:lol:
QuoteIn a story first discussed by the NC Coastal Federation and given more play May 29 by the News & Observer of Raleigh and its sister paper the Charlotte Observer, a group of legislators from 20 coastal NC counties whose economies will be most affected by rising seas have legislated the words "Nuh-unh!" into the NC Constitution.
Okay, cheap shot alert. Actually all they did was say science is crazy. There is virtually universal agreement among scientists that the sea will probably rise a good meter or more before the end of the century, wreaking havoc in low-lying coastal counties. So the members of the developers' lobbying group NC-20 say the sea will rise only 8 inches, because ... because ... well, SHUT UP, that's because why.
That is, the meter or so of sea level rise predicted for the NC Coastal Resources Commission by a state-appointed board of scientists is extremely inconvenient for counties along the coast. So the NC-20 types have decided that we can escape sea level rise – in North Carolina, anyhow – by making it against the law. Or making MEASURING it against the law, anyhow.
Here's a link to the circulated Replacement House Bill 819. The key language is in section 2, paragraph e, talking about rates of sea level rise: "These rates shall only be determined using historical data, and these data shall be limited to the time period following the year 1900. Rates of seas-level rise may be extrapolated linearly. ..." It goes on, but there's the core: North Carolina legislators have decided that the way to make exponential increases in sea level rise – caused by those inconvenient feedback loops we keep hearing about from scientists – go away is to make it against the law to extrapolate exponential; we can only extrapolate along a line predicted by previous sea level rises.
Which, yes, is exactly like saying, do not predict tomorrow's weather based on radar images of a hurricane swirling offshore, moving west towards us with 60-mph winds and ten inches of rain. Predict the weather based on the last two weeks of fair weather with gentle breezes towards the east. Don't use radar and barometers; use the Farmer's Almanac and what grandpa remembers.
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/2012/05/30/nc-makes-sea-level-rise-illegal/
There are good precidents for this sort of legislation:
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/805/did-a-state-legislature-once-pass-a-law-saying-pi-equals-3
:D
Grrr, NC-20. I'm very familiar with that lobby group. :mad: :ph34r: Seems right up their alley.
Quote from: Malthus on May 31, 2012, 10:10:25 AM
There are good precidents for this sort of legislation:
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/805/did-a-state-legislature-once-pass-a-law-saying-pi-equals-3
:D
Most states avoid this since the cost of modifying all circles in the state can be prohibitive.
Quote from: The Brain on May 31, 2012, 10:22:26 AM
Quote from: Malthus on May 31, 2012, 10:10:25 AM
There are good precidents for this sort of legislation:
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/805/did-a-state-legislature-once-pass-a-law-saying-pi-equals-3
:D
Most states avoid this since the cost of modifying all circles in the state can be prohibitive.
:lol:
Well, that's certainly lawyer thinking at work.
Won't the sea making their counties cease to exist sort of solve the problem in this case? :P
Then again, North Carolina has a dreadnought, and that makes them a mighty sea power. Maybe they want the flooding to allow them to attack Kentucky from the sea.
Quote from: Jacob on May 31, 2012, 09:55:00 AM
:lol:
QuoteIn a story first discussed by the NC Coastal Federation and given more play May 29 by the News & Observer of Raleigh and its sister paper the Charlotte Observer, a group of legislators from 20 coastal NC counties whose economies will be most affected by rising seas have legislated the words "Nuh-unh!" into the NC Constitution.
Okay, cheap shot alert. Actually all they did was say science is crazy. There is virtually universal agreement among scientists that the sea will probably rise a good meter or more before the end of the century, wreaking havoc in low-lying coastal counties. So the members of the developers' lobbying group NC-20 say the sea will rise only 8 inches, because ... because ... well, SHUT UP, that's because why.
That is, the meter or so of sea level rise predicted for the NC Coastal Resources Commission by a state-appointed board of scientists is extremely inconvenient for counties along the coast. So the NC-20 types have decided that we can escape sea level rise – in North Carolina, anyhow – by making it against the law. Or making MEASURING it against the law, anyhow.
Here's a link to the circulated Replacement House Bill 819. The key language is in section 2, paragraph e, talking about rates of sea level rise: "These rates shall only be determined using historical data, and these data shall be limited to the time period following the year 1900. Rates of seas-level rise may be extrapolated linearly. ..." It goes on, but there's the core: North Carolina legislators have decided that the way to make exponential increases in sea level rise – caused by those inconvenient feedback loops we keep hearing about from scientists – go away is to make it against the law to extrapolate exponential; we can only extrapolate along a line predicted by previous sea level rises.
Which, yes, is exactly like saying, do not predict tomorrow's weather based on radar images of a hurricane swirling offshore, moving west towards us with 60-mph winds and ten inches of rain. Predict the weather based on the last two weeks of fair weather with gentle breezes towards the east. Don't use radar and barometers; use the Farmer's Almanac and what grandpa remembers.
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/2012/05/30/nc-makes-sea-level-rise-illegal/
Doesn't this simply say that you can't use the fake global warming computer models to predict future sea levels? Sounds eminently reasonable to me, we should never base predictions of models that have proven time and again to be fraudulent.
If Romney and the GoPtards took up the anti-global warming crusade tomorrow, Hans' propaganda would switch sides faster than Pravda's after June 22, 1941.
Quote from: Hansmeister on June 01, 2012, 06:51:59 AM
Quote from: Jacob on May 31, 2012, 09:55:00 AM
:lol:
QuoteIn a story first discussed by the NC Coastal Federation and given more play May 29 by the News & Observer of Raleigh and its sister paper the Charlotte Observer, a group of legislators from 20 coastal NC counties whose economies will be most affected by rising seas have legislated the words "Nuh-unh!" into the NC Constitution.
