- 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: What are your reasons for believing climate change is "a hoax"
Posted on 3/7/18 at 2:54 pm to BamaAtl
Posted on 3/7/18 at 2:54 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
The difference is that Christians have no empirical, rigorous data to back up their beliefs. They're just taking it on faith.
Sadly, you don't recognize this as a flaw of the AGW movement. Empirical data: from 150 years of observed data, and then ice core samples - that's not even apples to oranges - that's apples to plutonium.
150 years, and to show 'dramatic' warming, we have to pick an arbitrary starting point, fudge the data and ignore any evidence of cooling/non-warming "because that can't be." - That's how skeptics can continue to question the entire premise.
The Earth ... is still in an ice age. Still. Today. March 7th, 2018. New Calender. ~1550 Eastern Time.
There was no polar ice extant as recently as 250,000 years ago. And, you know what? The Earth wasn't a barren desert. It was TEEMING with life. It cooled for a lot of reasons. It's warming now. Maybe. A little bit. But it is the height of arrogance to suggest that we're even a significant cause, much less the sole or primary cause.
If we cannot significantly alter the climate on purpose, how in the hell are we doing it by accident?
Conflating CO2 emissions with pollution has been a catastrophic error (IMHO) on the part of the Green movement. I'm a steward of the environment. I think we ought to clean up the garbage, sewerage and so forth we've generated. I think we ought to be better stewards of the oceans we take for granted.
But CO2 is not a pollutant. Period.
This post was edited on 3/7/18 at 2:54 pm
2
Posted on 3/7/18 at 2:54 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
If you could show that, for example, radiative forcing of CO2 and other greenhouse gases emitted by humans was not a driver of climate, then problem solved.
Actually, this isn't really difficult at all.
Pick your favorite model, any model. The model will have 'modeling coefficients' littered throughout it. Change the coefficients until you get the desired output. Defend coefficient setting through statistics, physics, etc. Publish paper.
Profit.
Posted on 3/7/18 at 2:55 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:uh, Jesus is the leader of the church. Always has been, always will be. not the poop. not peter. not paul. Jesus (although that isn't his name).
proves there is no God and that Jesus Christ didn't make Peter the leader of the church
Posted on 3/7/18 at 2:56 pm to CFDoc
quote:Yup. And as long as you quality the “I pulled this coefficient out of my war-torn rectum” it will sail through peer review without regard to sensibility.
Pick your favorite model, any model. The model will have 'modeling coefficients' littered throughout it. Change the coefficients until you get the desired output. Defend coefficient setting through statistics, physics, etc. Publish paper.
We see it in academic modeling work all the time. But climate “science” has elevated to an entirely new level.
This post was edited on 3/7/18 at 2:58 pm
Posted on 3/7/18 at 2:59 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
If you're going to discount something that's been proven to be true
There is no consensus. You've been lied to. Unfortunately, you're not even aware enough of this.
quote:
you don't understand the difference between science and religion.
Claiming a false consensus, attempting to silence critics and all the other things the AGW movement is comprised of is largely pseudo-science or religion. I don't know what else to tell you.
I must assume you're not a scientist. Neither am in in the strictest sense of the word. But, I can evaluate data and arguments.
CO2 is not a pollutant. I'm unconvinced by those arguing that it is. I'm unconvinced that CO2 emissions drive warming when we have all these other variables to consider and such a small sample since the Industrial Revolution began. And I'm unconvinced that strict adherence to scientific principles have been maintained by these "climate scientists" because of all the evidence of fudged data, flawed models and so forth.
Feel free to believe it for yourself though. But it is an article of faith at this point, not proven fact.
Posted on 3/7/18 at 3:03 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
Its your claim, it’s your burden. Show us one that does. And good luck to you.
Well shite, that was easy
Posted on 3/7/18 at 3:04 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
Yup. And as long as you quality the “I pulled this coefficient out of my war-torn rectum” it will sail through peer review without regard to sensibility.
We see it in academic modeling work all the time. But climate “science” has elevated to an entirely new level.
I will add that all good science makes predictions. Predictions, that if they don't occur, invalidate some, most or even all of the science they were based on.
Here, when the predictions turn out bad, nothing about the base premise goes away........we just change the models to fit the new data and literally change ZERO in our rhetoric on the subject.
Which is just........well........not science.
Posted on 3/7/18 at 3:05 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
I bet “try to prove a negative”
That's not how it works at all. Did you thinking that covering your ignorance by throwing "prove a negative" around would somehow be useful?
Posted on 3/7/18 at 3:06 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
Well shite, that was easy
you apparently don’t even know what you’re looking at. Posted on 3/7/18 at 3:06 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
you don't recognize this as a flaw of the AGW movement. Empirical data: from 150 years of observed data, and then ice core samples
AKA data. Lots of it.
quote:
If we cannot significantly alter the climate on purpose, how in the hell are we doing it by accident?
Greenhouse gas emissions.
Posted on 3/7/18 at 3:07 pm to CFDoc
quote:
Actually, this isn't really difficult at all.
Pick your favorite model, any model. The model will have 'modeling coefficients' littered throughout it. Change the coefficients until you get the desired output. Defend coefficient setting through statistics, physics, etc. Publish paper.
Then why hasn't anyone done this? Since it's so easy?
Posted on 3/7/18 at 3:07 pm to BamaAtl
quote:I know! That why your request for it is inane. You’re being oozing yourself again. It’s fun and pathetic at the same time.
That's not how it works at all.
This post was edited on 3/7/18 at 3:08 pm
Posted on 3/7/18 at 3:07 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
That's not how it works at all. Did you thinking that covering your ignorance by throwing "prove a negative" around would somehow be useful?
You're talking to an extremely arrogant hack. No amount of evidence or logic will sway him. True believer in the conspiracy to his core.
Posted on 3/7/18 at 3:08 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
Well shite, that was easy
LOL. Curve fitting. Come on dude.
There is nothing more self serving in data analysis than curve fitting.
Posted on 3/7/18 at 3:09 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
There is no consensus. You've been lied to.
97% of climate scientists is consensus. That you don't think that's consensus betrays either a misunderstanding of the word 'consensus' or 'percent'.
quote:
I must assume you're not a scientist.
You'd be incorrect, as usual here.
quote:
CO2 is not a pollutant. I'm unconvinced by those arguing that it is.
That's your problem. CO2 is a driver of radiative forcing, and humans have been pumping excess CO2 into the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution.
Posted on 3/7/18 at 3:09 pm to Powerman
quote:It totally will. Like I said. I once believed in AGW. But “count the people” and “prove the negative” are the opposite of logic.
No amount of evidence or logic will sway him.
quote:Published isht modeling is a consipiracy? It’s a crappy one. Because it’s on full display to anyone with some critical thought and basic thermo modeling skills.
True believer in the conspiracy to his core
This post was edited on 3/7/18 at 3:11 pm
Posted on 3/7/18 at 3:11 pm to CFDoc
quote:”Just take all the errors and average them.”
There is nothing more self serving in data analysis than curve fitting.
This post was edited on 3/7/18 at 3:12 pm
Posted on 3/7/18 at 3:12 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
AKA data. Lots of it
150 years is "lots" of Data?
Yes. I certainly consider .000000042857% of the available data on a system to be "lots".
Posted on 3/7/18 at 3:12 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
You've been lied to.
97% of climate scientists is consensus.
Posted on 3/7/18 at 3:12 pm to Powerman
quote:How would you even know this?
You're talking to an extremely arrogant hack. No amount of evidence or logic will sway him. True believer in the conspiracy to his core.
You went 25 pages without every applying logic.
Page 29 of 40
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News