- 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 6:56 pm to AUbused
Posted on 5/19/14 at 6:56 pm to AUbused
quote:
hate to disappoint you, but I create software to run companies.
No you dont, Da, spidey, etc.
it's ok though.....a real compsci engineer would have known how to form a 95 CI. It must be sad having to live a made up life.
Im aning towards Da or otto...didn't one of tgem talk about being an "app" developer?
1
Posted on 5/19/14 at 7:06 pm to AUbused
quote:You need to look at your posts. If you aren't claiming CO2 is driving the temperature rise... you're writing is very, very poor.
I've seen noone stating that carbon dominiates,
quote:Ummm. You have to model all significant state variables. Whether we have control over them or not.
only that its among our outputs we have control(to some extent) over.
quote:It's actually quite sound. If you're trying to say that other non-modeled variables are more powerful than CO2 -- that tells you something too -- that CO2 isn't driving the response.
I read his post as stating that models being inaccurate means conclusively carbon is not a driver. That's bad logic.
You're basically trying to argue that poor modeling results don't invalidate the model's validity. It's a laughable position (no offense). So I'll leave it to you... if poor modeling results don't invalid the model's validity... what does?
Posted on 5/19/14 at 7:08 pm to AUbused
quote:
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.
New scientific method according to AUbused:
1. Investigate nature and form hypothesis
2. Formulate experiment (or model) to test hypothesis
3. Execute test and compare results with known measurements
4. If test confirm hypo then accept hypothesis as a theory
5. If test results do not represent reality call the hypothesis "settled" by consensus.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 7:10 pm to LSUnKaty
Posted on 5/19/14 at 7:40 pm to AUbused
quote:So you didn't understand the question.
As I understand the science I believe that you are correct regarding correlation. I think the whole thing is based on an enormous amount of correlate's that seem to point in the same direction
You don't understand the terminology.
You admittedly don't understand the foundational science requisite to the OP, yet you initiated it with intent of ridiculing those who do understand the science, and for that very reason, disagree.
You are in fact the perfect warmist.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 7:40 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
You need to look at your posts. If you aren't claiming CO2 is driving the temperature rise... you're writing is very, very poor.
Sorry if I was unclear, the general consensus seems to be that carbon is a driving factor.....not THE driver. I was trying to make that distinction
quote:Yes dude, Im a software engineer I realize how these things work. The clarification I was making was regarding the focus on carbon because its a factor we have control over.
Ummm. You have to model all significant state variables. Whether we have control over them or not.
quote:
It's actually quite sound. If you're trying to say that other non-modeled variables are more powerful than CO2 -- that tells you something too -- that CO2 isn't driving the response.
Goddamnit dude are you being intentionally obtuse? I have simply stated that there are a LARGE number of driving factors and that carbon is ONE of them. Just because a model we includes all of these as force variables turns out to be inaccurate does NOT mean that one or all of the variables dont contribute at all. It could also mean that one or more of the VALUES attributed to the input variables could be wrong. For example, they might have UNDER weighted one of the non-carbon variables, skewing the results.
quote:
You're basically trying to argue that poor modeling results don't invalidate the model's validity.
No thats not what Im arguing at all. See above.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 7:42 pm to CptBengal
Is your breakdown in grammar due to getting buttfricked all over this thread or did you switch to an IPhone?
At any rate Im not going to spend any more time arguing about what I do for a living. Im typing this in on my fricking work Thinkpad...im pretty sure what I do.
At any rate Im not going to spend any more time arguing about what I do for a living. Im typing this in on my fricking work Thinkpad...im pretty sure what I do.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 7:44 pm to NC_Tigah
After 13 pages of rabid right wingers foaming at the mouth trying to get a piece you'll have to remind me what question I didn't understand.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 7:49 pm to AUbused
quote:
After 13 pages of rabid right wingers foaming at the mouth trying to get a piece you'll have to remind me what question I didn't understand.
This type of snarky attitude is the way you felt before you started this thread so why the charade??
Posted on 5/19/14 at 7:51 pm to AUbused
quote:
I read his post as stating that models being inaccurate means conclusively carbon is not a driver. That's bad logic.
That was me and I stand firmly behind that statement.
Did you see how far off those models were? They were predicated on the hypotheses that CO2 was the main driver of temp increases. I repeat, DID YOU SEE HOW FAR OFF THOSE MODELS WERE?
quote:
What could change your mind?