Okay, cheap shot alert. Actually all they did was say science is crazy. There is virtually universal agreement among scientists that the sea will probably rise a good meter or more before the end of the century, wreaking havoc in low-lying coastal counties. So the members of the developers' lobbying group NC-20 say the sea will rise only 8 inches, because ... because ... well, SHUT UP, that's because why.
That is, the meter or so of sea level rise predicted for the NC Coastal Resources Commission by a state-appointed board of scientists is extremely inconvenient for counties along the coast. So the NC-20 types have decided that we can escape sea level rise – in North Carolina, anyhow – by making it against the law. Or making MEASURING it against the law, anyhow.
Here's a link to the circulated Replacement House Bill 819. The key language is in section 2, paragraph e, talking about rates of sea level rise: "These rates shall only be determined using historical data, and these data shall be limited to the time period following the year 1900. Rates of seas-level rise may be extrapolated linearly. ..." It goes on, but there's the core: North Carolina legislators have decided that the way to make exponential increases in sea level rise – caused by those inconvenient feedback loops we keep hearing about from scientists – go away is to make it against the law to extrapolate exponential; we can only extrapolate along a line predicted by previous sea level rises.
Which, yes, is exactly like saying, do not predict tomorrow's weather based on radar images of a hurricane swirling offshore, moving west towards us with 60-mph winds and ten inches of rain. Predict the weather based on the last two weeks of fair weather with gentle breezes towards the east. Don't use radar and barometers; use the Farmer's Almanac and what grandpa remembers.
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/2012/05/30/nc-makes-sea-level-rise-illegal/
Doesn't this simply say that you can't use the fake global warming computer models to predict future sea levels? Sounds eminently reasonable to me, we should never base predictions of models that have proven time and again to be fraudulent.
I don't know, it looks like it could be used either to disregard iffy global warming models or to legislate away rising sea levels altogether.
Quote from: Hansmeister on June 01, 2012, 06:51:59 AM
Doesn't this simply say that you can't use the fake global warming computer models to predict future sea levels? Sounds eminently reasonable to me, we should never base predictions of models that have proven time and again to be fraudulent.
The government should force scientists to come to certain conclusions? Ah small government at work.
Quote from: Hansmeister on June 01, 2012, 06:51:59 AMDoesn't this simply say that you can't use the fake global warming computer models to predict future sea levels? Sounds eminently reasonable to me, we should never base predictions of models that have proven time and again to be fraudulent.
That's a good point, Lysenkomeister :lmfao:
Quote from: Jacob on May 31, 2012, 09:55:00 AM
:lol:
Quote
Which, yes, is exactly like saying, do not predict tomorrow's weather based on radar images of a hurricane swirling offshore, moving west towards us with 60-mph winds and ten inches of rain. Predict the weather based on the last two weeks of fair weather with gentle breezes towards the east. Don't use radar and barometers; use the Farmer's Almanac and what grandpa remembers.
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/2012/05/30/nc-makes-sea-level-rise-illegal/
That's a Tropical Storm, not a Hurricane. :nerd:
http://voices.yahoo.com/mount-pelee-volcano-destroyed-city-of-16260.html (http://voices.yahoo.com/mount-pelee-volcano-destroyed-city-of-16260.html)
There is a rich history for this kind of legislation.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 01, 2012, 10:17:56 AM
Quote from: Jacob on May 31, 2012, 09:55:00 AM
:lol:
Quote
Which, yes, is exactly like saying, do not predict tomorrow's weather based on radar images of a hurricane swirling offshore, moving west towards us with 60-mph winds and ten inches of rain. Predict the weather based on the last two weeks of fair weather with gentle breezes towards the east. Don't use radar and barometers; use the Farmer's Almanac and what grandpa remembers.
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/2012/05/30/nc-makes-sea-level-rise-illegal/
That's a Tropical Storm, not a Hurricane. :nerd:
Don't confuse the anti-science crowd with facts.
it is funny how a movement so devoid of actual science can claim to be scientific. Global warming theory has about as much to do with science as intelligent design.
Quote from: Hansmeister on June 01, 2012, 11:39:51 AM
Don't confuse the anti-science crowd with facts.
it is funny how a movement so devoid of actual science can claim to be scientific. Global warming theory has about as much to do with science as intelligent design.
Other way round. Climatology and Biology are real sciences. There is an actual real consensus on both Climate Change and Genetic Change.
I'm not telling you what to belive. But, Hansy, you need to be absolutely clear on the issue; almost all of the scientists (99.9% plus for biology 90% plus for climatology) agree, respectively, that climate change and evolution are happening. Dispute the facts and interpretations is you want but it is false to try to claim that the specialists on these topics have not already reached a consensus and are confused why laymen keep contesting the issue.
Quote from: Hansmeister on June 01, 2012, 11:39:51 AMit is funny how a movement so devoid of actual science can claim to be scientific. Global warming theory has about as much to do with science as intelligent design.
Do you believe your own lies?
I don't know anything about the scientific projections on sea level changes in North Carolina. However in general there isn't generally strong scientific consensus on a lot of the more fantastic predictions of what climate change will cause. There is broad consensus on some level of climate change. There is not consensus on how much warming has already happened, how much will happen in the 21st century--and almost every paper I've ever read that makes any type of statement about specific projections is filled with tons of qualifiers. Mostly because real scientists aren't doomsayers, they lay out the facts and the likelihoods, cover their ass from here to Sunday and move on.
There's a super liberal forum I was banned from years ago but still read sometimes where you literally had an Australian scientist, a Ph.D. holding research scientist, trying to debunk some ridiculous claim on global warming. Mind you, this scientist was no AGW-denier, he was denying something that one of the forum morons had claimed (something like: "The Earth will be like Venus because of runaway greenhouse effect in the next 200 years. Something no reputable scientist believes), and even though his denial was exactly what you'd expect from an actual scientist people have gotten so hyper-responsive to any criticism of any global warming claim spewed out by anyone that even if you object to predictions that are fanciful and not based on scientific research you're likely to get labeled a "denier."
