Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Community
»
The Flameboard
»
ClimateGate
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Guardian 2000: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: [QB] You're taking this all personally- no one ever called [b]you[/b] immoral- but relying on the word of anonymous hackers is hardly a rock from which to build an unbiased viewpoint.[/QUOTE][b]The university admits the data is real.[/b] What part of that don't you understand? Your response is the equivalent of someone stealing your driver's license after you've been lying about your age. When said license is publicly shown and you are called out on said lies, you [i]admit that it's your driver's license[/i] but then say "why would you believe a thief?" Do you not comprehend how retarded a response that is? Skipping your silly defense of the ad hominem, we now move on to your effort to turn this toward me and still away from the science. What the hell, I'll bite: [QUOTE]So let me ask you a question: Do you believe that, based on the science, the world is getting warmer, causing environmental consequences?[/QUOTE]Over the past thousands of years and more, temperatures on the planet have been subject to swings all the time, swings that are massive (e.g. glacial/interglacial), tiny, and all points in between. Any temperature change . . . or even a lack thereof . . . can have "environmental consequences". Is the average temperature of the planet presently on the increase when the data is figured on a monthly basis? Oh, I think there's some warming in some places, and cooling elsewhere. The net effect is probably of warming. But frankly, I don't know beyond a reasonable doubt that we can even say that with certainty at this point. The claims of warming have been wildly overstated by some scientists (CRU's data-fixing, [URL=http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/]New Zealand[/URL], [URL=http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/13/frigid-folly-uhi-siting-issues-and-adjustments-in-antarctic-ghcn-data/]Antarctica[/URL], surface station culling, failure to account for UHI and other bad surface station siting(*), et cetera), which muddies the water greatly. (*)In the US, for instance, only about 10% of surface monitoring stations meet the specs for a good station (i.e. errors of less than a degree Celsius). And worldwide, about half the stations got decommissioned circa 1988-1991, and the remainder showed a much higher average, by weight. Note also the points above about Antarctica and New Zealand. On the good side, we have satellite data, but these are calibrated and corrected off of ground sites and radiosondes, which themselves are subject to error and calibration by ground station. So they're really severely weighting things toward the ground stations, of which there are fewer and of which many are of poor quality (i.e. errors of one or more degrees Celsius). [QUOTE]Do you believe that it is getting warmer but humans are not involved or not aggrivating the situation?[/QUOTE]This is two questions. The first is answered above, but I presume you mean to ask "if warmer = yes, then is human involvement aggravating the situation?" Of all the greenhouse gases pumped into the atmosphere, mankind's contribution is about one quarter of one percent. We are claimed to be making 3% extra CO2, which is just 3.6% of the gases. So yes, we could be said to be aggravating the situation, to the tune of a single-digit handful of percentage points, on the basis of gases alone. I also think that we are aggravating it locally due to our massive concrete jungles and their urban heat islands, which are probably screwing with a bunch of the results in a way that is known to be poorly accounted for. [QUOTE]Is it your assertation that [b]"The global warming guys were liars and scoundrels perpetrating a falsehood upon the whole world, and they suffered from the same sort of undeserved arrogance"[/b] as in your first post?[/QUOTE]Yes, though I am presuming you're taking that out of the context of it being these CRU and CRU-related guys and their AGW BS. [QUOTE]Because if you believe that, then you reject all science[/QUOTE]You're dead wrong. These guys were scientists in name only . . . their methodology and behavior does not reflect either the ideals of science or the behavior of scientists in other disciplines. There's a good reason so many scientists from other disciplines point and laugh . . . because climate researchers seem to be of the opinion that they can divorce themselves from reality. To borrow from [URL=http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?1ad63198-0a1f-4b5b-8fb8-96df07d70d41]this excellent essay[/URL]'s quote of Feynman: ”In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First, we guess it. Then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if this law that we guessed is right. Then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience; compare it directly with observation to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. It’s that simple statement that is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is. It does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is---if it disagrees with experiment (observation) it is wrong." - Dr. Richard Feynman, “The Character of Natural Law”, the MIT Press, 1965, p. 156. Similarly, it doesn't make any difference what the consequences of your guess are. If it fails against reality it's dead wrong. [QUOTE]and the evidence of the global scientific community, as well as every nation in the UN, as well as the National Science Advisors and EPA of both the current and prior administrations.[/QUOTE]I'm cool with that. There are a lot of people in the world who are wrong. Feel free to list more. :p The concept you're falling victim to is truth by consensus. That's not how reality operates. Reality is truth, whether it is recognized or not. Many of the 'origin stories' of science are based on Galileo, Bruno, and other bold individuals who stood up against religious orthodoxy. Man-made global warming is the latest version of the religion of enviromentalism, and even gives its own Original Sin to the mythos (you dirty CO2-exhalers, you). Sorry, chief, but I'm not buying into your religious mumbo-jumbo. I don't like religion in my science, whether it's AGW or creationism, so you can take that home and flush it. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
© 1999-2024 Charles Capps
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3