• 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.

World may not be warming, say scientists

Page 20 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Ozoned said:
From WIKI:
A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.


~The phenomena (AGW) isn't occuring. Climate change is happening within expected historical boundaries. That is the entire point of this thread.
Click to expand...

You have to love the graphs that don't take into account that this is supposed to be a cooling period, the same fucking graphs that use hundreds or tenths of thousands of years as a meter when we are looking at just a couple of decades to see a rise that normally occurs over thousands of years.

I have gained a lot of respect for your posts throughout my stay here because you're usually level headed and don't resort to popular idiocy but stick to facts that are verifiable and easily checked but you are fucking wrong on this one.
 
D@mn, those selfish b@stards 8100 years ago really were F'ing up, just look at all that MMGW going on there! And, their great great grandparents, right before their time, look at that MMGC!!!

F'ing retards they were, yeesh.

Chuck
 
chucky2 said:
D@mn, those selfish b@stards 8100 years ago really were F'ing up, just look at all that MMGW going on there! And, their great great grandparents, right before their time, look at that MMGC!!!

F'ing retards they were, yeesh.

Chuck
Click to expand...

Yeah, lets disregard ALL data that isn't on such a grand scale that it makes it pointless.

YAY for the retards...

The saying "retards like these will cause the end of mankind" has really started to mean something.

No, really, don't look at differential data or how things were increasing for about one thousand years instead of how it's increasing at 30 times that rate this time, for the love of god DON'T DO THAT, you might hurt your brain with facts!

Your idiocy is like saying that Jews do die at a normal rate given a thousands of years scale so the holocaust didn't do sheit for jewish population, on a long enough scale, no changes will ever be seen, of course, anyone who isn't a complete retard understands that.
 
JohnOfSheffield said:
Yeah, lets disregard ALL data that isn't on such a grand scale that it makes it pointless.

YAY for the retards...

<snip>
Click to expand...

I realize you're concerned with the past 95 years on the right side of the graph, but, if you'd take off the blinder goggles, zoom on out, and look at the whole graph, maybe like all those peaks and valleys, and then the times they occurred in, you might realize that what you just posted was F'ing stupid.

No need to apologize, everyone makes mistakes...

Chuck
 
I don't know about you guys but I heard Al is back on the limelight! Hooyaaahhh! The "politician turned scientist" is back to collect carbon taxes. Let the idiocy continue on . . .
 
chucky2 said:
I realize you're concerned with the past 95 years on the right side of the graph, but, if you'd take off the blinder goggles, zoom on out, and look at the whole graph, maybe like all those peaks and valleys, and then the times they occurred in, you might realize that what you just posted was F'ing stupid.

No need to apologize, everyone makes mistakes...

Chuck
Click to expand...

I did, it fucking doesn't work, now YOU try it shitsforbrains.
 
Jiggz said:
I don't know about you guys but I heard Al is back on the limelight! Hooyaaahhh! The "politician turned scientist" is back to collect carbon taxes. Let the idiocy continue on . . .
Click to expand...

You just have to love some peoples infatuation with Al Gore.

How much would you pay for an autographed copy of his underwear?
 
You reading doesn't work?

How is me reading the graph and then the secondary link monovillage posted help you understand that you're wrong?

Just explain how all those peaks and valleys happened, without humans being around, and why the miniscule timeslice you're concentrating on is so different.

I'll save you time: You can't.

Until you can do that, or show that those graphs and/or data are wrong, you are wrong. Which means you're also the shitsforbrains.

Chuck
 
chucky2 said:
You reading doesn't work?

How is me reading the graph and then the secondary link monovillage posted help you understand that you're wrong?

Just explain how all those peaks and valleys happened, without humans being around, and why the miniscule timeslice you're concentrating on is so different.

I'll save you time: You can't.

Until you can do that, or show that those graphs and/or data are wrong, you are wrong. Which means you're also the shitsforbrains.

Chuck
Click to expand...


Nothing wrong with the data, nothing wrong with anything regarding it but obviously you didn't understand what i previously wrote.

Why you cannot commprehend something as simple as this is beyond me, i suppose when you finish grade school you'll have a better chance of comprehending the English language and also understanding simple explanations.

Until then...

Cheerio.
 
While Dr. Jones of Hadley CRU says that concealing data and code are standard practice for climate scientists.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1254660/Climategate-expert-tells-MPs.html#ixzz0gxGJ6K2M

The Royal Statistical Society says
"4. The RSS believes that the debate on global warming is best served by having the models used and the data on which they are based in the public domain. Where such information is publicly available it is possible independently to verify results. The ability to verify models using publicly available data is regarded as being of much greater importance than the specific content of email exchanges between researchers."
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc4702.htm

They are joined by the Royal Society of Chemistry saying
"&#183; Access to reliable, up-to-date information is vital to advancing research and enabling the discovery or development of solutions to global issues. Sharing information is especially important in multi-disciplinary research, where progress is very much dependent on willing and effective communication between different speciality areas."
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc4202.htm

and from a previous post by the Institute of Physics
"2. The CRU e-mails as published on the internet provide prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law. The principle that scientists should be willing to expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital. The lack of compliance has been confirmed by the findings of the Information Commissioner. This extends well beyond the CRU itself &#8211; most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other international institutions who are also involved in the formulation of the IPCC&#8217;s conclusions on climate change."
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc3902.htm

You have the Chemists, Physicists and Statisticians that all agree that the concealing of data and refusal to share the code is bad science, why should the climate scientists do it as standard practice?
 
