- 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: NOAA Whistleblower: How world leaders were duped over manipulated AGW data
Posted on 2/6/17 at 6:57 am to League Champs
Posted on 2/6/17 at 6:57 am to League Champs
I never understood why they always have to "adjust" the data, isn't the data the data?
2
Posted on 2/6/17 at 7:00 am to olddawg26
So you're ignoring science and use anecdotal evidence to dispute it?
That's like you referring to yourself as cisgender.
That's like you referring to yourself as cisgender.
Posted on 2/6/17 at 7:08 am to Strannix
The fundamental problem with climate science today is simple.
No governments are funding skeptic research. That's just bad science.
Job 1 in any scientific theory is to devise ways to challenge it and the best challenges won't ever come from those that already believe current theory.
With the vast majority of research dollars on climate coming from government and governments effectively freezing out all skeptical research, you can't help but end up in an echo chamber.
It would be like having almost all government research dollars on alternative energy going to solar for 30 years. Pretty soon, you could say, "90% of alternative energy scientists say Solar is the best choice"
No governments are funding skeptic research. That's just bad science.
Job 1 in any scientific theory is to devise ways to challenge it and the best challenges won't ever come from those that already believe current theory.
With the vast majority of research dollars on climate coming from government and governments effectively freezing out all skeptical research, you can't help but end up in an echo chamber.
It would be like having almost all government research dollars on alternative energy going to solar for 30 years. Pretty soon, you could say, "90% of alternative energy scientists say Solar is the best choice"
Posted on 2/6/17 at 7:19 am to olddawg26
Ask the dude what caused the polar ice caps to melt last time since it wasn't humans.
Posted on 2/6/17 at 7:34 am to olddawg26
My understanding is that the rapidity of the current climate change is only explainable through human interference with our environment. Ask him what caused the even more rapid climate fluctuations during Dansgaard-Oeschger events and or Bond events. Are we no longer to view 1,500 year cycles of rapid change such as those as natural events? Are they all now man-made?
Posted on 2/6/17 at 7:47 am to olddawg26
quote:
I'm about to head to the natural history museum in London, anything you morons want me to ask them since you won't actually persue any real research on this issue on your own?
I'm your huckleberry.
I want you to ask him/her why the predictive computer models always (seriously, it is always) skew the temperature predictions higher than the values measured via satellites.
I'd also like you to ask his/her opinions on why temperature measurements seem to correlate more with solar energy output than CO2 concentrations. While you're at it, ask him about the relative greenhouse effect values of CO2, CH4, and H2O.
Finally, as this is in my opinion the most pressing issue related to climate change, ask him/her how much more CO2 the oceans can handle before the average pH drops even one one hundredth from the established average.
Now I know you think I'm just some toothless, cousin-screwing, mouth breather from Alabama, but I actually have a PhD in chemical engineering with my dissertation being titled "Advanced Solvents for CO2 Separations." In addition, I am fairly well traveled having taught at DTU in Lyngby, Denmark the past two summers, and presented at numerous conferences in the states and abroad.
ETA the gif
This post was edited on 2/6/17 at 7:53 am
Posted on 2/6/17 at 7:48 am to BamaChemE
Posted on 2/6/17 at 7:50 am to ShortyRob
quote:
The fundamental problem with climate science today is simple.
No governments are funding skeptic research. That's just bad science.
Job 1 in any scientific theory is to devise ways to challenge it and the best challenges won't ever come from those that already believe current theory.
With the vast majority of research dollars on climate coming from government and governments effectively freezing out all skeptical research, you can't help but end up in an echo chamber.
It would be like having almost all government research dollars on alternative energy going to solar for 30 years. Pretty soon, you could say, "90% of alternative energy scientists say Solar is the best choice"
This is a great post! I've actually started referring to climate science as climate orthodoxy as the rules for dissent have become progressively less scientific and more religious in nature.
Posted on 2/6/17 at 8:41 am to i am dan
quote:
Do climate scientists have a booth or something at the museum? Do they just hang around there?
Yeah, here in london they do
Posted on 2/6/17 at 8:46 am to olddawg26
Posted on 2/6/17 at 8:50 am to olddawg26
quote:
I was in Iceland while a guy sat there and told me they can all visibly see climate change affecting how they fish and how mild the winters are right now.
