Nuclear is where it's at.

Uranium is finite, and we need it for spaceships and anti-China weapons.

[Viking]

What kind of confidence level are the tests currently producing Hans?

I stopped looking years ago since the climate "scientists" kept being caught in one fraud after another but back then they were citing confidence factors of less than 90% as authoritative, which is of course nonsense, but they were pitching their arguments to people who didn't understand shit about statistic to whom that seemed like a high number.

The only so called "fraud" is ClimateGate, where a hacker broke into the email system at Essex University and copied thousands of emails and found two out of context statements and used them to claim all of Climate Science is a fraud. The two examples are explained in the link above.

There is; however; repeated and consistent actual fraud among climate change deniers. (for example this).

Note: multiple regression analysis only measures correlation, not causation.  But if you can't even prove one, how are you going to prove the other?  And the correlation of CO2 and global temperatures, however tenuous, only holds up for a relatively short time period from the early '70s to the late '90s.  Any time period prior or after that you might as well just plug in random numbers, that is how little it is correlated.

Correlation does not equal causation, but in the case of complex (as in made up of many independent parts) correlation means you have a viable model.

And again, science is hard and ofen inaccurate. However, no alternative explanation is better. You complain that the science isn't good enough, that might be right, but that complaint effectively ends your political point since no climate denying model comes anywhere close to the scientific ones in getting it right.

If you won't subject your own favoured science to the same standards you subject your dis-favoured science you are being dishonest.

It is absurd to base your whole believe system in global warming on such a tiny snap shot in time.  Given how often the "scientists" of the global warming hysteria have been caught committing fraud only a moron would believe anything they say.  They sound like Jehovah Witness, who kept believing their founders repeated predictions of the end of the world.  It is a faith for the gullible, and a multi-billion dollar industry.  The apostles are laughing all the way to the bank.  I also always note how the apostles always seem to follow a "do as I say, not as I do" credo.  As with all frauds they always trying to sell you something they would never buy themselves.

sigh, rant....

[Ideologue]

So, Viking, what about vegetarianism do you think is dogmatic or religion-y?

I mean, it makes me morally superior, sure.  But that's not a bug, it's a feature.

[Viking]

Hans:

Are you saying that study after study after study resulted in a t-test of <90% on the CO2 coefficient, or just some?

Even the study funded by the Koch Brothers and run by the few remaining climate deniers of note gave the same results as everybody else, converting a few of the climate deniers in the process.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2011/1021/Climate-study-funded-in-part-by-conservative-group-confirms-global-warming

Money for the new study, dubbed the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, came from five foundations, including one established by Microsoft founder Bill Gates and another from the Charles Koch Charitable Foundation, widely seen as a source of money for conservative organizations and initiatives that have fought efforts to curb greenhouse-gas emissions.

Indeed, the new approach to analyzing temperatures records allowed the team to make use of partial and older records previous studies had rejected as unusable, explains Richard Muller, a physicist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory who coordinated the effort.

In the end, the team's result shows that the earlier studies "were done carefully and that potential biases identified by climate-change skeptics did not seriously affect" the conclusions these studies reached, said Dr. Muller, who some climate activists have labeled a global-warming skeptic.

...

Besides confirming the temperature trend, the Berkeley group says it was able to rule out the urban heat-island effect as a significant contributor to global warming.

And it was able to show that even with a large number of critical US recording stations operating inaccurately, those stations still showed long-term trends that were consistent with more reliable stations.

In essence, any given measuring station may be off compared with surrounding stations. But if it's off by a consistent amount, long-term trends will still show up.

Basically the climate sceptics got all the money they needed to do all the science they wanted and honestly reported at the end that all the other scientists were right global warming is happening.

[Viking]

So, Viking, what about vegetarianism do you think is dogmatic or religion-y?

I mean, it makes me morally superior, sure.  But that's not a bug, it's a feature.

It gives you a false sense of moral superiority. What about (most forms of vegitarianism) makes them dogmatic and religion-y?

Well, the dietary restrictions obviously...

[Darth Wagtaros]

So, Viking, what about vegetarianism do you think is dogmatic or religion-y?

I mean, it makes me morally superior, sure.  But that's not a bug, it's a feature.

It gives you a false sense of moral superiority. What about (most forms of vegitarianism) makes them dogmatic and religion-y?

Well, the dietary restrictions obviously...

Hitler was a vegetarian.  If its good enough for Hitler its good enough for Idesy.

[Valmy]

What kind of confidence level are the tests currently producing Hans?

I stopped looking years ago since the climate "scientists" kept being caught in one fraud after another but back then they were citing confidence factors of less than 90% as authoritative, which is of course nonsense, but they were pitching their arguments to people who didn't understand shit about statistic to whom that seemed like a high number.

Note: multiple regression analysis only measures correlation, not causation.  But if you can't even prove one, how are you going to prove the other?  And the correlation of CO2 and global temperatures, however tenuous, only holds up for a relatively short time period from the early '70s to the late '90s.  Any time period prior or after that you might as well just plug in random numbers, that is how little it is correlated.

It is absurd to base your whole believe system in global warming on such a tiny snap shot in time.  Given how often the "scientists" of the global warming hysteria have been caught committing fraud only a moron would believe anything they say.  They sound like Jehovah Witness, who kept believing their founders repeated predictions of the end of the world.  It is a faith for the gullible, and a multi-billion dollar industry.  The apostles are laughing all the way to the bank.  I also always note how the apostles always seem to follow a "do as I say, not as I do" credo.  As with all frauds they always trying to sell you something they would never buy themselves.

I do love the irony of Hans ranting hysterically complete with loads of over the top hyperbole in his attempt to show others are not rational.

You make yourself look like a fool dude.  Can you try calming down and NOT sounding like a crazy nutcase?

[PDH]

I do love the irony of Hans ranting hysterically complete with loads of over the top hyperbole in his attempt to show others are not rational.

You make yourself look like a fool dude.  Can you try calming down and NOT sounding like a crazy nutcase?

That's his schtick.  He is the anti-Raz, the nutcase right spinning particle created during the Big Bang.

[garbon]

Under the scientific method you develop a theory and then you set out to disprove it.  If you cannot disprove it then you have established a scientific proof. 

I haven't had a science class in a long time but your statement strikes me as false.

[DGuller]

Under the scientific method you develop a theory and then you set out to disprove it.  If you cannot disprove it then you have established a scientific proof. 

I haven't had a science class in a long time but your statement strikes me as false.

And logically problematic to say the least.

[garbon]

Under the scientific method you develop a theory and then you set out to disprove it.  If you cannot disprove it then you have established a scientific proof. 

I haven't had a science class in a long time but your statement strikes me as false.

And logically problematic to say the least.

Hmm...

I slept with someone that looks like you.
I can't prove that said person wasn't you.
Therefore, I slept with you.