- 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
1
Posted on 3/7/18 at 3:13 pm to Taxing Authority
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.
So every climate scientist that thinks man made climate change is real is stupid and just glossed over information that literally anyone with critical thinking skills would easily catch?
There are thousands of climate scientists that just aren't as adept at catching these things as you? Does that seem likely to be true?
Posted on 3/7/18 at 3:13 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
97% of climate scientists is consensus.
Not that you have any valid points in this argument, or any for that matter, but you really do yourself a disservice when you parrot that repeatedly exposed lie.
Posted on 3/7/18 at 3:15 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
But it is the height of arrogance to suggest that we're even a significant cause, much less the sole or primary cause.
THIS!
Climatologist agree that Man has an impact, but at a minute scale. But then the 97% is thrown out, which is made up of mainly the Bill Nyes of the world and not climatologist. Ignore the multiple ice ages, 1000s of cooling/heating cycles...But now, any change in weather, storm, draught, flood, heat wave, No SNOW in the month of January for Chicago, etc. is a direct cause from man.
My favorite outrage is when its the hottest day on record..."Hottest day since 1896, when are you Deniers gonna admit, Man Made Climate Change exist"!! I don't deny man has an Impact, Just not on the scale as you. My question to you is, why the hell was it so hot in 1896? Was that caused by man or Natural? I'm still waiting for an answer..anyone?...anyone???
This post was edited on 3/7/18 at 3:36 pm
Posted on 3/7/18 at 3:15 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
I've seen what you think is rational.
Link?
quote:
You have a problem with my source of income?
Not really, I'm glad you're there to flip my burger.
ETA: Interestingly enough, I keep getting called away to help one of the staff run a model.
This post was edited on 3/7/18 at 3:20 pm
Posted on 3/7/18 at 3:20 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
So compliant. So well programmed.
Says the guy that gravitates toward the conspiracy theory explanation.
I'm guessing you're an old mfer.
Posted on 3/7/18 at 3:22 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
You do know that even climate scientists don't use the 97% number, right?
You do know that they do, right?
Posted on 3/7/18 at 3:23 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
you apparently don’t even know what you’re looking at.
I do, which is why it was so easy.
Posted on 3/7/18 at 3:24 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
AKA data. Lots of it.
If I take 2 Trillion individual temperature measurements over the course of this week, would you say I have "lots of data" about the climate?
I mean, there certainly is a great quantity of data, but quantity does not equal quality.
Posted on 3/7/18 at 3:24 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
That why your request for it is inane
What I meant was that your statement shows that you don't understand how a scientific hypothesis is formulated - let alone how it's tested.
It's pretty obvious that you don't know shite about science from this thread and others, but then you have to go and spell it out. Well, maybe next time you'll do better, but I doubt it!
Posted on 3/7/18 at 3:24 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
You do know that they do, right?
False
Posted on 3/7/18 at 3:25 pm to ShortyRob
quote:Climate science is not encumbered by this. They just say “the observations were wrong”. And self-congratulate on how if the observations had been correct they’d been dead nuts right.
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.
Posted on 3/7/18 at 3:25 pm to CFDoc
quote:
LOL. Curve fitting. Come on dude.
There is nothing more self serving in data analysis than curve fitting.
It's a multivariate model, self serving or not.
Like I said, easy peasy.
Posted on 3/7/18 at 3:25 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
150 years is "lots" of Data?
When combined with consistent core samples, sure is.
Posted on 3/7/18 at 3:27 pm to BamaAtl
quote:Well............other than it being .000000048% of available Earth time...........
When combined with consistent core samples, sure is.
Posted on 3/7/18 at 3:27 pm to CptRusty
quote:
If I take 2 Trillion individual temperature measurements over the course of this week, would you say I have "lots of data" about the climate?
That's not what anyone is doing here.
Posted on 3/7/18 at 3:27 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
False
It's true
Posted on 3/7/18 at 3:28 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
It's true
Nope
Posted on 3/7/18 at 3:29 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
You do know that they do, right?
Wrong.
You do know many Climatologist, which were in the study, have spoke out about the "97%" as misleading... they agree that man has a role, but insignificant on the entire scale.
Page 30 of 40
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News