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 01, 2012, 02:55:22 PMHowever in general there isn't generally strong scientific consensus on a lot of the more fantastic predictions of what climate change will cause.
Fair enough, but there's a bit of a gap between a lack of consensus on fantastic predictions and what Hansie is saying. Similarly, there's some distance between noting that there's a lack of consensus on fantastic predictions on one hand, and a legislature (potentially) mandating scientific conclusions and methodologies to get the results they'd like for economic reasons.
Quote from: Jacob on June 01, 2012, 12:09:18 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on June 01, 2012, 11:39:51 AMit is funny how a movement so devoid of actual science can claim to be scientific. Global warming theory has about as much to do with science as intelligent design.
Do you believe your own lies?
Honestly? I don't think he does. Remember he worked in PsyOps for a while. Spouting nonsense is their stock and trade.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 01, 2012, 04:30:52 PMHonestly? I don't think he does. Remember he worked in PsyOps for a while. Spouting nonsense is their stock and trade.
So it's basically an Overton window play? Makes sense. It probably works too.
Quote from: Hansmeister on June 01, 2012, 06:51:59 AM
Quote from: Jacob on May 31, 2012, 09:55:00 AM
:lol:
QuoteIn a story first discussed by the NC Coastal Federation and given more play May 29 by the News & Observer of Raleigh and its sister paper the Charlotte Observer, a group of legislators from 20 coastal NC counties whose economies will be most affected by rising seas have legislated the words "Nuh-unh!" into the NC Constitution.
Okay, cheap shot alert. Actually all they did was say science is crazy. There is virtually universal agreement among scientists that the sea will probably rise a good meter or more before the end of the century, wreaking havoc in low-lying coastal counties. So the members of the developers' lobbying group NC-20 say the sea will rise only 8 inches, because ... because ... well, SHUT UP, that's because why.
That is, the meter or so of sea level rise predicted for the NC Coastal Resources Commission by a state-appointed board of scientists is extremely inconvenient for counties along the coast. So the NC-20 types have decided that we can escape sea level rise – in North Carolina, anyhow – by making it against the law. Or making MEASURING it against the law, anyhow.
Here's a link to the circulated Replacement House Bill 819. The key language is in section 2, paragraph e, talking about rates of sea level rise: "These rates shall only be determined using historical data, and these data shall be limited to the time period following the year 1900. Rates of seas-level rise may be extrapolated linearly. ..." It goes on, but there's the core: North Carolina legislators have decided that the way to make exponential increases in sea level rise – caused by those inconvenient feedback loops we keep hearing about from scientists – go away is to make it against the law to extrapolate exponential; we can only extrapolate along a line predicted by previous sea level rises.
Which, yes, is exactly like saying, do not predict tomorrow's weather based on radar images of a hurricane swirling offshore, moving west towards us with 60-mph winds and ten inches of rain. Predict the weather based on the last two weeks of fair weather with gentle breezes towards the east. Don't use radar and barometers; use the Farmer's Almanac and what grandpa remembers.
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/2012/05/30/nc-makes-sea-level-rise-illegal/
Doesn't this simply say that you can't use the fake global warming computer models to predict future sea levels? Sounds eminently reasonable to me, we should never base predictions of models that have proven time and again to be fraudulent.
Really? My thought is that we shouldn't be injecting laws into the scientific process. But, I'm just a prosecutor, WTF do I know?
Quote from: Scipio on June 01, 2012, 11:59:06 PM
Really? My thought is that we shouldn't be injecting laws into the scientific process. But, I'm just a prosecutor, WTF do I know?
You're no prosecutor. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Barrister on June 02, 2012, 12:42:21 AM
Quote from: Scipio on June 01, 2012, 11:59:06 PM
Really? My thought is that we shouldn't be injecting laws into the scientific process. But, I'm just a prosecutor, WTF do I know?
You're no prosecutor. :rolleyes:
OH SNAP ITS ON NOW
While Hans is ridiculous as usual, it is not exactly true that legislators never intervene in scientific issues, although this usually concerns things like medicine where the harm that crazy scientific theories can cause is more pronounced.
Quote from: Scipio on June 01, 2012, 11:59:06 PMReally? My thought is that we shouldn't be injecting laws into the scientific process. But, I'm just a prosecutor, WTF do I know?
What scientific process? Starting from the assumption that man-caused global warming exists and only look for evidence that supports it (and at various times being caught faking the data), while relentlessly pushing to blacklist everybody who disagrees with you is the opposite of scientific process.
The global warming crowd has never followed the scientific process and has no interest in the scientific process at all. They have an interest in "scientific consensus" by brow-beating or bribing everyone into accepting their position, but they don't have actual scientific evidence, only worthless computer models.
They are unable to prove either correlation nor causation between human activity and global warming, so they spend most of their time trying to distract people from their lack of any scientific proof.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 01, 2012, 02:55:22 PM
I don't know anything about the scientific projections on sea level changes in North Carolina. However in general there isn't generally strong scientific consensus on a lot of the more fantastic predictions of what climate change will cause. There is broad consensus on some level of climate change. There is not consensus on how much warming has already happened, how much will happen in the 21st century--and almost every paper I've ever read that makes any type of statement about specific projections is filled with tons of qualifiers. Mostly because real scientists aren't doomsayers, they lay out the facts and the likelihoods, cover their ass from here to Sunday and move on.
