- 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: Nearly ALL current global warming is fabricated: peer reviewed study finds
Posted on 7/10/17 at 3:52 pm to djmicrobe
Posted on 7/10/17 at 3:52 pm to djmicrobe
quote:
The mid-1930's were some of the hottest recorded years in US history. 1998 was close. That graph is pure garbage.
You understand that the blue lines on the graph don't indicicate that is was colder than normal, only that the temps from that time were adjusted downwards so that they looked cooler than they actually were. By showing cooler temps in the first half of the century, they can make it look like temps have risen in the second half of the century.
0
Posted on 7/10/17 at 3:54 pm to Dale51
quote:
So what?
It should be of note how or why it is happening
People, especially scientist, are interest in how the world works
quote:
What are you afraid of? Paint a picture of what your fears show you.
I honestly don't know. I can't predict the resilience of man hundreds of years in the future.
This post was edited on 7/10/17 at 3:55 pm
Posted on 7/10/17 at 3:55 pm to Salmon
quote:
I honestly don't know. I can't predict the resilience of man hundreds of years in the future.
"Thats what I thought"
Posted on 7/10/17 at 3:55 pm to Salmon
quote:Correct.
People, especially scientist, are interest in how the world works
So again, try to account for the cyclical CO2 flux demonstrated in your graphic.
Posted on 7/10/17 at 3:56 pm to Dale51
quote:
As Co2 goes up the Earth gets greener and healthier
What metric are you using to define the planets health? How 'healthy' and how green should the earth be?
Posted on 7/10/17 at 3:57 pm to Dale51
quote:While the sources a site is referencing may all be reputable, I would think the bias of the site and the presentation of the sources should be considered.
Let me see if I understand you correctly. If AGW articles are linked from a site that sells "Protect The Earth merchandise, you would discredit the article based on who linked it?
Just peruse the posts by boomshockalocka on the MSB regarding the NBA. He often presents legitimate facts, but you can clearly see that he's selecting and dismissing facts to support a viewpoint.
Posted on 7/10/17 at 3:58 pm to Dale51
quote:
So, basically, your fear is rooted in this:
You want so badly to paint me as an alarmist.
Posted on 7/10/17 at 4:01 pm to olddawg26
quote:
olddawg26
quote:Cute.
"Thats what I thought"
So I may have missed your answer.
Are you familiar with non-anthropogenic Ice Age CO2-Temp flux?
Posted on 7/10/17 at 4:02 pm to bmy
quote:
What metric are you using to define the planets health? How 'healthy' and how green should the earth be?
The relative bounty of life gaining in volume and area..finding a changing balance etc.
How would you define a decrease in the health of the planet? What metric would you use? When the planet "greens" that means there is both more plant life and habitat to support more animal and other life forms from insects to bacteria...all of which will adopt a natural balance.
Posted on 7/10/17 at 4:05 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
While the sources a site is referencing may all be reputable, I would think the bias of the site and the presentation of the sources should be considered.
Why is that? How could that possibly change the validity of the document?? Style over substance??
Posted on 7/10/17 at 4:07 pm to Salmon
quote:
While the sources a site is referencing may all be reputable, I would think the bias of the site and the presentation of the sources should be considered.
It's alarming how seriously you take yourself.
Posted on 7/10/17 at 4:08 pm to Salmon
quote:I'd like to paint you as living up to the qualities of intellectual curiosity you assigned to science.
You want so badly to paint me as an alarmist.
You posted a graph.
You indicate your understanding is it demonstrates climatic temperature variance thru the ice age as secondary to CO2 flux.
What is the cause of that regular 110K-yr cyclical CO2 variance?
Posted on 7/10/17 at 4:11 pm to NC_Tigah
"Iosh hasn't posted in a few pages time to haul out my shitty ice core talking points that could be answered by a casual skim of the IPCC"
This post was edited on 7/10/17 at 4:13 pm
Posted on 7/10/17 at 4:13 pm to Iosh
reading the data or asking a professional would damage the hoax narrative. Best continue to ask google "what global warming predictions haven't come true"
Posted on 7/10/17 at 4:18 pm to Iosh
quote:
"Iosh hasn't posted in a few pages time to haul out my shitty ice core talking points that could be answered by a casual skim of the IPCC"
How about instead of sophomoric attempts at dismissal, you take your shot addressing those "shitty ice core talking points" relative to CO2 flux.
Help out Salmon and olddawg26.
Posted on 7/10/17 at 4:18 pm to Dale51
quote:
That sounds like a conspiracy theorists understanding of "reality". Just my opinion..others may feel differently
You mean like the posts that these climate change threads are always littered with claiming that scientists are manipulating the data for their own financial gain? Funny how I never see you respond to the posters who use the same anecdotal logic when it backs up your own personal beliefs.
I hate to muck up a thread which should only involve scientific discussion with ideology but its become clear to me that the deniers have no respect for facts or objectivity.
It is a sign of the times and a reflection of people committed to defending their football team at all costs. I mean, if the White House is willing to shite on science and uses "alternative facts", it must be okay for us too right?
Posted on 7/10/17 at 4:20 pm to Dale51
quote:Well the site may be presenting the research from a biased perspective (drawing stronger conclusions than the study, ignoring limitations, etc.).
Why is that? How could that possibly change the validity of the document?? Style over substance??
But I think the biggest concern with a site with a clear agenda is selection bias.
Or just consider significance levels of studies. Usually, 0.05 is a standard set. So let's pretend some phenomenon truly has no significance. Now there were a 1000 studies, using 0.05, 50 of the studies may show significance (Type 1 error). So if a biased site only presented those 50, and ignored the other 950, then one with no knowledge of the entirety of the reseach, would be easily persuaded to believe that it shows significance.
This is why meta-analyses, effect sizes, and reproducible reseach is so important.
So I too am skeptical of some of the exteme claims regarding climate change (warming predictions, causality, practical implications). But when I look at the entirety ofthe research, I think one can only conclude that there is warning and humans are having an impact.
In other words, being skeptical of the extent of some phenomenon, is different than being skeptical of the general existence of that phenomenon.
Unfortunately, I think the opportunists on both sides have taken over the narrative, and now we have two exteme positions, and neither is consistent with the truth.
This post was edited on 7/10/17 at 4:25 pm
Posted on 7/10/17 at 4:21 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:I've "taken my shot" in just about every single AGW thread we have both posted in. At this point you're basically the Black Knight from Monty Python.
How about instead of sophomoric attempts at dismissal, you take your shot addressing those "shitty ice core talking points" relative to CO2 flux.
Posted on 7/10/17 at 4:24 pm to Iosh
quote:
At this point you're basically the Black Knight from Monty Python.
My man. You always bring the heat in these thread but this analogy is bringing a whole new level of panache. Once again, thank you for your community service in these threads.
Page 12 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News