| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
keycocker
Joined: 10 Jul 2005
Posts: 3598
|
 Posted: Wed Aug 14, 2013 2:51 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
RR,
Scientists are left with theories......Like the theory that the Sun is sure to rise in the morning?
I support this theory because my data all fits.
It is not a fact however.
I think God created the earth a long time ago using evolution as the method and left evidence of that fact everywhere on earth.
This is only a group of theories however. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
swchandler
Joined: 08 Nov 1993
Posts: 10588
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 14, 2013 3:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| There appears to be an infinite source of energy in the universe, to include incredible invisible forces at work in the balance of things. Yet, it's religious folks that theorize that God created and concerted everything, but that in itself doesn't make it true. Without the real facts there's no certainty. That's why it can be interpreted as blind faith. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GURGLETROUSERS
Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Posts: 2643
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 14, 2013 3:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
R. ... And I'm no longer interested in further conversation with you. I'm unable to believe in a god and have always lain my cards on the table. You sneaked into this thread with your creationist agenda, and only owned to it when forced to. That I dislike. Over and out!
K.C. .... My evangelist gybe was aimed at those who uncritically believed tha early global warming frenzy, and took to it as a substitute religion.
This thread is turning angry, and I take exception to the dishonesty, back pedalling, and corrections now coming from the global warming adherents. At no time did they originally make allowance for extended very cold spells (even mini-ice ages) or a protracted pause in continued warming. They are now retrospectively re-writing history.
(Will continue -glitch.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GURGLETROUSERS
Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Posts: 2643
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 14, 2013 4:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
(Continued.)
Take the second of Mr Gybes quoted comments from a chief scientist at the East Anglian Climate Research Centre to the effect that children will no longer experience snow. (That's entered our countries folk lore as one of the daftest statements ever!)
This was from a chief climate scientist of a world respected climate centre. Nowhere in that statement can it be construed that there would be protracted cold spells (four severe winters in a row with record snow falls and low temperatures) yet they now have the nerve and bared faced dishonesty to claim that this would happen all along, as part of the global warming process. And they admit they can't explain the 15 non rising of global temperatures, but don't worry, it's all going to plan. Incredible.
Over and out again. (I've had enough.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KGB-NP
Joined: 25 Jul 2001
Posts: 2856
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 14, 2013 4:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| GURGLETROUSERS wrote: | R. ... And I'm no longer interested in further conversation with you. I'm unable to believe in a god and have always lain my cards on the table. You sneaked into this thread with your creationist agenda, and only owned to it when forced to. That I dislike. Over and out!
|
Dislike all you want, I'm cool with that. I am interested in what a creationist agenda would be, to not destroy creation is the only one I could think of. I guess I should have entered with, "Hi, my name is reinerehlers. I'm not fond of olives, spicey food, pet hair, and I believe in creation"? Live with it.
Last edited by KGB-NP on Wed Aug 14, 2013 4:20 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17747
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 14, 2013 4:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
GT--there are people on all sides who make claims that are not scientifically sound. When they do that with recklessness, lack of understanding, or on the take (excuse me, is consultant a nicer word?), that should be recognized. So I have to disagree with this general statement:
| Quote: | | Everybody cherry picks to bolster their beliefs, and nobody is better at doing so than the dedicated (my new religion) global warmer. |
First, I have never subscribed to the more doomsday model scenarios, which I have stated consistently in this forum for over three years. Those models do not take into account confounding factors, most significantly (in our current understanding) that more warmth means more water vapor and cloud cover, which cuts down insolation. We have no idea, as yet, how to model that. Second, greater CO2 concentrations may be muted by absorption of CO2 by the oceans--currently observable--and greater plant growth. Research being discussed today in Berkeley shows that redwood growth has accelerated--more likely due to improved air quality and less coastal fog than increased CO2. As yet, no way to put this stuff into models.
Second, the eagerness of certain deniers, and posters on this forum, to dismiss peer review shows a willingness to use unreliable methods to get the preconceived notion you brought to the table. A classic case in point is the posting by NW30 by Pierre Gosselin where he concluded that global warming had stopped. Gosselin's mistakes would be quickly identified in peer review, even if he had a technical degree in a climate-related field. He has no grasp of statistical methods or populations. He takes the 15 years of no change argument and limits his data end points to that data set. The naked eye can see three cyclical rises in that data set--all El Ninos. With a chaotic data set, there are acceptable ways of smoothing the data to factor out short term perturbations like that--and like solar flares. You smooth the data, using a running average, most typically five years of data. When you plot the data that way, and do not artificially curtail your end points you--imagine that--find a continued warming trend. It is irrelevant to me whether such methods are unethical or just uninformed. It is wrong, and you get torn apart in peer review if you try it.
Because I am involved in establishing public policy in California for climate change, I have traced back dozens of reputed sources who concluded that warming had stopped. I have used scientists working in the field for help, as some of the stories are much more plausible than Gosselin's. Without a single exception, these stories have traced back to a denier web site where the funding is from the carbon industry, a conservative web site like CNS news that use unqualified bloggers like Gosselin, or postings that ignore the current science. The latter was the case when denier sites argued that satellite data showed no warming, when the satellite data in question was not actually direct measurement of temperature, but needed transformations to be decoded as a temperature time series. The wrong formula was initially used in the transformation, but conservatives continued to use the discredited information long after corrections were published and widely known in the scientific community.
Third, when deniers get scolded, as Exxon was by a Republican senator, for their hostility to science, they change the argument to "adaptation will kill the economy." Or argue that battery powered cars are far worse than gasoline powered cars. Again, without any rigor or citations. This is advocacy, not science.
It is one thing to interpret data within the uncertainty of that data, and look for other causes. It is completely valid to say that some warming appears to be a continuation of a long term trend that began with the end of the last ice age. It is another thing entirely to turn an opinion by a scientist along the lines that "this global warming science stuff is really important and could change the world dramatically" into insistence that this was a prediction with a precise time scale and if it doesn't happen--even, in the case of the 15 year "flattening", we understand it--then the science is bunk is bunk. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GURGLETROUSERS
Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Posts: 2643
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 14, 2013 5:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thank you Mac. I appreciate your input and command of 'proper' scientific rigour. Courtesy demands that I respond to you.
I don't think I'm stupid but I do feel disillusioned with to much other palpable nonsense now connected with the whole subject.
I've shot my mouth off quite enough so please excuse me, but I really do wish to be 'over and out' now, on the subject.
Thank you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nw30
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 6485
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 15, 2013 7:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Michael Corleone: "Just when I thought I was out... they pull me back in!" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MalibuGuru
Joined: 11 Nov 1993
Posts: 9299
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17747
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 16, 2013 3:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Weather is not climate, climate is not weather Bard. Look it up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
|
Search
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Register
