• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Most prominent global warming skeptic changes his mind

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Demo24 said:
I'm not really sure what you are trying to point out to me here. A few people in here gave off some numbers, and I just counter with ones backed up by research.
Click to expand...

Your post seemed to imply that if the levels were the same back then, then why are there no palm trees in NJ.

*shrug*
 
Jesus - we now have several different camps of deniers

Doc's camp - still bringing up code - that wasn't used - still discussing 'climategate', even though it's been shown to be a non-event - still very political in his carbon-credit attacks - and still linking to wattsupwiththat - even though that's like posting links to Fox News for 'fair and balanced' reporting. At the very least - there is some positive take-away - this camp, though very reluctantly, has given up on the 'it's not warming' part of the discussion. This camp usually consists of intelligent people, but people too blinded by their political affiliations to change their minds.

Jaskalas' camp - this quite honestly is the 'I'm still going to use misleading/inaccurate/flat out lies' to prove my side of the discussion - oh, and by the way, it's still not getting warmer, the whole thing is a scam. This camp is basically the equivalent of the group that was of the opinion that 'smoking isn't bad for your health'.

Others - like this Xbiff clown - their camp is 'this science gobbly-beloved patriot is far above my thinking pay-scale, so I'm just going to say brilliant things like 'earth was warm before', or 'how could we possibly measure temperatures from the past', or 'it was warm for the dinosaurs, we'll be fine'. These are people whose personal thoughts are shaped by others - more than just their political affiliation, but their entire way of living. These are your poorly educated, sadly re-producing, can't think for themselves, Fox news-loving, GOP die-hards.

The 'left' has groups like this as well - however, they tend to stay out of discussions like this - common sense tells most people 'if I don't know jack about topic X, I probably shouldn't discuss it or offer my badly misinformed opinion about it' - but that doesn't stop the people in Xbiff's camp.
 
Ninjahedge said:
Your post seemed to imply that if the levels were the same back then, then why are there no palm trees in NJ.

*shrug*
Click to expand...


No, his post was suggesting that since those levels had been reached millions of years ago then current levels must be 'ok', because Earth had seen them before. However 15 million years is of course a very long time and a lot changes in that period, thus those levels can not be used as justification or directly applicable to today's issue.

--


The medieval warm period was due in part to the medieval maximum, or increased solar activity. A rise in co2 was seen as it does not dissolve as well in warm waters, thus a rise in atmospheric levels which then began to decline as the water cooled along with the rest of the world. (simplistic version)
 
NeoV said:
Jesus - we now have several different camps of deniers

Doc's camp - still bringing up code - that wasn't used - still discussing 'climategate', even though it's been shown to be a non-event - still very political in his carbon-credit attacks - and still linking to wattsupwiththat - even though that's like posting links to Fox News for 'fair and balanced' reporting. At the very least - there is some positive take-away - this camp, though very reluctantly, has given up on the 'it's not warming' part of the discussion. This camp usually consists of intelligent people, but people too blinded by their political affiliations to change their minds.

Jaskalas' camp - this quite honestly is the 'I'm still going to use misleading/inaccurate/flat out lies' to prove my side of the discussion - oh, and by the way, it's still not getting warmer, the whole thing is a scam. This camp is basically the equivalent of the group that was of the opinion that 'smoking isn't bad for your health'.

Others - like this Xbiff clown - their camp is 'this science gobbly-beloved patriot is far above my thinking pay-scale, so I'm just going to say brilliant things like 'earth was warm before', or 'how could we possibly measure temperatures from the past', or 'it was warm for the dinosaurs, we'll be fine'. These are people whose personal thoughts are shaped by others - more than just their political affiliation, but their entire way of living. These are your poorly educated, sadly re-producing, can't think for themselves, Fox news-loving, GOP die-hards.

The 'left' has groups like this as well - however, they tend to stay out of discussions like this - common sense tells most people 'if I don't know jack about topic X, I probably shouldn't discuss it or offer my badly misinformed opinion about it' - but that doesn't stop the people in Xbiff's camp.
Click to expand...

