"The Science is settled", and other fairy tales

[desert dude]

What was my point in the OP?

Simple. To refute the over worked assertion that there is some huge consensus that "all the scientists" agree that global warming is caused by the activities of man. There is no such consensus.

Further, as Dr K pointed out, a consensus, even if it existed, does not imply that the matter is correctly settled. There have been numerous examples of intelligent consensual opinions that turned out to be completely wrong.

I am not arguing that the climate does not seem to be warming, it has been warm lately, although a few decades of warmer than average temperatures is hardly a "geological trend". The climate models on which the AGW hypothesis is based have been shown to be wrong when compared to actual temperature data; this ought to give you and me reason to believe that perhaps "we just don't know".

Making large changes to mankind's activities based on such "science", however "settled" Unclebuck and his merry men seem to think the science is, is dumb.

 

[UncleBuck]

What was my point in the OP?

Simple. To refute the over worked assertion that there is some huge consensus that "all the scientists" agree that global warming is caused by the activities of man. There is no such consensus.

Further, as Dr K pointed out, a consensus, even if it existed, does not imply that the matter is correctly settled. There have been numerous examples of intelligent consensual opinions that turned out to be completely wrong.

I am not arguing that the climate does not seem to be warming, it has been warm lately, although a few decades of warmer than average temperatures is hardly a "geological trend". The climate models on which the AGW hypothesis is based have been shown to be wrong when compared to actual temperature data; this ought to give you and me reason to believe that perhaps "we just don't know".

Making large changes to mankind's activities based on such "science", however "settled" Unclebuck and his merry men seem to think the science is, is dumb.

maybe you should let the scientific community know that they polled people who aren't climate scientists and they think the overwhelming consensus is wrong. they should go ahead and retract their overwhelming consensus right away.

just kidding, you're a senile old moron and there's a reason why the overwhelming consensus of peer reviewed, publishing climatologists points in one clear direction.

 

[Samwell Seed Well]

Anybody who thinks man caused global warming is an idiot. Anyone who thinks man's additions to harmful atmospheric gasses is not leading to an acceleration of global warming is a total frigging dumbass.

tell us more, i like

 

[Samwell Seed Well]

nobody cares what DD says . . . .. .hes like an imaginary friend that calls you a spic, if you get to tan

 

[UncleBuck]

nobody cares what DD says . . . .. .hes like an imaginary friend that calls you a spic, if you get to tan

he ain't that smart, either.

days before the election, he was predicting a romney win.

he was only off by about 150 electoral votes.

but he totally knows better than the peer reviewed, publishing climatologists with doctoral degrees and years of research. i mean, he reads right wing articles and posts them on a pot website, so why wouldn't he be?

 

[echelon1k1]

he ain't that smart, either.

days before the election, he was predicting a romney win.

he was only off by about 150 electoral votes.

but he totally knows better than the peer reviewed, publishing climatologists with doctoral degrees and years of research. i mean, he reads right wing articles and posts them on a pot website, so why wouldn't he be?

You post left wing garbage from progressive fucktards that pander to your bullshit... How many degrees do you have?

 

[UncleBuck]

You post left wing garbage from progressive fucktards that pander to your bullshit... How many degrees do you have?

yep, all my progressive fucktard amigos are just putting garbage out there which i repost here.

they don't care about reality, they just pander to my "bullshit".

empirical evidence doesn't lie, does it?



https://www.rollitup.org/politics/579313-obama-91-4-win.html

You are going to be wrong about the 91.4%....

Chick Filet Muthafucker!!!

I blame media dishonesty for alot of this.

 

[Canna Sylvan]

he ain't that smart, either.

days before the election, he was predicting a romney win.

he was only off by about 150 electoral votes.

but he totally knows better than the peer reviewed, publishing climatologists with doctoral degrees and years of research. i mean, he reads right wing articles and posts them on a pot website, so why wouldn't he be?

+5 Obama.

