Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

@parados,

Quote:

Opinions aren't science.

Correct. Neither are scientific opinions.

Quote:

When you compare science to unscientific opinions and give the same weight to both, you reveal a bias that goes beyond simple ignorance.

Correct again. But who made you chief of what is science ? Do you not think that taking away people's opinions will be conterproductive ? What if we take away your opinion because it ceratinly has no science in it. Let me guess...you are in one of those little dictator countries no-one has heard of...

I am still waiting for you to make some sort of statement about Global Warming rather than taking the easy and cowardly path of criticising without stating your position. But you wont will you ? You think if you just sit back and criticise, people will get fed up with your attitude and go away. Do you feel clever doing that, because I must admit you come across as an amatuer thug trying very hard to convince people he understands science.

Stop quoting others and express your opinion. Dont be scared.

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

Quote:

I love that you post garbage parados. Calling it science when it is full of inadequate data and unstated assumptions and adjustments published by scientists desperate for money seems a little ridiculous, don't you think?
Quote:
Please point to the specific data and tell us why it is inadequate. Simply claiming it is inadequate and then making vague statements doesn't prove anything other then you like to make vague statements.

You dont seem to realise those are your words that I have paraphrased.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt<br />
Take this garbage back and do it again...How many times must you have heard that...you obviously arent familiar with report writing or the correct layout for data. Perhaps you are unaware there is a drop in temp for the last 10 years ?

Quote:
Hmmm.. So you think we don't have sufficient linear data? Explain how we don't have that data.

I did.

Quote:
we might consider you clever Ionus.

If I ever want to be considered clever, you will be the last person whos opinion I want.

Quote:
I posted links to the data.

Thats all you ever do....what is your opinion ? Pretend you understand what you are talking about and say SOMETHING, ANYTHING that is your own ideas. Plagiarism is unethical, illegal and the sign of an inferior scientist.

Quote:
When you can point to specific numbers that are wrong and provide valid evidence of why it is wrong

I want you to point to specific numbers that are right and provide valid evidence of why it is right. I do not have to prove the negative. If you are ever involved in science (and I pray it will never be that bad) then you will understand.

1 Reply

@parados,

Am I to believe you understand so little that you ask all that ? Is there none of it you dont know already ? Or are you playing dumb ?

Quote:

1. Provide us with the assumption.

I did.

Quote:

2. Provide us with the adjustment.

It was in the reference I gave you.

Quote:

3. Show us specifically why you think the measurements are "unrealiable".

I did.

Quote:

4. Show us why the measurements show warming and not cooling if they are inaccurate.

Ah, parados, it must be liberating to understand nothing of Global Warming but to still have an opinion. If measurements are inaccurate and there are only two directions data can trend in, assuming it hasnt by complete accident been exactly accurate, then it can either reflect hotter or colder values. It is called a 50-50 chance and to chose between them is called a guess.

Quote:

Show us your measurements

Show me yours first.

Quote:

5. Show us how science is wrong when it shows that CO2 absorbs infrared in a specific spectrum. Failing to do that, you could show us how the laws of thermodynamics are incorrect.

I will... when you prove you have stopped dressing in women's clothes and hanging out on street corners.

1 Reply

@Advocate,

Thats what happens in dictatorships. Stalin had an unaminous vote too. That they all agree over something so speculative is cause for alarm.

1 Reply

Or it's paying proper attention to the evidence.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

Quote:

Or it's paying proper attention to the evidence.

Those are the two possibilities. I dont think the evidence is there to be paid attention to.

0 Replies

@Ionus,

Quote:

You are learning. This is my criticism of you before you ran away. Or is a limited memory another failing of the Global Warming Thuggees ? And you will never believe what happened... you ignored it.

Your attitude is typical of the Global Warming Thuggees. Focus in on minutae, ignore the big picture and abuse anyone who disagrees. You spend half your words abusing me. Good argument for Global Warming. It must be right because you have a personality disorder that prevents you from remaining calm.

Oh, the irony........

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Quote:

Correct. Neither are scientific opinions.