Agree. We don't have much experience and knowledge of climate change events so we cannot make any kind of categorical statements about what the effect of climate change is going to be. We know what kind of things will happen but we cannot specifically say what will happen at each specific place and time. That is why all attempts at prediction include tons of qualifiers and caveats.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 01, 2012, 02:55:22 PM
There's a super liberal forum I was banned from years ago but still read sometimes where you literally had an Australian scientist, a Ph.D. holding research scientist, trying to debunk some ridiculous claim on global warming. Mind you, this scientist was no AGW-denier, he was denying something that one of the forum morons had claimed (something like: "The Earth will be like Venus because of runaway greenhouse effect in the next 200 years. Something no reputable scientist believes), and even though his denial was exactly what you'd expect from an actual scientist people have gotten so hyper-responsive to any criticism of any global warming claim spewed out by anyone that even if you object to predictions that are fanciful and not based on scientific research you're likely to get labeled a "denier."
This is where science communication comes in. Communicating the nature of the effects of climate change with all it's nuances and complexity to "the plebs" is virtually impossible. "The Plebs" are looking for Truman's handless lawyer (he was annoyed at lawyers who caveated all statements with a "on the one hand/on the other hand" kind dichotomy) to tell them what is true and unequivacle.
Quote from: Barrister on June 02, 2012, 12:42:21 AM
Quote from: Scipio on June 01, 2012, 11:59:06 PM
Really? My thought is that we shouldn't be injecting laws into the scientific process. But, I'm just a prosecutor, WTF do I know?
You're no prosecutor. :rolleyes:
Whatevs. You people don't even have useful laws. You're all so fucking nice.
Quote from: Hansmeister on June 02, 2012, 05:53:21 AM
Quote from: Scipio on June 01, 2012, 11:59:06 PMReally? My thought is that we shouldn't be injecting laws into the scientific process. But, I'm just a prosecutor, WTF do I know?
What scientific process? Starting from the assumption that man-caused global warming exists and only look for evidence that supports it (and at various times being caught faking the data), while relentlessly pushing to blacklist everybody who disagrees with you is the opposite of scientific process.
The global warming crowd has never followed the scientific process and has no interest in the scientific process at all. They have an interest in "scientific consensus" by brow-beating or bribing everyone into accepting their position, but they don't have actual scientific evidence, only worthless computer models.
They are unable to prove either correlation nor causation between human activity and global warming, so they spend most of their time trying to distract people from their lack of any scientific proof.
So, who would you have us trust in climate studies? Are there any other parts of accepted science you don't like?
Quote from: Viking on June 02, 2012, 07:11:43 AM
This is where science communication comes in. Communicating the nature of the effects of climate change with all it's nuances and complexity to "the plebs" is virtually impossible. "The Plebs" are looking for Truman's handless lawyer (he was annoyed at lawyers who caveated all statements with a "on the one hand/on the other hand" kind dichotomy) to tell them what is true and unequivacle.
Meh, like Neil DeGrasse Tyson says, you don't want to listen to humans, fine. The animal and plant kingdoms have recognized climate change and are adjusting accordingly, migrating to higher elevations and northern climes.
But New England maples have always demonstrated more sense than Hansy anyway.
Quote from: Viking on June 02, 2012, 07:11:43 AM
Agree. We don't have much experience and knowledge of climate change events so we cannot make any kind of categorical statements about what the effect of climate change is going to be. We know what kind of things will happen but we cannot specifically say what will happen at each specific place and time. That is why all attempts at prediction include tons of qualifiers and caveats.
Untrue. The NC law has no qualifiers or caveats. That's why it is such a terrible law.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 02, 2012, 08:51:45 AM
Quote from: Viking on June 02, 2012, 07:11:43 AM
This is where science communication comes in. Communicating the nature of the effects of climate change with all it's nuances and complexity to "the plebs" is virtually impossible. "The Plebs" are looking for Truman's handless lawyer (he was annoyed at lawyers who caveated all statements with a "on the one hand/on the other hand" kind dichotomy) to tell them what is true and unequivacle.
Meh, like Neil DeGrasse Tyson says, you don't want to listen to humans, fine. The animal and plant kingdoms have recognized climate change and are adjusting accordingly, migrating to higher elevations and northern climes.
But New England maples have always demonstrated more sense than Hansy anyway.
The other Magic Negro! :wub:
This is why Tyson won't run for president; if New England Maples could vote he might; but Alabama Rooinekke do.
I've been seeing goddamn armadillos here. They didn't live here when I was a boy. I'll be really pissed when I start seeing alligators.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 02, 2012, 08:40:49 AM
Quote from: Hansmeister on June 02, 2012, 05:53:21 AM
Quote from: Scipio on June 01, 2012, 11:59:06 PMReally? My thought is that we shouldn't be injecting laws into the scientific process. But, I'm just a prosecutor, WTF do I know?
What scientific process? Starting from the assumption that man-caused global warming exists and only look for evidence that supports it (and at various times being caught faking the data), while relentlessly pushing to blacklist everybody who disagrees with you is the opposite of scientific process.
The global warming crowd has never followed the scientific process and has no interest in the scientific process at all. They have an interest in "scientific consensus" by brow-beating or bribing everyone into accepting their position, but they don't have actual scientific evidence, only worthless computer models.
They are unable to prove either correlation nor causation between human activity and global warming, so they spend most of their time trying to distract people from their lack of any scientific proof.
So, who would you have us trust in climate studies? Are there any other parts of accepted science you don't like?
It's called the scietific method. Real scientists use it in conducting real science experiments. Hence, the global warming crowd disdains it.
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. Since the global warming religious nuts can't proof anything they simply refuse to use the scientific method. That is why it isn't "accepted science" but political-religious bullshit masquerading as science through fear, intimidation, and ignorance. Just like intelligent design, or eugenics. Pseudo-scientific nonsense.
This is why you have debates about "scientific consensus" instead of scientific proof, in the absence of proof you either bribe or browbeat people into accepting your position, or simply pretend that the thousands of climatologists who reject your political agenda either don't exist or are ethically challenged. it is a fucking gigantic joke for the unintelligent modern left.