Too bad those in my camp, as you called it, you know the poorly educated, have enough of a brain to know that any data can be "cooked" to say what you want. We are able to step back and say that we can't make a decision because there isn't enough hard evidence either way. Looking at the past is one way to predict the future, albeit not a guarantee, but its much better than believing in some cult following that is based on data that can be made to match either side's story.

The poorly educated bit being the worst part of your drivel. I guess it makes you comfortable to think of people like me as poorly educated, or at least less educated that yourself. You can sleep at night thinking that you are smarter than the next guy, congrats. Too bad there are plenty of people with more education than you who don't buy into the BS you believe in. So sad.
 
Paul98 said:
The problem was with what you linked to, which had nothing to do with output. Then given that the original complaints were about code where the output was commented out.

The code betrays nothing, code gets changed all the time there are testing phases, things go in and out and get changed all the time. Just these two versions should show that. Maybe they use that code but with values from an analysis. Or for comparing to other data,... Until you see the final version who knows what we ended up with.

Now as for the tree ring data I am going to have to somewhat agree, If the tree ring data is that much different from the actual data I have a hard time taking it serious. Well at least not without large error bars, or an explanation why they are diverging recently.
Click to expand...
FYI, the uncommented file was the most recent file found. This code was intended to modify the post-1960 tree ring proxy data to artificially "correct" for its divergence from actual data (aka Briffa Bodge)

But instead of doing that they chose instead to truncate all the inconvenient post-1960 data for the graph given to the IPCC.

Spinning the data is not good science imo. This especially doesn't sit well with me after seeing it done earlier with that horseshit hockey stick graph.
 
Last edited:
xBiffx said:
Too bad those in my camp, as you called it, you know the poorly educated, have enough of a brain to know that any data can be "cooked" to say what you want. We are able to step back and say that we can't make a decision because there isn't enough hard evidence either way. Looking at the past is one way to predict the future, albeit not a guarantee, but its much better than believing in some cult following that is based on data that can be made to match either side's story.

The poorly educated bit being the worst part of your drivel. I guess it makes you comfortable to think of people like me as poorly educated, or at least less educated that yourself. You can sleep at night thinking that you are smarter than the next guy, congrats. Too bad there are plenty of people with more education than you who don't buy into the BS you believe in. So sad.
Click to expand...


Well for all this BS as you call it, you have yet to provide anything to back up your claims other than vague statements that while partially true mean nothing in the context you've provided.


Apparently your avatar still defines you.
 
Demo24 said:
Well for all this BS as you call it, you have yet to provide anything to back up your claims other than vague statements that while partially true mean nothing in the context you've provided.


Apparently your avatar still defines you.
Click to expand...

Vague statements like "What happened since the last ice age?..global warming." Seems the world gets warm, and gets cold, and gets warm, and get cold, and gets....had enough yet? Nothing vague from pointing out the past. You can attack it all you want but history is a much better predictor at what might happen than pulling rabbits from a hat which you seem to subscribe to.
 
xBiffx said:
The fallacy in your own statements is so obvious and yet you choose to ignore it. How do we know we are producing more with the burning of fossil fuels than the rest of the earth's natural processes? Oh wait, you ignored this as known somehow. We don't know this at all.
Click to expand...

And yet the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing? Durrrrrrr.
edit: wait a second, maybe I misunderstood you. Maybe you're implying that natural causes are increasing the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? Again though, durrrrrr. If you believe that, it's because you're parroting idiots who make wild guesses about processes, claiming that they can't be estimated with relative accuracy, and also assuming that they are orders of magnitude higher than they really are.
 
Last edited:
NeoV said:
Jesus - we now have several different camps of deniers
Click to expand...
Imagine that! So you finally figured out that people you disagree with actually don't all fit into your pea-brained one-size-fits-all stereotype...so now you need to make up three! LOL.

NeoV said:
Doc's camp - still bringing up code - that wasn't used - still discussing 'climategate', even though it's been shown to be a non-event - still very political in his carbon-credit attacks - and still linking to wattsupwiththat - even though that's like posting links to Fox News for 'fair and balanced' reporting. At the very least - there is some positive take-away - this camp, though very reluctantly, has given up on the 'it's not warming' part of the discussion. This camp usually consists of intelligent people, but people too blinded by their political affiliations to change their minds.
Click to expand...
I never said the climate's not warming...perhaps you need to make up another simplistic stereotype for me as this one doesn't seem to fit so well.
 
