LIVID!! !! !! !! !! !!

Post Reply New Topic

Third-order, whoop dee freaking do. For most ODEs the procedure is the same no matter what order it is. Let me know when you get to PDEs and nonlinear dynamics.


No, not at all. I have no emotional attachment to this issue at all, actually. I say only that I will assume scientists are more knowledgeable than random tinfoil hatters on the internet.

The scientists you assume are more knowledgeable, and please answer this point, have been proven to be defrauding you. They manipulate data and then claim the results as true. You're so smart and full of scientific acumen, explain to me how this fits with your rational view of the world. Please. Maybe then, when someone tells me how it's okay to deindustrialise the world due to the lies and misinformation of scientists, I might believe this global warming thing.

Most of the claims of "fraud" (eg "Climategate") are vastly overhyped and out of context. The scientific community as a whole has effective mechanisms for preventing widespread fraud. And I don't think the majority of those scientists propose to deindustrialize the world. That, again, is a political question, not a scientific one.

(1) strong word (like a math proof?)
(2) there "they" go again all scientist are liars or just the ones that disagree with you.
(3) ad hominem

the entire argument seem to based on the assumption that scientists work in bad faith.
could be true. The problem with conspiracies is they require choice of what data one accepts or rejects.
This leaves one open to cherry picking and having people talk past one another because they have contradicting data sets.
it really muddies the waters.
This could be a good strategy for those that want muddy waters.
-Jake

In the medium and long run fraud and error will be eliminated. In the short run there is observer bias.

ruveyn

What about political bias? Thats the key issue in all of this. Oil companies have a vested interest in keeping the status quo. I think it is obviously more rational to agree with climate scientists.

The manipulation, the widespread manipulation, of climate data is well proven. PROVEN. It is a strong term, but that doesn't make it less right.

I don't understand what you're actually saying here. Are you trying to be clever, or are you ignoring the facts, the FACTS as presented which no one can refute?

Read the post with the FACTS. Refute them. Which no one can. Proof is too conclusive for you? All of you? Stop hiding in obfuscatory reasoning and research it for yourself.

Exactly, big woop. Throwing around impressive looking jargon won't win an argument here. Beside, differentiation is easy.



One dodgy Study doesn't invalidate an entire field. People are still studying Fusion, ever after after the disgrace that was Cold Fusion.



PROVEN, yet where is the proof? You critisise their evidence, while giving non of your own.

if
A: co2 is a greenhouse gas (it seems that this testable in the lab)
and
B: human activity has increased the amount of co2 in the atmosphere (It seems to be true)
then
C: human activity has increased the average temp of the planet.

unless there is some countervailing human caused force (global dimming?) keeping the temp down
global warming has a human contribution.

but here is the rub the size of this contribution needs to be calculated.
and those calculations are the point of

A EVERYBODY has potential conflict of interest
1. some people want to keep burning their trash in the back yard
2. some people want to sell cars
3. some people want to save the garlic mustard
4. some people want to sell "green" products

B. The science will ALWAYS be inconclusive.
1. some don't have enough data
2. some don't have the right data
3. some use the wrong algorithm
4. I resisted it
5. some inadvertently skip step 39
6. some fudge to get a paper out ands make a name
7. some fudge for a cause
8. the peer review process in practice is a popularity poll

C. We are in any case POWERLESS to make anything happen or go away
1. the planet is too big with too much inertia
2. whatever ruveyn thinks about CroMagnon, we are pretty primitive
3. we have no way of knowing what will / won't work
4. if we did we really can't be sure what to do
5. when did mankind ever agree on anything?

A. get 2 tanks one filled with co2 one with air both at one atmosphere
put them out in the sun and use a couple of thermometers and you get a answer
people working in good faith can agree with regardless of their bias.

B. it is not a question of science or obscure system of equations.
humans make co2 the amount can be disputed but not the fact.
you can test it out the back of your car or in your breath.

C. I disagree with the POWERLESS as I am not a calvanist
and also point 1 it is too strong an assertion
if we trim it back to the planet big with lots inertia I agree.
but I am in concord with points 2-5 but they don't raise to the level of negating my assertion

the question remain how much of climate change is human caused not is climate change human caused.
(could be infinitesimal up to most of it) I do not claim to know.
I think there could be a pragmatic answer to this issue.
-Jake

True, but the scientific community as a whole has mechanisms for balancing that.


False, unless you are imposing a completely unreasonable standard of what "conclusive" means. Certainly we can get to a level of certainty where we can say "this is a serious problem that we need to address."


False. There are plenty of things that could be done, many without seriously impacting living standards at all.

The new GLORY Satellite should help answer questions about climate, it is being launched in the near future. Was supposed to be launched on the 23rd of Feb

Same here. I have a masters degree in atmospheric science. While anthropogenic climate change isn't my area of study (I actually find it kinda boring - I'm more interested in studying natural cycles like ENSO and the Madden Julian Oscillation) NONE of the professors in my department (one of the top in the country) denies that anthropogenic global warming is occurring. In fact, the only "climate scientist" I've ever personally met who regularly attacks AGW is Richard Lindzen at MIT. I can also tell you that he has narcissistic personality disorder and is a first class a**hole who treats his students like s**t. That guy is off his rocker.