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.
The population bomb is inferior to the fusion bomb.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Climate_Change_Attribution.png
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fa%2Fa2%2FClimate_Change_Attribution.png&hash=0dc662fab528e495a289375850faeccbc82ddec0)
QuoteThis figure, based on Meehl et al. (2004), shows the ability with which a global climate model (the DOE PCM [1]) is able to reconstruct the historical temperature record and the degree to which the associated temperature changes can be decomposed into various forcing factors. The top part of the figure compares a five year average of global temperature measurements (Jones and Moberg 2001) to the Meehl et al. results incorporating the effects of five predetermined forcing factors: greenhouse gases, man-made sulfate emissions, solar variability, ozone changes (both stratospheric and tropospheric), and volcanic emissions (including natural sulfates). The time history and radiative forcing qualities for each of these factors was specified in advance and was not adjusted to specifically match the temperature record.
Also shown are grey bands indicating the 68% and 95% range for natural variability in temperature relative to the climatic expectation as determined from multiple simulations with different initial conditions. In other words, they indicate the estimated size of variations that are expected to occur due to fluctuation in weather rather than changes in climate. Ideally the model should be able to reconstruct temperature variations to within about the tolerance specified by these bands. Some of the remaining misfit may be accounted for by the ~0.05 °C uncertainty in the temperature reconstruction. However, though the model captures the gross features of twentieth century climate change, it remains likely that some of the differences between model and observation still reflect the limitations of the model and/or our understanding of the histories of the observed forcing factors.
In the lower portion of the figure are the results of additional simulations in which the model was operated with only one forcing factor used at a time. A key conclusion of the Meehl et al. (2004) work is that the model response to all factors combined is to a good approximation equal to the sum of the responses to each factor taken individually. This means it is reasonable to talk about the temperature change due to individual aspects of the evolving man-made and natural influences on climate. The zeros on both plots are set equal to 1900 temperatures, and it is apparent that most of the 0.52 °C global warming between 1900 and 1994 should be attributed to a 0.69 °C temperature forcing from greenhouse gases partially offset by a 0.27 °C cooling due to man-made sulfate emissions and with other factors contributing the balance. This contrasts with the warming from 1900 to 1940 for which the model only attributes a net increases of 0.06 °C to the combined effects of greenhouse gases and sulfate emissions.
I remember in school we calculated in how much time humanity will become a ball expanding by the speed of light, if you extrapolate current figures. :hmm:
Quote from: Hansmeister on June 03, 2012, 01:53:52 AM
It's called the scietific method. Real scientists use it in conducting real science experiments. Hence, the global warming crowd disdains it.
Unfortunately the "global warming crowd" includes all the real scientists doing the real science experiments.
Quote from: Hansmeister on June 03, 2012, 01:53:52 AM
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. Since the global warming religious nuts can't proof anything they simply refuse to use the scientific method. That is why it isn't "accepted science" but political-religious bullshit masquerading as science through fear, intimidation, and ignorance. Just like intelligent design, or eugenics. Pseudo-scientific nonsense.
Consensus happens when all the alternative hypothesis are shot down and only one hypothesis remains and nobody is thinks that it is worth their while to look for a new one. You seem to have read one sentence of Popper and stopped there. You missed the entire falsifiability of an assertion bit.
You not only don't understand Popper you don't know much about what has been done in Climate Science.
We have an example of global warming run amock (the Planet Venus)
We have tested every step in the physical process and used that data to build climate models (e.g. measuring the change in reflective properties of air with increasing CO2 concentrations)
We then test those models backwards in time (as Syt posted above) to test their viability
The reason all the scientists agree is because this is the most parsimonious hypothesis which explains all the facts and is contradicted by none.
Quote from: Hansmeister on June 03, 2012, 01:53:52 AM
This is why you have debates about "scientific consensus" instead of scientific proof, in the absence of proof you either bribe or browbeat people into accepting your position, or simply pretend that the thousands of climatologists who reject your political agenda either don't exist or are ethically challenged. it is a fucking gigantic joke for the unintelligent modern left.
As above, scientific consensus is what happens when proof as been given and everybody is convinced.
The proof is in and it is available from those notorious america hating business hating loony lefty lunatics at NASA (http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/).
Quote from: Hansmeister on June 03, 2012, 01:53:52 AM
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.
I'll agree with that. Environmentalism has become a religion for many people. I think that is actually worse than many of the God religions out there simply on the grounds that Religions lose many of their more stupid ideas over time when they get proven wrong the hard way (massacres, torture, death etc.).
The thing about the issues you bring up as examples is that they are real issues but when presented as a black and white conflict you get silly solutions. E.G. what makes the Peak Oil hypothesis silly is not the obviously true assertion that there is a finite ammount and that in each field production peaks at some time during it's lifetime, but the chicken little style assertion that we are about to run out today or this week or this year or this decade (or this century to be honest).
Global warming is real, it is happening we still don't know precisely what will happen and how quickly but we know the kinds of things that will happen. Just because there is a loony left on this issue doesn't give you licence to be on the loony right. There is a real discussion to be had about how much prevention; how much mitigation and how much compensation we should have. At the moment I'm on the level of cutting emissions to prevent Shanghai and Calcutta being swallowed by the sea, mitigating the effects in Bangladesh by building leveés and just paying the people of Mauritius, Tuvalu and other minor islands money and give them citizenship elsewhere to compensate them for the sinking of their countries. These are political and econmic issues that are still open for discussion and are subject to human values and judgement; however Global Warming is happening; Global Climate Change is a fact.