 

[echelon1k1]

yep, all my progressive fucktard amigos are just putting garbage out there which i repost here.

they don't care about reality, they just pander to my "bullshit".

empirical evidence doesn't lie, does it?



https://www.rollitup.org/politics/579313-obama-91-4-win.html

I don't care about Obama wining... WTF does it have to do with this? Oh I see left wing garbage forms the basis of your opinions. Empirical evidence in one of your biased posts? Please...

When your whole country votes, that'll be an election victory worth celebrating... And since you only grow pot and make nuisance phone calls your uneducated opinion doesn't hold water.

You can however keep debating that blacks need more help from whites to be as or more successfull... But by all means keep calling people biggots...

How many degrees do you have again?

 

[UncleBuck]

I don't care about Obama wining... WTF does it have to do with this? Oh I see left wing garbage forms the basis of your opinions. Empirical evidence in one of your biased posts? Please...

When your whole country votes, that'll be an election victory worth celebrating... And since you only grow pot and make nuisance phone calls your uneducated opinion doesn't hold water.

You can however keep debating that blacks need more help from whites to be as or more successfull... But by all means keep calling people biggots...

How many degrees do you have again?

the thread i referred to was a perfect example of how stupid you righties are when it comes to science.

that thread was about simple, uncomplicated polling data analyzed by a single person.

the retard righty crowd that we see disagreeing with the overwhelming majority of peer reviewed, publishing climatologists in this thread is the same crowd that disagreed with nate silver about simple, straightforward, uncomplicated polling data in that thread.

but go ahead and side with the idiots that have a long track record of being wrong on the simple stuff. maybe they have something worth sharing here.

i mean, what are the odds that these peer reviewed, publishing climatologists know about water vapor and volcanoes and the sun?

 

[Canna Sylvan]

I don't care about Obama wining... WTF does it have to do with this? Oh I see left wing garbage forms the basis of your opinions. Empirical evidence in one of your biased posts? Please...

When your whole country votes, that'll be an election victory worth celebrating... And since you only grow pot and make nuisance phone calls your uneducated opinion doesn't hold water.

You can however keep debating that blacks need more help from whites to be as or more successfull... But by all means keep calling people biggots...

How many degrees do you have again?

He's only one class short for a multiple major in: mathematics, accounting and climatology.

 

[UncleBuck]

He's only one class short for a multiple major in: mathematics, accounting and climatology.

actually, it is 5 classes short of mathematics, spanish, or philosophy.

unlike you guys, i simply defer to the overwhelming consensus of publishing, peer reviewed climatologists on this issue.

after all, i think they all know about the existence of water vapor

 

[echelon1k1]

He's only one class short for a multiple major in: mathematics, accounting and climatology.

The funniest thing is as an over privileged white boy, he assumes he know's all about disadvantaged minorities and their plight but could not be be further from one. Yet how many "hand outs" is he handing out to rectify those abhorrent injustices?

 

[echelon1k1]

unlike you guys, i simply defer to the overwhelming consensus

We know you're Mr. Concensus to a fault... But if it were a republican president pushing this agenda you'd wouldn't have a bar of it...

Take any issue and you're sure to be on the libtard PC bandwagon drinking bazza's warm yellow piss... Lap it up bucky lap it up...

 

[Dr Kynes]

the thread i referred to was a perfect example of how stupid you righties are when it comes to science.

that thread was about simple, uncomplicated polling data analyzed by a single person.

the retard righty crowd that we see disagreeing with the overwhelming majority of peer reviewed, publishing climatologists in this thread is the same crowd that disagreed with nate silver about simple, straightforward, uncomplicated polling data in that thread.

but go ahead and side with the idiots that have a long track record of being wrong on the simple stuff. maybe they have something worth sharing here.

i mean, what are the odds that these peer reviewed, publishing climatologists know about water vapor and volcanoes and the sun?

Published, peer reviewed, accepted by the academic consensus, declared the absolute fact,, and used to kill hundreds of thousands of "witchcraft deniers" through the next 800 years.

see it turns out, if you doubt that witches cause crop failures and still births in livestock, you're actually secretly working for the Koch Brothers er, i mean Monsanto, er i mean Satan!!

edit: broken image fixed hopefully.

