Climate change

2,027 posts in this topic

 

I actually have and work with raw data - not computer models.

 

LOL.

 

@Chocky I can borrow you my crackpotometer. It showed 100% after "raw data".

5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

However, what is truly breath-taking is the utter audacity in commanding the general population to just shut up and take it because the AGW crowd knows best.

 

What is hilarious is that the right wing in the US Is dead in the water, because instead of taking a more moderate stance on issues since losing two elections consecutively, you have become even more radical and swivel eyed, and alienated ever growing groups of potential voters. Not that I think there is any difference between US Dem and Rep politics at all, but it is satisfying to see the supporters of the most regressive, troglodyte policies sliding ever further in to irrelevance.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

@Chocky I can borrow you my crackpotometer. It showed 100% after "raw data".

 

Sounds like someone with his head in the oven, feet in the fridge and the thermometer up his arse is showing an average temperature.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

@Chocky I can borrow you my crackpotometer. It showed 100% after "raw data".

 

Mine is working fine thanks ;)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

... but it is satisfying to see the supporters of the most regressive, troglodyte policies sliding ever further in to irrelevance.

 

Unfortunately, I don't think you are correct.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

At no point in that diatribe did you give any reason why striving to reduce carbon emissions is a bad thing, other than incorrectly dismissing environmentalism as a cult.

 

Diatribe?? The entire AGW position is based on hyperbole and diatribe with no rationale why mankind going back to a 'fireless' world is a good thing. Also, I didn't say environmentalism is a cult, I said the AGW cult is a cult.

 

 

Environmental degradation has everything to do with politics, or rather politicians which are in the pockets of corporatists and lobbyists.

 

What degradation are you speaking about, is it the culling of birds, the decimation of bats, the pollution of rivers, the freezing of pensioners, etc, etc??

 

 

Can you specify that? Raw data? What is that? A thermometer on your hand? You cannot predict weather patterns without computer models. Period.

 

Funny thing, the models can't seem to predict the raw data. Period. You can keep your models, I'll stick to the data.

 

 

What is hilarious is that the right wing in the US Is dead in the water, because instead of taking a more moderate stance on issues since losing two elections consecutively, you have become even more radical and swivel eyed, and alienated ever growing groups of potential voters. Not that I think there is any difference between US Dem and Rep politics at all, but it is satisfying to see the supporters of the most regressive, troglodyte policies sliding ever further in to irrelevance.

 

Yes, nothing quite so progressive as serving a nameless bureaucratic machine that kills out of love.

 

BTW - if there is no difference between DEMs and GOP, then how do you draw your conclusion. Ah, never mind - facts don't matter.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it still called 'Climate Change'? I read a new term for it the other day. It was "climate diversity" or something like that.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Diatribe?? The entire AGW position is based on hyperbole and diatribe with no rationale why mankind going back to a 'fireless' world is a good thing.

 

Do you really think childish flippancy is the right tack to take in this argument? Presumably by 'AGW', you mean Anthropogenic Global Warming? 'Global Warming' is a misleading term, because it implies that all continents on the planet will experience negative effects caused by steadily increasing temperatures, rather than the reality which is increases in extreme weather events around the world, but not necessarily hotter summers year on year.

I'm not necessarily taking exception to your view that climate science is infallible, but I do wonder how much your political leaning influences your stance.

 

 

Diatribe?? The entire AGW position is based on hyperbole and diatribe with no rationale why mankind going back to a 'fireless' world is a good thing. Also, I didn't say environmentalism is a cult, I said the AGW cult is a cult.

 

What degradation are you speaking about, is it the culling of birds, the decimation of bats, the pollution of rivers, the freezing of pensioners, etc, etc??

 

Funny thing, the models can't seem to predict the raw data. Period. You can keep your models, I'll stick to the data.

 

Yes, nothing quite so progressive as serving a nameless bureaucratic machine that kills out of love.

 

BTW - if there is no difference between DEMs and GOP, then how do you draw your conclusion. Ah, never mind - facts don't matter.

 

 

 

Yes, nothing quite so progressive as serving a nameless bureaucratic machine that kills out of love.

 

BTW - if there is no difference between DEMs and GOP, then how do you draw your conclusion. Ah, never mind - facts don't matter.

 

Where is the killing in reducing emissions of carbon?

 

There is no difference between the political parties because they are both owned by corporations and those corporation's lobbyists, though of course those who identify themselves as 'liberals' (hate that term myself, but that kind of simplistic labeling seems to be par for the course in US political discourse) will usually also identify themselves as Democrats, so in other words, there is a difference between the politicians and the electorate.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear AGW Cult members, please don't click on the following links - there is a danger of head explosion!