And clearly, that has to do with SUV's, and not the natural ups and downs of our planets climate...
Calling others retards because you can't back up any of your claims with verifiable proof and thus, no one believes you. Sounds legit.
I'm also guessing you didn't read the OP either.
Posted on 2/6/17 at 8:52 am to olddawg26
quote:
You're avoiding this really hard.
ShortyRob is making you look very silly.
Posted on 2/6/17 at 8:52 am to the808bass
Oh, oh, I have a question... Me, me, me... ::hand raised and shaking::
Why the need to manipulate data? I mean shouldn't the data be THE data with no need for manipulation simply because THE data does not correspond to the point you are trying to make? Unless of course, you have "feelings" and an agenda concerning the data, then I do not really need an answer... TIA...
Why the need to manipulate data? I mean shouldn't the data be THE data with no need for manipulation simply because THE data does not correspond to the point you are trying to make? Unless of course, you have "feelings" and an agenda concerning the data, then I do not really need an answer... TIA...
Posted on 2/6/17 at 8:57 am to The Maj
quote:
Why the need to manipulate data? I mean shouldn't the data be THE data with no need for manipulation simply because THE data does not correspond to the point you are trying to make? Unless of course, you have "feelings" and an agenda concerning the data, then I do not really need an answer.
What always gets me is that the global climate warming/cooling/changing brigade state "the science is settled"...Are you stupid or something? "The science" should never be settled. The mere fact that you mention the "science is settled" means you are unwilling to look at any contradictory data that may disprove your "science".
The truth of it, is that global warming is religion to the left. They have unquestionable faith in global warming, and no amount of data or proof telling them otherwise will dissuade them. These are global warming fanatics. You can't reason with a fanatic.
This post was edited on 2/6/17 at 8:58 am
Posted on 2/6/17 at 8:58 am to BamaChemE
I'd be interested in hearing why, in the NOAA study at least, "scientific" error corrections come without any error bars/envelope/analysis. Is it because if you ignore discussion of expected error margins you can tweak it to say whatever the hell you want it to say? Meanwhile, no one with an ounce of academic integrity can trust the data because there's no way of knowing if your "corrected" values are significant or not.
Posted on 2/6/17 at 8:59 am to BamaChemE
Stand down sir! OldDawg is a diesel mechanic from Waycross, Ga and he has traveled to Florida AND Alabama. He also has access to a climate scientist at a museum. How dare you come up on here with that PH.D. shite about CO2 separations and overseas teaching and presenting at conferences. OldDawg is the REAL authority around here.
Posted on 2/6/17 at 9:01 am to League Champs
Looks like the rate of temperature increase is still the same from the graph.
Its just notched down a bit across the board
Its just notched down a bit across the board
This post was edited on 2/6/17 at 9:04 am
Posted on 2/6/17 at 9:06 am to League Champs
I found the data set referenced in opposition to the NOAA data here at the UK's Met Office:
It appears that the data in flawed in the graph on Daily Mail's website, as the numerical data at UK's Met Office found here does not follow the same trends indicated in their chart.
Sorry, but this appears to be falsified.
It appears that the data in flawed in the graph on Daily Mail's website, as the numerical data at UK's Met Office found here does not follow the same trends indicated in their chart.
Sorry, but this appears to be falsified.
Posted on 2/6/17 at 9:07 am to olddawg26
quote:
was in Iceland while a guy sat there and told me they can all visibly see climate change affecting how they fish and how mild the winters are right now
Posted on 2/6/17 at 9:10 am to olddawg26
quote:
ol I was in Iceland while a guy sat there and told me they can all visibly see climate change affecting how they fish and how mild the winters are right now. Half of you sit there and say "WELL DUH WE KNOW ITS HAPPENING BUT HUMANS ARENT TO BLAME LOL!!1", and I say actually a lot of you retards think the earth isn't warming. Then one of you will say "NO WE ALL KNOW ITS WARMING RIGHT GUYS??!1!" (Nervous laughter).
Thats all just made up bullshite....I suspect you know that.
A guy in Iceland...fishing.
Page 3 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News