Again I ask, shouldn't it be YOU who needs to answer this question?
Posted on 5/19/14 at 7:52 pm to AUbused
quote:Okay, so just how is this supposed to make all of us believe that CO2 IS a primary forcing variable?
I have simply stated that there are a LARGE number of driving factors and that carbon is ONE of them. Just because a model we includes all of these as force variables turns out to be inaccurate does NOT mean that one or all of the variables dont contribute at all. It could also mean that one or more of the VALUES attributed to the input variables could be wrong. For example, they might have UNDER weighted one of the non-carbon variables, skewing the results.
But don't worry, I'm sure you will be able to stick to your thesis indefinitely. Until all the matter in the universal is accounted for in the models you will be able to point to other variables that need to be controlled for.
So long as 77 out of 79 scientists tell you to.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 7:53 pm to fleaux
I was just pointing out the observation I made in the OP. That being said, if you go back and read the first page I dont feel that I started with this tone. Some dude came in with a HOO DOOORR comment first.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 7:54 pm to LSUnKaty
quote:
Okay, so just how is this supposed to make all of us believe that CO2 IS a primary forcing variable?
Umm...it isn't? If you follow the thread you'll see that it was simply a response to another posters assertion.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 7:56 pm to stuntman
quote:
That was me and I stand firmly behind that statement.
Did you see how far off those models were? They were predicated on the hypotheses that CO2 was the main driver of temp increases. I repeat, DID YOU SEE HOW FAR OFF THOSE MODELS WERE?
No it wasn't you. You first brought up the data on models. This comment came much later.
quote:
Again I ask, shouldn't it be YOU who needs to answer this question?
If 97% of scientific literature coming out on the subject of climate science discount the notion of AGW that would be a pretty big deal to me.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 8:02 pm to AUbused
quote:Don't know about foaming at the mouth, or what transpired in 13 pages.
After 13 pages of rabid right wingers foaming at the mouth trying to get a piece you'll have to remind me what question I didn't understand.
The terms cause and correlate are antithetical in this instance.
They define the schism dividing fact from warmist fallacy. Correlate is explanation in toto for ice core data and historic CO2 trends. Cause falters embarrassingly when addressing cyclical variance of the same data.
If there is something unclear to you there, perhaps someone will clarify for you.
This post was edited on 5/19/14 at 8:04 pm
Posted on 5/19/14 at 8:05 pm to AUbused
quote:
If 97% of scientific literature coming out on the subject of climate science discount the notion of AGW that would be a pretty big deal to me.
Let's start here: Testing hypotheses are a necessary part of science, agree? Global warming advocates' hypotheses are that CO2 creates global warming and has been for decades now, correct? So, can you point me to forecasts based on these hypotheses that have turned out to be correct?
One final question, you would agree that science depends on hypotheses being tested over and over and coming up w/ the same answers time after time, correct?
This post was edited on 5/19/14 at 8:07 pm
Posted on 5/19/14 at 8:13 pm to stuntman
quote:Doesn't quite sound like "foaming at the mouth"
Let's start here: Testing hypotheses are a necessary part of science, agree? Global warming advocates' hypotheses are that CO2 creates global warming and has been for decades now, correct? So, can you point me to forecasts based on these hypotheses that have turned out to be correct?
Posted on 5/19/14 at 8:21 pm to AUbused
quote:
At any rate Im not going to spend any more time arguing about what I do for a living
we better stick to programming, because you clearly dont understand basic math and science.
quote:
Im typing this in on my fricking work Thinkpad..
well now, I never realized that only people who do programming use thinkpads.....who knew! Guess that's why I program on a thinkpad, an asus, a mac, a dell, hp, etc, etc.
the box means little for software you blithering tart. But please keep exposing how limited you are to continue ANY discussion factually.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 8:29 pm to navy
quote:
You sound like a douchebag liberal who wants to attack me because I don't agree with what MSNBC told you to tell people to agree with you about or attack them.
Yes. Thank you for saying exactly what I was thinking. Go Navy.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 8:33 pm to CptBengal
quote:
Doesn't quite sound like "foaming at the mouth"
quote:Well maybe a little foam.......
the box means little for software you blithering tart.
Page 14 of 16
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News