 

[Doer]

What are the chances in a political debate, that facts are ignored in favor of Agenda?


100%

 

[Doer]

Since Humans are responsible for about 3% of the co2 that gets released, couldn't that explain a partial increase in temperature? The earth's ecosystem is a fragile balance even something such as a 3% increase in co2 could explain a 1% rise in temperature. Where I live we experience a 100 degree range of temperatures, so if it were to rise constantly year after year, one could conclude that greenhouse emissions may not be the sole cause, but they could certainly be a contributing factor.

You see how all this starts from false premise?

1- the machinations of man are bad.

2- the earth's ecosystem is so fragile that man broke it

4 - cloud effect can be written off, early for agenda

3 - that there actually is a trend and not a natural cycle. We are finally beginning to instrument, more correctly. But, the sat data doesn't agree with the land data set. (Berkeley study, 2011)

When you start there, you are beyond science, already.

 

[ginjawarrior]

You see how all this starts from false premise?

1- the machinations of man are bad.

2- the earth's ecosystem is so fragile that man broke it

4 - cloud effect can be written off, early for agenda

3 - that there actually is a trend and not a natural cycle. We are finally beginning to instrument, more correctly. But, the sat data doesn't agree with the land data set. (Berkeley study, 2011)

When you start there, you are beyond science, already.

Hmm me thinks theres a reason why you choose not to linky that

http://berkeleyearth.org/results-summary/

 

[Doer]

Hey, there he is. You left out the Sat data overlay. The Report severely questioned the accuracy of the land data....at first. Then they just adjusted it a bit. But, you can't adjust that 1/3 of all stations report cooling, not a steady state even. It somewhat suggests a possible trans-equitorial balance transfer. It all according to the geo-position of the station and how the weighting is adjusted in a statistical study.

When you look at the Sat data you see a year over year variation, up and down. But, we don't have Sat data back to 1750.

That's the point. It could be a long term cycle. It probably is. But, that's not Agenda.

And it a statistical study, not observational. It used new techniques, but still it is all about the bias. When you set confidence on measurements, you can do anything you want. Don't like the answer? Change the confidence matrix. And that is what they did. The initial findings had to be explained away for Agenda.

--------------
The BEST analysis uses a new methodology and was tested against much of the same data as NOAA and NASA. The group uses an algorithm that attaches an automatic weighting to every data point, according to its consistency with comparable readings. The team claims this approach allows the inclusion of outlandish readings without distorting the result and standard statistical techniques were used to remove outliers.

The methodology also avoids traditional procedures that require long, continuous data segments, thus accommodating for short sequences, such as those provided by temporary weather stations. This innovation allowed the group to compile an earlier record than its predecessors, starting from 1800, but with a high degree of uncertainty because at the time there were only two weather stations in America, just a few in Europe and one in Asia.
----------

Oh, my, those tiresome long continuous data sets. What a hassle. Just math around them. Take the Agenda samples from the temporary weather stations. And you get to toss, via the confidence matrix everything you don't like....conflicting data, for example.

The Sat data is a long term, cumbersome data set, that doesn't agree. The Sat data agrees more with the Cloud Science. That is, we don't know anything about Cloud Effect, although it was dismissed by the Carl Sagan agenda, long ago, as not an effect to care about.

And to echo, Dr. K. The inferiority of Jews and Black Africans was established as scientific fact. Eugenics was a FACT. There is no such thing as scientific fact.

But, there is political agenda that blasts "facts" like spherical case shot.

 

[Carthoris]

Hmm me thinks theres a reason why you choose not to linky that

http://berkeleyearth.org/results-summary/

Charts that in the Little Ice Age can't be used to prove the temperature is dramatically higher than it should be due to the human race.

See that... OMG, it gets hot and cold all the time.. OH NOES... The fucking dinosaurs must of been burning space oil or something. God damn greedy environment hating reptilian motherfuckers.