Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Can we just officially cross your name off the credibility list? Since you openly advocate scaring us into doing what you want? Or I guess maybe just draw another line through it, darker.
If you just turn your head slightly, those blinders will erase his name from the list completely from your field of vision
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 988
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Yes. The conclusion was that it had to do with the fact that it's WINTER.

Boom. It's on page 2 now.

Hmm. I wonder if anything significant has happened in the past 100 or so years that might affect global warming. I mean, I can't think of a single damn thing. Not one.

Posted Images

Signatories are approved for inclusion in the Petition Project list if they have obtained formal educational degrees at the level of Bachelor of Science or higher in appropriate scientific fields. The petition has been circulated only in the United States.The current list of petition signers includes 9,029 PhD; 7,157 MS; 2,586 MD and DVM; and 12,714 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science.All of the listed signers have formal educations in fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the research data related to the petition statement. Many of the signers currently work in climatological, meteorological, atmospheric, environmental, geophysical, astronomical, and biological fields directly involved in the climate change controversy.The Petition Project classifies petition signers on the basis of their formal academic training, as summarized below. Scientists often pursue specialized fields of endeavor that are different from their formal education, but their underlying training can be applied to any scientific field in which they become interested.Outlined below are the numbers of Petition Project signatories, subdivided by educational specialties. These have been combined, as indicated, into seven categories.1. Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences includes 3,804 scientists 2. Computer and mathematical sciences includes 935 scientists 3. Physics and aerospace sciences include 5,812 scientists 4. Chemistry includes 4,821 scientists 5. Biology and agriculture includes 2,965 scientists6. Medicine includes 3,046 scientists7. Engineering and general science includes 10,103 scientists LOL at all of this. I got a bachelors in... medicine...? Therefore I'm an expert in climate science..... weeeee!
LOL at having a Choo Choo Train Engineer be the head of the IPCC.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Or, if you actually want to learn something:The Goddard Institute page where one can access data from weather stations all over the world for the past century or so:http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/A website describing the very reasonable adjustments that were made to the raw data:http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/resear...ushcn.html#QUALA site describing the history and methodologies of their studies:http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/Source code (for Linux users):http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sources/A website porting the above code into pythong, for those interested in running that:http://clearclimatecode.org/
Or better yet, just start all over again :club:http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/23/...es-climategate/
Link to post
Share on other sites
Feel free, the voice of reason is not something that the AGW crowd is interested in listening too anyways. :club:
you're not a reasonable person. You're a zealot. Actually, you came out and admitted you are completely close-minded on this issue. So, you are an honest zealot (which is the best kind of zealot I suppose).Don't worry, you still fit in here (sadly).
Link to post
Share on other sites
you're not a reasonable person. You're a zealot. Actually, you came out and admitted you are completely close-minded on this issue. So, you are an honest zealot (which is the best kind of zealot I suppose).Don't worry, you still fit in here (sadly).
I guess I learned that you have to fight fire with fire.....http://www.climategate.com/100-reasons-why...-warming-a-cult
Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess I learned that you have to fight fire with fire.....http://www.climategate.com/100-reasons-why...-warming-a-cult
no you are fighting against the natural progression of science (test, assess, re-test, re-assess, repeat). You have also taken the position that tax dollars spent on studying the health of our planet are only justified if those funded studies prove something is wrong. This is dumb. It's worth monitoring.and you are posting links. 'Here's an article written by a blogger that supports my position! Evidence does not get any stronger than that!'
Link to post
Share on other sites
no you are fighting against the natural progression of science (test, assess, re-test, re-assess, repeat). You have also taken the position that tax dollars spent on studying the health of our planet are only justified if those funded studies prove something is wrong. This is dumb. It's worth monitoring.and you are posting links. 'Here's an article written by a blogger that supports my position! Evidence does not get any stronger than that!'
Well, I am not really sure what you, VB, and Yorkie bring to the table in this debate other than an unjustified smug air of superiority. That and a propensity for twisting words.I really don't know how you can call what has gone on as a "natural progression of science". If the approach taken by the AGW cult is present in other scientific fields of research, I really fear for our future. There, scaremongering again.As for my links, get used to them. They tell a story. The story of the continued and ongoing crumbling of the hoax that is AGW. Enjoy the ride and don't drink too much more AGW Koolaid along the way - all that sugar is not good for you.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, I am not really sure what you, VB, and Yorkie bring to the table in this debate other than an unjustified smug air of superiority. That and a propensity for twisting words.I really don't know how you can call what has gone on as a "natural progression of science". If the approach taken by the AGW cult is present in other scientific fields of research, I really fear for our future. There, scaremongering again.As for my links, get used to them. They tell a story. The story of the continued and ongoing crumbling of the hoax that is AGW. Enjoy the ride and don't drink too much more AGW Koolaid along the way - all that sugar is not good for you.
We bring rationality, an understanding of the scientific method, and, in my case, good looks to the table.You bring the illogical idea that a few scientists misdeeds invalidate all research you disagree with. And old chestnuts like "cult" and "kool-aid". And some conspiracy theories on NASA. And links that you sadly believe tell a story when, in reality, they are mostly biased drivel. Yeah, you're the table setter all right.York provided you with links to actual science (not some blog recycling cult jokes) and instead of reading them and learning something you responded with an unrelated link. It's not that he and VB don't bring anything to the table; it's that you are not interested in what they are bringing to the table because you made up your mind a long time ago based on some IPCC data and your dislike of taxes. You purposely ignore what they bring to the table and revel in that close mindedness like a Pentecostal.The sad part is you have two really smart people with science backgrounds who AGREE WITH YOU that saying the science is settled is ridiculous and who have the patience to try and provide you with something that might make you think.I, on the other hand, am a cynical bastard so I recognized you as a close-minded lost cause from the get go. So, I knew to just make fun of you. You know since it's hilarious to watch someone call climate change theory a hoax (implying the science is settled) right after he spent several pages trying to prove that the other side said the science was settled. I guess only you know how to spot settled science. Useful.Maybe you are the pot and the kettle. I'll think about it and get back to you. (now that is smug superiority.)
Link to post
Share on other sites
We bring rationality, an understanding of the scientific method, and, in my case, good looks to the table.You bring the illogical idea that a few scientists misdeeds invalidate all research you disagree with. And old chestnuts like "cult" and "kool-aid". And some conspiracy theories on NASA. And links that you sadly believe tell a story when, in reality, they are mostly biased drivel. Yeah, you're the table setter all right.York provided you with links to actual science (not some blog recycling cult jokes) and instead of reading them and learning something you responded with an unrelated link. It's not that he and VB don't bring anything to the table; it's that you are not interested in what they are bringing to the table because you made up your mind a long time ago based on some IPCC data and your dislike of taxes. You purposely ignore what they bring to the table and revel in that close mindedness like a Pentecostal.The sad part is you have two really smart people with science backgrounds who AGREE WITH YOU that saying the science is settled is ridiculous and who have the patience to try and provide you with something that might make you think.I, on the other hand, am a cynical bastard so I recognized you as a close-minded lost cause from the get go. So, I knew to just make fun of you. You know since it's hilarious to watch someone call climate change theory a hoax (implying the science is settled) right after he spent several pages trying to prove that the other side said the science was settled. I guess only you know how to spot settled science. Useful.Maybe you are the pot and the kettle. I'll think about it and get back to you. (now that is smug superiority.)
Bah - Yorkie gave me links to pro AGW sites (NASA) for the most part. I responded by showing him that the MET office is having a do-over re the data. What a concept - do it again and get it right. Hats off to them for trying to get it right, since Phil Jones dog ate the original data. And it was my review of the climate predictive models in the IPCC reports, which I reviewed with an open mind, and professional background doing transportation and financial modelling extensively over my 20 year career as a professional engineer. And found the models uncalibrated, and (as you might guess) inaccurate.So if you have crap data, and crap models, riddle how there can be any belief that what is coming out of said models can be anything more than a steaming pile of dung.I don't think you were part of the debate back then, but Yorkie was, and he finally came to realize my gripe, and acknowledged it. But has not impacted his opinion on AGW being the truth. You see I don't buy for an instant that Yorkie or VB are the neutral geniuses that they masquerade as. When they are asked what research they have done, the refrain is, I don't need to, plenty of other credible scientists have already done the work, and it has been peer reviewed, so that is that.So again, I really don't see what is brought to the table by the three of you as far as digging up any evidence of neutral analysis.At any rate, off to scout for some more links. Have a nice night. See you tomorrow night.
Link to post
Share on other sites
We bring rationality, an understanding of the scientific method, and, in my case, good looks to the table.
And a lack of understanding for how much of the real world works, feels and thinks.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Liberal's guide to global warmingno snow = global warmingsnowing = global warmingno rain = global warmingrain = global warmingtoo cold = global warmingtoo hot = global warmingrising seas = global warminglower seas = global warming