Last edited:
JohnOfSheffield said:
Nothing wrong with the data, nothing wrong with anything regarding it but obviously you didn't understand what i previously wrote.
Click to expand...

I understand you said this:

"...the same fucking graphs that use hundreds or tenths of thousands of years as a meter when we are looking at just a couple of decades to see a rise that normally occurs over thousands of years.

So, looking at the graph, and looking at past rises, we can see that there are many past rises just as steep (or steeper) in the same amount of time (or less), all when humans supposedly weren't pumping all this CO2 into the air.

Given that, how do you explain your bolded?


Why you cannot commprehend something as simple as this is beyond me, i suppose when you finish grade school you'll have a better chance of comprehending the English language and also understanding simple explanations.

Until then...

Cheerio.
Click to expand...

I await your simple explanation on the above...

Chuck
 
chucky2 said:
I understand you said this:

"...the same fucking graphs that use hundreds or tenths of thousands of years as a meter when we are looking at just a couple of decades to see a rise that normally occurs over thousands of years.

So, looking at the graph, and looking at past rises, we can see that there are many past rises just as steep (or steeper) in the same amount of time (or less), all when humans supposedly weren't pumping all this CO2 into the air.

Given that, how do you explain your bolded?




I await your simple explanation on the above...

Chuck
Click to expand...

Because! Just accept it, denier!!!!!
 
AnitaPeterson said:
Some of you may be familiar with science-fiction writer David Brin.
This is a Youtube video he linked on his Facebook page... I find it an interesting coincidence:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvMmPtEt8dc
Click to expand...

Thanks for the link. Everyone needs to know that CAGW is science fiction.

Interestingly, this little video does expose the state of CAGW today. One of Brin's claims is that "research" proves that the warming of Mars is caused by albedo changes which themselves are the result of dust storms. This "research" is not a published study; instead, it is a letter from Lori Fenton, Paul Geissler, and Robert Haberle. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v446/n7136/abs/nature05718.html These three fine government scientists claim to have produced a model of Martian atmospheric circulation patterns which reproduced the observed phenomena. They then claim that the model "predicted" these "poorly understood" phenomena which are "unique to Mars." Note that neither the model nor the underlying data are available for even the cursory peer review common to CAGW. Instead, they sent in a letter with their "results". CAGW advocates world wide then latched on to this letter and claimed it to be "proven science" when it is no better than the Himalayan glacier debacle. The quality of science is irrelevant; only the return address and the nature of the conclusion count. (And perhaps in Brin's case a condescending tone in a British accent gets him points among CAGW cultists.)

This is unfortunately a widespread practice among CAGW advocates; they produce some sort of model (which as we have seen may be no more than tabular data regurgitated to pass peer review) to fit observed results and then claim that the model predicts the observed results. Any model, no matter how poor, will always exactly predict the values used to create it. Every high school science teacher knows this. Unfortunately what will get you a failing mark in high school science can now earn you a lucrative fellowship with a government-funded climate agency.

This is NOT science; it is a perversion of science. In the last millennium this wouldn't even qualify as a real religion; it doesn't have the necessary honesty or self-examination. This is a cult, no better than any other contemplating mass suicide to catch the next comet home. And the worst thing is that CAGW cultists plan on taking the rest of us along for the ride - except for those, like Algore, that plan on sending the rest of us on ahead.
 
In David Brins video he uses Hadley CRU as one of his prime sources. As posted earlier CRU conceals their data and code from other scientists and doesn't allow review to check for inaccuracies. Brin also mentions peer review without noting that the Climategate e-mails show that establishment climate scientists colluded to keep skeptical scientists from getting their papers published in journals. He also doesn't mention that Jones, Mann, Trenberth, Briffa etc. were reviewing each others papers and rubber stamping them, not the type of rigorous review they are supposed to get. Jones was actually assigned by a journal to review a paper that was critical of one on Jones earlier papers, again this is not how it's supposed to be done in real science. Brin is an excellent writer, but he has a definite political bent and takes an advocacy position on policy, but thank you for the link.
 
chucky2 said:
You reading doesn't work?

How is me reading the graph and then the secondary link monovillage posted help you understand that you're wrong?

Just explain how all those peaks and valleys happened, without humans being around, and why the miniscule timeslice you're concentrating on is so different.

I'll save you time: You can't.

Until you can do that, or show that those graphs and/or data are wrong, you are wrong. Which means you're also the shitsforbrains.

Chuck
Click to expand...

The peaks and valleys happened because of factors other than anthropogenic greenhouse gases. There are plenty of drivers of climate like the Milankovitch cycle, the solar cycle, and biology. The difference now is that CO2 from fossil fuel use is the driver, the rate of change is much greater than the norm, and it's going to get worse because we're continually increasing CO2 concentration.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top