- 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 11:28 am to MJM
Posted on 5/19/14 at 11:28 am to MJM
quote:
It's all a conspiracy braaah. All the scientist from around the world conspired together to write those 10,000+ entries just to get more funding
Yeah, it had nothing to do with the billion-dollar-a-year business that Al Gore and his partner-in-crime Maurice Strong set up, or the $60 billion Climate Exchange that was created from it.
0
Posted on 5/19/14 at 11:34 am to AUbused
quote:
And the 10k peer reviewed publications?
Ehhhhh, given the amount of misinformation on the topic, much of it coming from the flawed methodology deniers like yourself, I cannot comment because I haven't read each one of those studies to determine if the content of their studies is applicable to the discussion.
What I can tell you is that the methodologies have to become more scientific in order to convince reasonable people to implement carbon trading policies that are going to wreak havoc on the economy.
Yes, many studies have been done, and many scientists agree. But the narrative has changed, and continues to change, without much explanation. There is also a lot of shennanigans going on behind the scenes, and a lot of childish name calling. All with shitty solutions that will definately fail, becuase it relies on controlling interests overseas that we cannot possibly hope to control.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 11:40 am to AUbused
quote:It would appear to be correct. You're belief is based on faith. You have yet to present a single scientific argument...
The worlds foremost scientific experts "evangelists"
Posted on 5/19/14 at 11:42 am to elprez00
quote:
If Les Miles writes a dissertation entitled "Tommy Tuberville is an a-hole" and its' distributed to season ticket holders in Tiger Stadium, how many positive reviews is he going to get?
Case in point as to why the OP is 100% true.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 11:44 am to AUbused
Are you interested in debate or just strawmen and semi-witty quips?
quote:
and that when tied to carbons physical heat trapping properties along with the carbon trending post industrial revolution it paints a picture that seems to have convinced 97%
From page 1:
quote:
the source for the 97% quote is an article written by William R. L. Anderegg. He graduated from undergrad in 2008. His job title since getting his PHD is Climate & Global Change Post-doctoral fellow.
Not saying this challenges the validity of his assertion....but I would love to see the studies and questions asked that he relied upon to make that assertion.
From Page 2:
quote:
"Reducing carbon output" is a method to get to a desired result, right? The desired result being cessation of man made global warming? Is that correct?
If so, then simply stating "reducing carbon output" isn't nearly sufficient. What is the output range we must get to to achieve the desired result? Surely, the consensus of scientists have identified the problem and the desired levels that would provide a solution. What is that number (or what are the levels)? Once we have that lets see a plan to get to those levels.
Do we have this information? If not...what is the point?
quote:
and that when tied to carbons physical heat trapping properties along with the carbon trending post industrial revolution it paints a picture that seems to have convinced 97%
From page 1:
quote:
the source for the 97% quote is an article written by William R. L. Anderegg. He graduated from undergrad in 2008. His job title since getting his PHD is Climate & Global Change Post-doctoral fellow.
Not saying this challenges the validity of his assertion....but I would love to see the studies and questions asked that he relied upon to make that assertion.
From Page 2:
quote:
"Reducing carbon output" is a method to get to a desired result, right? The desired result being cessation of man made global warming? Is that correct?
If so, then simply stating "reducing carbon output" isn't nearly sufficient. What is the output range we must get to to achieve the desired result? Surely, the consensus of scientists have identified the problem and the desired levels that would provide a solution. What is that number (or what are the levels)? Once we have that lets see a plan to get to those levels.
Do we have this information? If not...what is the point?
Posted on 5/19/14 at 11:45 am to ironsides
quote:
Ehhhhh, given the amount of misinformation on the topic, much of it coming from the flawed methodology deniers like yourself, I cannot comment because I haven't read each one of those studies to determine if the content of their studies is applicable to the discussion.
NO SIR!!! According to this place you must have read 100% of scientific literature in order to offer any opinion.
This post was edited on 5/19/14 at 11:46 am
Posted on 5/19/14 at 11:46 am to AUbused
quote:No. It wasn't.
That was kinda part of my post.
quote:
That the datasets don't all deal with temperature directly.....but with trends that correlate with the temperature changes.
way to avoid the challange. Are you seriously trying to claim that historic datasets don't "deal with temperature directly"? quote:
Nothing you guys can't just chalk up to "evangelist" scientists.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 11:46 am to AUbused
I think the religious acolyte is getting upset....
Posted on 5/19/14 at 11:48 am to AUbused
quote:
Case in point as to why the OP is 100% true.
No, not really.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 11:49 am to AUbused
quote:
Yes. Of course I could also go find an article that claims leprechauns to be real. I'll let you Google for that one though.
And you're trying to troll by accusing other of "ignoring evidence". Awesome!
Posted on 5/19/14 at 11:50 am to BBONDS25
quote:
Are you interested in debate or just strawmen and semi-witty quips?
First of all my quips are fully witty.
As I stated earlier, I really dont feel like, or have the time to deep-dive into the science. I've done that a few times on this subject and its fruitless. My point was in the OP and I'd say its been confirmed by many here.
So, to answer your question.....Im going with quips.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 11:53 am to CptBengal
quote:Yeah, but... a survey of 97% of "scientists" is better than 95% confidence of models.
All of the Models have so vastly overestimated the temperature, that none of them can account for the current, actual temperature within their 95% CIs.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 11:56 am to AUbused
quote:
spidey
quote:
Is this an accusation of an alter Im assuming? I dont come here a whole lot. Does he come here and embarrass ya'll asses routinely or something?
This post was edited on 5/19/14 at 11:57 am
Posted on 5/19/14 at 11:57 am to stuntman
quote:Yeah, but... those models may not be accurate over the first couple of decades, but the accuracy is surely much better in the subsequent decades
So again, if the models are this far off, it means the hypotheses they came up to create those models in the first place are off. THAT is science.
What's hilarious is the current error term is larger than the predicted temperature rise. Yet... the OP still puts if faith in those that create them...
This post was edited on 5/19/14 at 11:58 am
Posted on 5/19/14 at 11:57 am to dantes69
Posted on 5/19/14 at 11:58 am to AUbused
Strange. Don't really understand the point of this thread, then. You don't want to discuss the op....you just want to poke fun of those who disagree with you.
Kind of proves the point many were making in this thread.
Kind of proves the point many were making in this thread.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 11:59 am to AUbused
quote:
I really dont feel like, or have the time to deep-dive into the science. I've done that a few times on this subject and its fruitless
I doubt itPosted on 5/19/14 at 12:01 pm to Taxing Authority
Weird how the gap widened as government got more involved, huh?
Posted on 5/19/14 at 12:03 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
You don't want to discuss the op....you just want to poke fun of those who disagree with you
To be completely frank I've spent way too much of my morning on this thread when I was supposed to be coding up 1's and 0's. That gets much worse when we go deep into the science.
The crux of my post was simply this. What would it take for you to change your mind? Models that nailed the temp change in the next 5 years? Its a serious question. What could change your mind?
Page 9 of 16
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News