There is a rather large difference between an opinion and something that has been published in scientific peer reviewed journals and open to scientific criticism.

GISS and HADCRUT3 numbers are open to scientific criticism and the methods have been published. If you would care to point to real scientific criticism or publish that criticism yourself in a scientific journal then you might have a case. Until you do, there is a difference between science and your opinion to any thinking person. One has been submitted to criticism by others capable of doing the science and the other is someone arguing from ignorance.

Quote:

I am still waiting for you to make some sort of statement about Global Warming rather than taking the easy and cowardly path of criticising without stating your position

Meanwhile you criticize without facts or science on your side. I'll stick with the science. You are free to stick with your ignorance but don't expect too many to follow you.

2 Replies

@Ionus,

You did? Could you please provide a link to where you stated which numbers are incorrect?

Quote:

It was in the reference I gave you.

That's funny Ionus. You now want to reference others but attack me for doing that? Which standard to you hold yourself up to Ionus?

Quote:

Ah, parados, it must be liberating to understand nothing of Global Warming but to still have an opinion. If measurements are inaccurate and there are only two directions data can trend in, assuming it hasnt by complete accident been exactly accurate, then it can either reflect hotter or colder values. It is called a 50-50 chance and to chose between them is called a guess.

a 50/50 chance? Yet 2 sets of numbers and thousands of scientists checking the calculations all lead to the same result. You don't seem to know what 50/50 means when it comes to likelihood of the numbers being wrong.

There is a 50/50 chance of EACH temperature reading being wrong. With 1200-1800 temperature readings over 100-15o years for each point on the grid and 8000 grid points on the globe. What is the likelihood of 9,600,000 - 14,400,000 readings all being wrong in the fashion to show warming? It isn't 50/50.

If we use your logic Ionus, the odds of winning the lottery would be 50/50 because you can only win/lose. That however, is not the way statistics work.

Quote:

I will... when you prove you have stopped dressing in women's clothes and hanging out on street corners.

It's nice to see you don't resort to childish "thuggery" in the discussion.

1. You have misused numbers claiming millions of data points leads to a 50/50 chance of the trend being wrong. Even a HS statistics course would tell you that is incorrect and you are off by a factor of more than a million. The odds would more likely be 1 in 2^9,600,000.
2. You have failed to provide any evidence of a scientific nature. Your opinion can't even explain away basic science and you don't bother to even try. Since CO2 absorbs infrared that means it heats up when it does it. I will state that is my opinion based on the scientific literature, when more Co2 molecules are added to an air mixture then more heat is absorbed in the range that CO2 absorbs IR. You either have to show that CO2 doesn't absorb energy or you have to tell us that the energy doesn't cause an increase in temperature in violation of the laws of thermodynamics.

1 Reply

Some things take longer then others to see. The Chamber is late and not of its own choice, presumably.

0 Replies

@Ionus,

I understand that the proctologists and phrenologists have only begun their research, which I am sure will be in accord with other reputable organizations. The Psychic Friends Network will release its findings at any time.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

I don't understand why you continue to spam us with those charts. If anything, they seem to support the view that the most-recent 10-year period was the warmest ever.

2 Replies

@Ionus,

Can you point to a single reputable scientific organization that supports the deniers? Please don't point to the Republican Party.

0 Replies

@Ionus,

Ionus wrote:

Thats what happens in dictatorships. Stalin had an unaminous vote too. That they all agree over something so speculative is cause for alarm.

Does this mean that it is your view that every reputable scientific organization is a dictatorship? I think you are somewhat unglued.

2 Replies

@Advocate,

I would have said "unplugged." LOL

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Good one, c.i.

1 Reply

@Advocate,

That chart I repeatedly post shows that average annual global temperature since 1998 has leveled off and decreased slightly.

The chart shows that the average annual global temperature since 1850 reached a minimum in about 1910. Since then up to about 2001, the average annual global temperature fluctuated with a generally increasing trend. Thereafter it has decreased slightly. Over that entire period the CO2 density in the atmosphere increased steadily. But the Sun's average annual solar irradiation fluctuated. The Sun's solar irradiation has been decreasing over the last 10 years.