Last edited:
DrPizza said:
And yet the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing? Durrrrrrr.
edit: wait a second, maybe I misunderstood you. Maybe you're implying that natural causes are increasing the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? Again though, durrrrrr. If you believe that, it's because you're parroting idiots who make wild guesses about processes, claiming that they can't be estimated with relative accuracy, and also assuming that they are orders of magnitude higher than they really are.
Click to expand...

Maybe you need to re-read my last post where I stated that nature takes part in a "carbon cycle" in which CO2 is consumed by the ever increasing flora. I also specifically stated that, by volume, the amount of CO2 in the air hasn't changed much. Reading comprehensive fail.
 
Throckmorton said:
Doc Savage Fan, what do you believe is the source of the CO2 increase in the atmosphere over the last century?
Click to expand...

Let me jump in there. You already started that wrong. Its not what you believe, unless this is a religion like I have said, its what you can prove. 404 proof not found.
 
xBiffx said:
Maybe you need to re-read my last post where I stated that nature takes part in a "carbon cycle" in which CO2 is consumed by the ever increasing flora. I also specifically stated that, by volume, the amount of CO2 in the air hasn't changed much. Reading comprehensive fail.
Click to expand...

Already addressed that point on like the 2nd page, and pretty much your other points as well.
 
xBiffx said:
Temperatures rise and fall like the winter wheat. The only thing that these global warming alarmists are wrong on is the cause of this rise in temperature and not that it may be happening at all. They like to attribute it to man made evil corporations who just love spewing pollution into the air. Problem is, there was global warming long before the industrial revolution. How in the world are we still not in an ice age?...global warming.

As soon as these "scientists" come up with facts that show this is man made global warming, then you will have a case. Problem is, there is no hard data to indicate this, only hysterical cultists running around trying to make a buck off the thing. CO2 classified as a pollutant is laughable since it still accounts for only 0.03% of air by volume. Oh yeah, plants need this to survive so lets start cutting down on their "oxygen" supply. Brilliant.
Click to expand...

Yeah because without global warming actually taking place it makes perfect sense to allow corporations to spew pollution into the air.

/facepalm
 
soulcougher73 said:
Yeah because without global warming actually taking place it makes perfect sense to allow corporations to spew pollution into the air.

/facepalm
Click to expand...

Warmists are all about CO2, calling CO2 a pollutant and taxing us heavily for it. You're damn straight we're going to fight that. When you're done attacking CO2 and want to tackle REAL pollution, let us know.
 
soulcougher73 said:
Yeah because without global warming actually taking place it makes perfect sense to allow corporations to spew pollution into the air.

/facepalm
Click to expand...

Didn't say I wanted that either. But you can read what you want. I am all for environmental stewardship but whats the point if it inhibits growth, innovation, and the overall improvement of the world we live in. You know, some of those dumb regulations people call for inhibit smaller companies from being able to innovate and perhaps, over time, make things more environmentally friendly. We may never know the overall impact of such regulations, good or bad.
 
xBiffx said:
What republican says that? Honestly, where do you come up with this shit? Most republicans, like most people I imagine, are all for doing what is possible to protect the environment. As long as that protection doesn't cost us our freedoms and more importantly an arm and a leg. People should be able to choose voluntarily how they choose to protect the environment. It shouldn't be in the form of a tax and the revenue from said tax does nothing but grease already oily hands.

People put way too much faith, yes faith, into thinking that government is the answer to all the problems. Same people put too much faith into this global warming garbage. In either case, its faith, because they believe in things that cannot be proven, or more often are disproved.
Click to expand...

HAHAHAHAHAHA X 10 to the 100th power 😉
 
Ausm said:
HAHAHAHAHAHA X 10 to the 100th power 😉
Click to expand...

So I guess you believe that everyone is out to destroy the planet and only government can stop this? I, and maybe I'm alone here, think that most people are inherently good natured and when they can, will do the right thing. Of course, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, but at least its not government subsidized.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top