Link to post
Share on other sites
Liberal's guide to global warmingno snow = global warmingsnowing = global warmingno rain = global warmingrain = global warmingtoo cold = global warmingtoo hot = global warmingrising seas = global warminglower seas = global warming
Sal said that a few pages ago, just better.You and yukon should really consider posting new material, stuff that's actually your thoughts, etc. Again, this same old stuff gets quite tiring. I am saying this as someone who somewhat agrees with you on some things, so it's not a personal attack.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Liberal's guide to global warmingno snow = global warmingsnowing = global warmingno rain = global warmingrain = global warmingtoo cold = global warmingtoo hot = global warmingrising seas = global warminglower seas = global warming
You forgot:When confronted with alternative opinions on the data = cry about the earth being destroyed / children will suffer
Link to post
Share on other sites
You forgot:When confronted with alternative opinions on the data = cry about the earth being destroyed / children will suffer
We know why you aren't worried, if the world ever is headed for catastrophe you're confident you can just ride it out in a wooden boat. As for 85 & SC I think they are competing for the Olympic gold in Trolling Combined.
Link to post
Share on other sites
We know why you aren't worried, if the world ever is headed for catastrophe you're confident you can just ride it out in a wooden boat. As for 85 & SC I think they are competing for the Olympic gold in Trolling Combined.
gold_medal_sticker-p217963734767590657836x_325.jpg
Link to post
Share on other sites
And a lack of understanding for how much of the real world works, feels and thinks.
Actually, most of the "real world" (people of Earth) agrees with "us". That doesn't mean "we" are right but it makes your statement ridiculous.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, most of the "real world" (people of Earth) agrees with "us". That doesn't mean "we" are right but it makes your statement ridiculous.
If by "us" you mean me and the like minded people I represent, than you are correct.If by "us" you mean you and the leftist brood of wrong thinking Chicken Littles afraid to admit that Algore made Bernie Madoff look like an honest investor.You have been scammed.The world is not in danger of overheating.It is in danger of being overpopulated by idiots though.I mean All-in just had twins!
Link to post
Share on other sites
Remember, it's just a cheap costume. bg5.jpg
The Bible says that Jesus will be happy to see me when I get there, but I think I will be told to go around to the service entrance and try not to draw attention to myself as I get in by the skin of my teeth.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...