QUESTIONS

What percentage of the increasing CO2 in the atmosphere is caused by increasing evaporation of sea water containing CO2?

What percentage of the increasing CO2 in the atmosphere is caused by increasing human caused emissions?

What percentage of the increasing average annual global temperature 1910 to 2001 was caused by the increasing CO2 density in the atmosphere?

What percentage of the increasing average annual global temperature 1910 to 2001 was caused by the Sun's increasing solar radiation?

What percentage of the increasing average annual global temperature 1910 to 2001 was caused by other phenomena?

Unless one knows the answers to these questions, one does not know what is actually the major/primary cause of the increasing average annual global temperature 1910 to 2001.

Absent answers to these questions, so-called scientific consensus has little if any credability. It certainly is not science.

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

Meanwhile you criticize without facts or science on your side.

Would this be facts like the earth is flat ? Or science like the bottom of the oceans are dead flat and have no features ? Or that travelling over 40km per hour will kill a human body ? Einstein and Hawkings were wrong and I am sure they had many toadies who argued in their favour like you do with Global Warming. You need to think for yourself. Global Warming is a guess. If it is true then they have found supportive evidence. If it is not true, then they have found bullshit.

Quote:

There is a rather large difference between an opinion and something that has been published in scientific peer reviewed journals and open to scientific criticism.

You are not allowed to criticise those findings. The Global Warming Thuggees, the Politics, the Money...it all adds up to shut up. Are you totally unaware of how university professors trade sex for grades ? Obviously these are people of high unquestionable standards. Perhaps you have never seen them intimidate students and demand they follow the official line ? This is to lessen opinion. The more opinions the more possiblities to be considered, but that is not what is wanted. Support for the official line is what is required. Try working for a major scientific organisation and desenting with the official line...see what happens to your career. But you appear ignorant of all this. Your faith is born of ignorance. Peer review has failed many times. When you have been around longer you will know this, perhaps when you leave High School you will go on to university and learn first hand.

Quote:

numbers are open to scientific criticism and the methods have been published.

Have you found the numbers since asking me for them ? Perhaps you knew of them all along. Were you pretending to be ignorant ? Rather than state facts you prefer to attack others ? Cant handle an attack on your opinions or dont know enough to have one ....which is it ?

Quote:

there is a difference between science and your opinion

See ! You are learning. Dont give up yet.

Quote:

Meanwhile you criticize without facts or science on your side.

Is this from the same person who didnt know the difference between an Ice Age and a Glacial Advance ? Is this the person who called me a liar and said I had my head up my arse ? Is this the person who has had several posts removed for abuse ? What science were you using, parados ? The science of bullying ? And when to my shame I join you at your own game, suddenly you are holy ? You have the God of science ? Do you have memory issues or are only guilty of living in denial ?

I want you to prove I am lying parados. I want you to prove I have my head up my arse. Show me your science. I repeatedly ask you to make a statement, anything...about Global Warming..but as you put it "you either cant or wont". Dont be scared parados, I know bullies have trouble with courage, but give it a try... say something on Global Warming...please ?

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

Re: Ionus (Post 3796274)
Quote:
You are learning. This is my criticism of you before you ran away. Or is a limited memory another failing of the Global Warming Thuggees ? And you will never believe what happened... you ignored it.

Your attitude is typical of the Global Warming Thuggees. Focus in on minutae, ignore the big picture and abuse anyone who disagrees. You spend half your words abusing me. Good argument for Global Warming. It must be right because you have a personality disorder that prevents you from remaining calm.
Oh, the irony........

I agree. It is ironic.

0 Replies

@Advocate,

Quote:

Does this mean that it is your view that every reputable scientific organization is a dictatorship? I think you are somewhat unglued.

Does this mean that it is your view that every reputable scientific organization is a democracy? I think you are somewhat unglued/unplugged.

0 Replies

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know