- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: AGW Deniers - Seems Kind of Hopeless
Posted on 5/19/14 at 4:42 pm to AUbused
Posted on 5/19/14 at 4:42 pm to AUbused
quote:It does when you're claiming one of the forcing variables dominates, is included int the model, yet the model does not display skillful fidelity.
Whether more forcing variables introduced increases CI or not (it does) has no fricking bearing on my point.
quote:Huh? That doesn't even make sense. The prediction of a climatic response is 100% dependent on identifying the drivers.
My point is that because a model is wrong absolutely does NOT preclude carbon from being a driver.
quote:
Models, like science are wrong wrong wrong until they are right. Inaccurate models are just part of improving science. Deal with it bitch.
No. An structurally incorrect model may produce results that (via luck) correlate with reality. But a model that fails to produce calibrated results can never be structurally correct. quote:
I find it oddly flattering.
1
Posted on 5/19/14 at 5:08 pm to AUbused
quote:
if you assume the current science is right, then it provides a general direction we need to be aiming.
OK. What are the first steps? The very first ones that should be taken?
Posted on 5/19/14 at 5:09 pm to AUbused
quote:
if 97% of climate scientists agree that humans are, in fact, at least partially responsible for climate change
Define 'partially responsible.'
Compare man's contribution of CO2 to the effects of water vapor in the atmosphere.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 5:36 pm to Zelig
I don't know where the Climate Cult gets that 97 percent number but it is crap. It is far from settled science. According to people (Al Gore) and others that first started sounding the alarm we should all be drowning by now.
When people like Al and the other cultists stop driving their big cars living in big homes and flying around in private jets killing off ozone so they can make money yelling Wolf Wolf get back to me.
What it boils down to is a group with an agenda trying to force the rest of us to think and act like they think we should.
The atmosphere cannot tell the difference in taxed CO2 and non taxed CO2. It cannot tell the difference in US and foreign CO2. It is either all bad or no big deal. All the sacrificing is being asked of US, and no one else. The cultists have been caught altering data to fit their conclusions and caught just flat out lying.
Sorry boys ,it isn't going to fly. Come the next couple of elections we are going to bring you back to earth.
When people like Al and the other cultists stop driving their big cars living in big homes and flying around in private jets killing off ozone so they can make money yelling Wolf Wolf get back to me.
What it boils down to is a group with an agenda trying to force the rest of us to think and act like they think we should.
The atmosphere cannot tell the difference in taxed CO2 and non taxed CO2. It cannot tell the difference in US and foreign CO2. It is either all bad or no big deal. All the sacrificing is being asked of US, and no one else. The cultists have been caught altering data to fit their conclusions and caught just flat out lying.
Sorry boys ,it isn't going to fly. Come the next couple of elections we are going to bring you back to earth.
This post was edited on 5/19/14 at 5:42 pm
Posted on 5/19/14 at 5:44 pm to GoBigOrange86
That is absolutely true and something i made note if. The language i used in the OP was not specific enough.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 5:46 pm to AUbused
What else did the 97% say?
quote:
In a world where politicians (UK) went to war in Iraq based on a ‘sexed’ up dodgy dossier plagiarised from a 12 year old PhD thesis. I wonder how confident they would be lecturing the public about the need for radical decarbonising economic climate polices, if they were aware that the ’97% of active climate scientists’ quote/soundbite actually comes from a students MSc thesis, that the Doran EoS paper cites?
Posted on 5/19/14 at 5:49 pm to CptBengal
quote:
the models, and subsequently the hypothesis of CO2 as a driver of increasing temperatures, ARE WRONG.
Again, this statement is bullshite. It does not follow simply from an inaccurate model that carbon is not a driver. It could very well be that inaccurate values for other input variables could be off causing error while carbon in fact could very well still be a driver. Thats how shite works and it runs contrary to the quoted statement. Period.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 5:50 pm to antibarner
Ohh shite, I might as well bow out....ya'll got the venerable antibarner on your side.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 5:50 pm to AUbused
We can't even forecast the weather a week out,how can we forecast climate change years into the future?
This post was edited on 5/19/14 at 5:51 pm
Posted on 5/19/14 at 5:51 pm to antibarner
That is right AUbused. I ask questions and you have no answers.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 5:56 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
It does when you're claiming one of the forcing variables dominates, is included int the model, yet the model does not display skillful fidelity.
I've seen noone stating that carbon dominiates, only that its among our outputs we have control(to some extent) over.
quote:
Huh? That doesn't even make sense. The prediction of a climatic response is 100% dependent on identifying the drivers.
Read my post above, I read his post as stating that models being inaccurate means conclusively carbon is not a driver. That's bad logic.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 5:58 pm to AUbused
So we make drastic changes in our economy and reduce the standard of living for our citizens, while other countries do not. And when your models do not pan out,what then? "Sorry about that?"
Posted on 5/19/14 at 6:09 pm to AUbused
quote:
I read his post as stating that models being inaccurate means conclusively carbon is not a driver. T
the hypothesis to be drawn by the failed models is that carbon is statistically insignificant.
Im so sorry for your religion.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 6:36 pm to CptBengal
BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRNKKKKKKKKKK!!!!!
Try again. Sorry for your anus after the pummeling its received here
Check that....you know what.....can we start over? I feel we've gotten off on the wrong foot. My name is Spidey........in my spare time I like to create alters to troll the motherfricking politics board of Tigerdroppings.
Seriously who does that???
Try again. Sorry for your anus after the pummeling its received here
Check that....you know what.....can we start over? I feel we've gotten off on the wrong foot. My name is Spidey........in my spare time I like to create alters to troll the motherfricking politics board of Tigerdroppings.
Seriously who does that???
This post was edited on 5/19/14 at 6:37 pm
Posted on 5/19/14 at 6:37 pm to AUbused
quote:
I've seen noone stating that carbon dominiates
Why do adults still make this simple spelling error?
This post was edited on 5/19/14 at 6:39 pm
Posted on 5/19/14 at 6:46 pm to antibarner
the farmers almanack was written over 200 years ago and is more accurate then the climate change experts of today.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 6:46 pm to AUbused
it's funny you think you've won this argument....
Good thing is your made up degrees mean you are still nothing but a field tech, and have no contribution to scientific knowledge
Good thing is your made up degrees mean you are still nothing but a field tech, and have no contribution to scientific knowledge
This post was edited on 5/19/14 at 6:48 pm
Posted on 5/19/14 at 6:53 pm to CptBengal
Wait, does this mean we can't be friends? 
Try telling the motherfrickers at Google, who will shortly be running the world, that they are still field techs.
I'd wager that they've made some pretty astonishing contributions to search algorithms, tree traversals, geocaching, just to name a few off the top of my head. Not to mention that their AngularJS library is about the most excited I've been about a tech in my professional career.
I hate to disappoint you, but I create software to run companies. There are support tiers to handle the day to day break/fix and ID10T errors. Seriously tho....lets hug it out.
Try telling the motherfrickers at Google, who will shortly be running the world, that they are still field techs.
I'd wager that they've made some pretty astonishing contributions to search algorithms, tree traversals, geocaching, just to name a few off the top of my head. Not to mention that their AngularJS library is about the most excited I've been about a tech in my professional career.
I hate to disappoint you, but I create software to run companies. There are support tiers to handle the day to day break/fix and ID10T errors. Seriously tho....lets hug it out.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 6:56 pm to AUbused
Adderall?
Page 13 of 16
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News