 

AGW Scientists suppress Data Wow, what a shock!

 

Suppress, attack, destroy Again, I am totally shocked. A leading AGW scientist defects to the real scientists side and promptly is attacked 24 hours a day and has his life threatened.

 

Damn, that is quite an accomplishment for the AGW cult, hell - you even put scientologists to shame!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Referencing James Delingpole on the environment is akin to using the work of David Icke as the basis for a history of the royal family (i.e. rather subjective).

 

The Times is sadly turning into a paper version Fox News. Good old Rupert!

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The Times is sadly turning into a paper version Fox News.

 

The latter probably being where ZGE gets most of his news from.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Referencing James Delingpole on the environment is akin to using the work of David Icke as the basis for a history of the royal family (i.e. rather subjective).

 

The Times is sadly turning into a paper version Fox News. Good old Rupert!

 

 

 

The latter probably being where ZGE gets most of his news from.

 

Thank you both for once again ignoring the facts and focusing on personal attacks instead. You never fail to miss even the lowest of standards expected for rationale debate. You have yet again shown your bigotry (unabashedly I might add) and utter inability to leave the cult.

 

Not Delingpole

also Not Delingpole

Also Not Delingpole

Also Not Delingpole

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

However, I must say the naysaysers appear to have all the credence of the Flat Earth Society.

 

As opposed to people who would bash anything reported in Murdoch news that they didn't like as simply being a story spawned by satan.

 

BTW, have you googled the story lately - hits galore from many sources. But don't let that stop the bashing of any deniers.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Thank you both for once again ignoring the facts and focusing on personal attacks instead. You never fail to miss even the lowest of standards expected for rationale debate. You have yet again shown your bigotry (unabashedly I might add) and utter inability to leave the cult.

 

Not Delingpole

also Not Delingpole

Also Not Delingpole

Also Not Delingpole

 

Wrong, making fairly accurate (given the links you provided) assumptions about where you go digging for badly researched, corporate interest group aligned scraps of text to back up your dumbass interpretations of the world around you is not an insult. Calling you a dribbling halfwit definitely would be.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Climate change is not a myth, but the causes of it is. The human influence on climate change - either up or down - is at best miniscule.Heat coming up under Greenland,outbreak of sun spots in direction of the earth,volcanoes, meteors and movement of the earth's mantle are the most suspect.

In the part of the world where I live, a warming of the earth is certainly welcome. I was trying to empty my compost pile this morning and there is still frost a foot down.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Wrong, making fairly accurate (given the links you provided) assumptions about where you go digging for badly researched, corporate interest group aligned scraps of text to back up your dumbass interpretations of the world around you is not an insult. Calling you a dribbling halfwit definitely would be.

 

making fairly accurate assumptions --> otherwise known as displaying your ignorance in the real world. However, your closes mindedness is understandable, after all members of a cult are not allowed to hear any blasphemy.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Dear AGW Cult members, please don't click on the following links - there is a danger of head explosion!

 

AGW Scientists suppress Data Wow, what a shock!

 

Suppress, attack, destroy Again, I am totally shocked. A leading AGW scientist defects to the real scientists side and promptly is attacked 24 hours a day and has his life threatened.

 

Damn, that is quite an accomplishment for the AGW cult, hell - you even put scientologists to shame!

 

Please read:

 

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/may/16/murdoch-media-hypes-lone-climate-denial-big-oil

 

 

As an illustrative example of just how isolated Prof Bengtsson and his ilk are, consider the fact reported earlier this year by Scientific American that out of more than 2,000 peer-reviewed climate science publications put out over the last year from November 2012 to December 2013, the number of scientists who denied the role of human-caused CO2 emissions in current climate change "is exactly one."

Even Bengtsson himself recognizes that The Times article was not correct:

 

 

I do not believe there is any systematic 'cover-up' of scientific evidence on climate change or that academics' work is being 'deliberately suppressed', as the Times front page suggests.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/may/16/rejected-climate-science-paper-environmental-research-letters

 

And you can read here on why his article was not published: it was bad.

 

http://ioppublishing.org/newsDetails/statement-from-iop-publishing-on-story-in-the-times

5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Funny thing, the models can't seem to predict the raw data. Period. You can keep your models, I'll stick to the data.

 

1) You have a lot of models without raw data. Black holes predictions, lasers, relativity frame dragging, all were predicted and modeled without raw data

2) Raw data means untreated. Not calibrated.

3) A model does not predict raw data. Raw data is what comes out of a single sensor. That is why it is "raw".

4) I don't understand how a guy that calls himself "zee great engineer" can say such an ignorant statement about raw data and models. Are you really an engineer?

 

I'm curious, what do you do with "the data"?

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now