I agree with Viking. :hmm:
:rolleyes:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi13.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa299%2FSlayhem%2Fghost.jpg&hash=b46e06d5f63257c1168d34ae7b64147b33a3c562)
Quote from: Syt on June 03, 2012, 02:33:17 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Climate_Change_Attribution.png
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fa%2Fa2%2FClimate_Change_Attribution.png&hash=0dc662fab528e495a289375850faeccbc82ddec0)
QuoteThis figure, based on Meehl et al. (2004), shows the ability with which a global climate model (the DOE PCM [1]) is able to reconstruct the historical temperature record and the degree to which the associated temperature changes can be decomposed into various forcing factors. The top part of the figure compares a five year average of global temperature measurements (Jones and Moberg 2001) to the Meehl et al. results incorporating the effects of five predetermined forcing factors: greenhouse gases, man-made sulfate emissions, solar variability, ozone changes (both stratospheric and tropospheric), and volcanic emissions (including natural sulfates). The time history and radiative forcing qualities for each of these factors was specified in advance and was not adjusted to specifically match the temperature record.
Also shown are grey bands indicating the 68% and 95% range for natural variability in temperature relative to the climatic expectation as determined from multiple simulations with different initial conditions. In other words, they indicate the estimated size of variations that are expected to occur due to fluctuation in weather rather than changes in climate. Ideally the model should be able to reconstruct temperature variations to within about the tolerance specified by these bands. Some of the remaining misfit may be accounted for by the ~0.05 °C uncertainty in the temperature reconstruction. However, though the model captures the gross features of twentieth century climate change, it remains likely that some of the differences between model and observation still reflect the limitations of the model and/or our understanding of the histories of the observed forcing factors.
In the lower portion of the figure are the results of additional simulations in which the model was operated with only one forcing factor used at a time. A key conclusion of the Meehl et al. (2004) work is that the model response to all factors combined is to a good approximation equal to the sum of the responses to each factor taken individually. This means it is reasonable to talk about the temperature change due to individual aspects of the evolving man-made and natural influences on climate. The zeros on both plots are set equal to 1900 temperatures, and it is apparent that most of the 0.52 °C global warming between 1900 and 1994 should be attributed to a 0.69 °C temperature forcing from greenhouse gases partially offset by a 0.27 °C cooling due to man-made sulfate emissions and with other factors contributing the balance. This contrasts with the warming from 1900 to 1940 for which the model only attributes a net increases of 0.06 °C to the combined effects of greenhouse gases and sulfate emissions.
I note that this graph stops 20 years ago, I wonder why. :rolleyes:
Just more fake science. If you only look at a very narrow time in history you can see a correlation, expand the horizon and it disappears. A snapshot in time ain't shit.
Quote from: Viking on June 03, 2012, 03:30:24 AM
Global Climate Change is a fact.
Of course global climate change is a fact, and why is it suddenly called "climate change" instead of "global warming"? :lmfao:
The global climate has always changed and will always change, it is absolutely silly to try to do something about that. And of course it is silly to think that there is a certain climate norm from which we are somehow deviating. There is nothing in the current climate record that is out of the ordinary, heck, it is still cooler than it was during the medieval warming period. There is nothing unusual going on with the see level, and to think that you can do something to change that his the height of delusion.
Somebody who is a progressive would adapt to changing environments instead of tilting at windmills. But then again the environmentalist movement is insane.
Windmills are retarded. Nuclear is where it's at.
Quote from: The Brain on June 03, 2012, 06:14:19 AM
Windmills are retarded. Nuclear is where it's at.
Tell that to the energy sector. Oh wait, they don't really want to build any.
California on the other has given up trying to resist the sea.
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47660947/ns/technology_and_science-science/#.T8tcp8V5fhw
Quote from: Hansmeister on June 03, 2012, 06:00:48 AM
I note that this graph stops 20 years ago, I wonder why. :rolleyes:
Just more fake science. If you only look at a very narrow time in history you can see a correlation, expand the horizon and it disappears. A snapshot in time ain't shit.
So what data would convince you of the validity of the theory.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 03, 2012, 08:37:14 AM
Quote from: Hansmeister on June 03, 2012, 06:00:48 AM
I note that this graph stops 20 years ago, I wonder why. :rolleyes:
Just more fake science. If you only look at a very narrow time in history you can see a correlation, expand the horizon and it disappears. A snapshot in time ain't shit.
So what data would convince you of the validity of the theory.
For starters, a multiple regression model with a 95% confidence factor, you know, which is usually considered the minimum for proof of a scientific theory, except of course in global warming theory, where we are supposed to accept it on the environuts sayso, based on computer models that don't actually work.
If such a thing exist will you change your mind?
Quote from: Hansmeister on June 03, 2012, 09:03:12 AM
For starters, a multiple regression model with a 95% confidence factor, you know, which is usually considered the minimum for proof of a scientific theory,
:lol: Scientific theories are never proven, only disproven.
Please, make up more shit to justify your pre-selected position. This is funny, funny shit.
I'm going to admit, I don't know what a "multiple regression model", is. Or if can have a "95% confidence". This is a statistics thing, so someone else will have to pick up the slack here. I honestly don't know if such a thing exists or if Han's requirements are reasonable.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 03, 2012, 10:07:32 AM
If such a thing exist will you change your mind?
Only if Moses brings the tablets down from on high and changes the party platform in Tampa this summer.
Quote from: Hansmeister on June 03, 2012, 09:03:12 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 03, 2012, 08:37:14 AM
Quote from: Hansmeister on June 03, 2012, 06:00:48 AM
I note that this graph stops 20 years ago, I wonder why. :rolleyes:
Just more fake science. If you only look at a very narrow time in history you can see a correlation, expand the horizon and it disappears. A snapshot in time ain't shit.
So what data would convince you of the validity of the theory.
For starters, a multiple regression model with a 95% confidence factor, you know, which is usually considered the minimum for proof of a scientific theory, except of course in global warming theory, where we are supposed to accept it on the environuts sayso, based on computer models that don't actually work.
It's been a long time since I got my BSc, or took any statistics courses, but getting those kinds of results really depends on the type of science you are using. There is of course only one earth - we can not run hundreds of tests to determine the precise results. My own field of study was geology, where you have a simialr problem - you can not run experiments on the millions of years time frame that would be required. So instead you extrapolate from the available evidence.
What kind of confidence level are the tests currently producing Hans?
Actually, since the 1990s there have been multiple regression analyses of flora and fauna reacting to temperature changes. A quick look at Nature shows this. However, Hans will always be able to hide in the fact that the data is only 100+ years old, and therefore not reliable.
Oh, Hans. The reason that graph "only" goes to 1990? It was plotted in the early 2000s, if you would have looked at the data. There are more recent graphs as well, including the ones called for recently that incorporate data from far more collection points. (I am sure, as a climate scientist, you recall the problem some statisticians raised about needing more)
Quote from: Syt on June 03, 2012, 02:33:17 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Climate_Change_Attribution.png
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fa%2Fa2%2FClimate_Change_Attribution.png&hash=0dc662fab528e495a289375850faeccbc82ddec0)
QuoteThis figure, based on Meehl et al. (2004), shows the ability with which a global climate model (the DOE PCM [1]) is able to reconstruct the historical temperature record and the degree to which the associated temperature changes can be decomposed into various forcing factors. The top part of the figure compares a five year average of global temperature measurements (Jones and Moberg 2001) to the Meehl et al. results incorporating the effects of five predetermined forcing factors: greenhouse gases, man-made sulfate emissions, solar variability, ozone changes (both stratospheric and tropospheric), and volcanic emissions (including natural sulfates). The time history and radiative forcing qualities for each of these factors was specified in advance and was not adjusted to specifically match the temperature record.
Also shown are grey bands indicating the 68% and 95% range for natural variability in temperature relative to the climatic expectation as determined from multiple simulations with different initial conditions. In other words, they indicate the estimated size of variations that are expected to occur due to fluctuation in weather rather than changes in climate. Ideally the model should be able to reconstruct temperature variations to within about the tolerance specified by these bands. Some of the remaining misfit may be accounted for by the ~0.05 °C uncertainty in the temperature reconstruction. However, though the model captures the gross features of twentieth century climate change, it remains likely that some of the differences between model and observation still reflect the limitations of the model and/or our understanding of the histories of the observed forcing factors.
In the lower portion of the figure are the results of additional simulations in which the model was operated with only one forcing factor used at a time. A key conclusion of the Meehl et al. (2004) work is that the model response to all factors combined is to a good approximation equal to the sum of the responses to each factor taken individually. This means it is reasonable to talk about the temperature change due to individual aspects of the evolving man-made and natural influences on climate. The zeros on both plots are set equal to 1900 temperatures, and it is apparent that most of the 0.52 °C global warming between 1900 and 1994 should be attributed to a 0.69 °C temperature forcing from greenhouse gases partially offset by a 0.27 °C cooling due to man-made sulfate emissions and with other factors contributing the balance. This contrasts with the warming from 1900 to 1940 for which the model only attributes a net increases of 0.06 °C to the combined effects of greenhouse gases and sulfate emissions.
To be devil's advocate, this graph doesn't prove much. Finding a model that fits observed history is the easy part. Finding a model that predicts the future as well as the past is the hard part. Overfitting a model is a very real danger in such exercises.
Quote from: grumbler on June 03, 2012, 10:14:22 AM
Please, make up more shit to justify your pre-selected position. This is funny, funny shit.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages1.wikia.nocookie.net%2F__cb20120124053332%2Fmash%2Fimages%2Fthumb%2F4%2F47%2FSam_flagg.jpg%2F180px-Sam_flagg.jpg&hash=e8ca4577a71087202e711b35501675b92a947259)
Quote from: DGuller on June 03, 2012, 12:35:10 PM
Quote from: Syt on June 03, 2012, 02:33:17 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Climate_Change_Attribution.png
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fa%2Fa2%2FClimate_Change_Attribution.png&hash=0dc662fab528e495a289375850faeccbc82ddec0)
QuoteThis figure, based on Meehl et al. (2004), shows the ability with which a global climate model (the DOE PCM [1]) is able to reconstruct the historical temperature record and the degree to which the associated temperature changes can be decomposed into various forcing factors. The top part of the figure compares a five year average of global temperature measurements (Jones and Moberg 2001) to the Meehl et al. results incorporating the effects of five predetermined forcing factors: greenhouse gases, man-made sulfate emissions, solar variability, ozone changes (both stratospheric and tropospheric), and volcanic emissions (including natural sulfates). The time history and radiative forcing qualities for each of these factors was specified in advance and was not adjusted to specifically match the temperature record.
Also shown are grey bands indicating the 68% and 95% range for natural variability in temperature relative to the climatic expectation as determined from multiple simulations with different initial conditions. In other words, they indicate the estimated size of variations that are expected to occur due to fluctuation in weather rather than changes in climate. Ideally the model should be able to reconstruct temperature variations to within about the tolerance specified by these bands. Some of the remaining misfit may be accounted for by the ~0.05 °C uncertainty in the temperature reconstruction. However, though the model captures the gross features of twentieth century climate change, it remains likely that some of the differences between model and observation still reflect the limitations of the model and/or our understanding of the histories of the observed forcing factors.
In the lower portion of the figure are the results of additional simulations in which the model was operated with only one forcing factor used at a time. A key conclusion of the Meehl et al. (2004) work is that the model response to all factors combined is to a good approximation equal to the sum of the responses to each factor taken individually. This means it is reasonable to talk about the temperature change due to individual aspects of the evolving man-made and natural influences on climate. The zeros on both plots are set equal to 1900 temperatures, and it is apparent that most of the 0.52 °C global warming between 1900 and 1994 should be attributed to a 0.69 °C temperature forcing from greenhouse gases partially offset by a 0.27 °C cooling due to man-made sulfate emissions and with other factors contributing the balance. This contrasts with the warming from 1900 to 1940 for which the model only attributes a net increases of 0.06 °C to the combined effects of greenhouse gases and sulfate emissions.
To be devil's advocate, this graph doesn't prove much. Finding a model that fits observed history is the easy part. Finding a model that predicts the future as well as the past is the hard part. Overfitting a model is a very real danger in such exercises.
:rolleyes: Pray tell how we are supposed to know the future, Nostragullerus.
Quote from: Hansmeister on June 03, 2012, 09:03:12 AM
For starters, a multiple regression model with a 95% confidence factor, you know, which is usually considered the minimum for proof of a scientific theory, except of course in global warming theory, where we are supposed to accept it on the environuts sayso, based on computer models that don't actually work.
Sometimes I shout at the TV tearing my hair out. This is one of these cases.
Why is it that you require 95% confidence for the case for Global Climate Change but seem to accept 0% for your politically preferred explanation?
If these are your terms then no explanation other than the Climate Change Hypothesis comes anywhere close to explaining the data.
That's not an unreasonable position from Hans. A significance test is only testing the proposition that the covariance of the two variables is statistically different than zero.
Does anyone know what significance the t tests are generating?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 03, 2012, 11:44:19 AM
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.
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?
Hans:
Are you saying that study after study after study resulted in a t-test of <90% on the CO2 coefficient, or just some?
Quote from: Hansmeister on June 03, 2012, 01:53:52 AM
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! :)
Quote from: The Brain on June 03, 2012, 06:14:19 AM
Windmills are retarded. Nuclear is where it's at.
Uranium is finite, and we need it for spaceships and anti-China weapons.
Quote from: Hansmeister on June 03, 2012, 10:35:38 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 03, 2012, 11:44:19 AM
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 (http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm), 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 (http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/11/11/exposing-a-climate-science-fra/)).
Quote from: Hansmeister on June 03, 2012, 10:35:38 PM
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.
Quote from: Hansmeister on June 03, 2012, 10:35:38 PM
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....
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 03, 2012, 10:50:08 PM
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
QuoteMoney 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.
QuoteIndeed, 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.
Quote from: Ideologue on June 04, 2012, 03:35:44 AM
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...
Quote from: Viking on June 04, 2012, 03:45:59 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on June 04, 2012, 03:35:44 AM
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.
Quote from: Hansmeister on June 03, 2012, 10:35:38 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 03, 2012, 11:44:19 AM
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?
Quote from: Valmy on June 04, 2012, 07:50:39 AM
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.
Quote from: Hansmeister on June 03, 2012, 01:53:52 AM
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. :huh:
Quote from: garbon on June 04, 2012, 10:31:22 AM
Quote from: Hansmeister on June 03, 2012, 01:53:52 AM
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. :huh:
And logically problematic to say the least.
Quote from: DGuller on June 04, 2012, 10:45:29 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 04, 2012, 10:31:22 AM
Quote from: Hansmeister on June 03, 2012, 01:53:52 AM
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. :huh:
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.
:D
Quote from: garbon on June 04, 2012, 10:47:44 AM
I slept with someone that looks like you.
:console:
Quote from: DGuller on June 04, 2012, 11:36:01 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 04, 2012, 10:47:44 AM
I slept with someone that looks like you.
:console:
I thought it had been enough years without discussing that. :D
Quote from: PDH on June 04, 2012, 09:57:37 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 04, 2012, 07:50:39 AM
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.
For that to be true, half the board needs to put him on the ignore list.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 04, 2012, 12:32:56 PM
Quote from: PDH on June 04, 2012, 09:57:37 AM
That's his schtick. He is the anti-Raz, the nutcase right spinning particle created during the Big Bang.
For that to be true, half the board needs to put him on the ignore list.
No, for you see in the earliest moments after the Big Bang (pinpointed in time at 1984) both the Raz and Hans particles existed in the formless void known as the "Mondale Event" of the post election. However, as larger structures on the right began to form in this void the Raz particles grouped together in the fringes where they were ignored over time. The Hans particle, for inexplicable reasons, became seen more and more as the "norm" in the universe. Still, their right spin makes them the opposite for the Raz.
Eventually, the Raz (known today as "Dark Political Matter") will return and the two particles will anihilate one another in a burst of partisan cosmology.
Meh. Whatever.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 04, 2012, 12:32:56 PM
Quote from: PDH on June 04, 2012, 09:57:37 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 04, 2012, 07:50:39 AM
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.
For that to be true, half the board needs to put him on the ignore list.
Hans isn't the number 2 poster on the board. Why would people use an ignore function on someone who barely posts?
I thought you were ignoring me.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 04, 2012, 12:58:12 PM
I thought you were ignoring me.
Garbon never said he was ignoring you.
Quote from: PDH on June 04, 2012, 12:47:10 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 04, 2012, 12:32:56 PM
Quote from: PDH on June 04, 2012, 09:57:37 AM
That's his schtick. He is the anti-Raz, the nutcase right spinning particle created during the Big Bang.
For that to be true, half the board needs to put him on the ignore list.
No, for you see in the earliest moments after the Big Bang (pinpointed in time at 1984) both the Raz and Hans particles existed in the formless void known as the "Mondale Event" of the post election. However, as larger structures on the right began to form in this void the Raz particles grouped together in the fringes where they were ignored over time. The Hans particle, for inexplicable reasons, became seen more and more as the "norm" in the universe. Still, their right spin makes them the opposite for the Raz.
Eventually, the Raz (known today as "Dark Political Matter") will return and the two particles will anihilate one another in a burst of partisan cosmology.
The "Mondale Event". :lol: