B-Man Posted September 20, 2016 Share Posted September 20, 2016 We must never give in to fear! .............President Obama Well, I mean except climate fear obviously Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted September 20, 2016 Share Posted September 20, 2016 Why would you need the scientific method to "prove" it? Politicians have told us that there is a concensus among SCIENTISTS. If scientists believe it, you should too. Just throwing this out there for consideration: scientific "consensus" was such that Newton's definition of gravity went unquestioned for several hundred years. Then along came Einstein and expanded on it - proving that even something as simple and understandable as gravity can hold new discoveries about its nature, and that assuming that something as fluid as climate science could possibly be "settled" is ignorant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted September 22, 2016 Share Posted September 22, 2016 (edited) You should move to Florida or Louisianan, that would show you really don't believe in all this climate change bunk. No, he should move to lower Manhattan...since it's not covered in 2 feet of water...as was predicted 10 years ago by Grand Inquisitor Al Gore. No, really, tell us why the sea levels have gone down/stayed right the F where they were(statistically insignificant rises at best) for the last 10 years. Hell, Obama claimed that he was was the reason why the seas would stop rising. Perhaps he's the reason Gore was proven completely wrong? Obama the Black: master wizard, casts spell to keep seas from rising on his first day in office? What other explanation do you have for why Manhattan isn't covered in water? In any event: once again, Global Warming is a political issue, not a scientific or intellectual pursuit. Well, unless you count what these guys just did: https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/wwww-ths-rr-091716.pdf (for free, without any funding source, so don't even start), which is science, and math, all day. Quoting the abstract, for the lazy: These analysis results would appear to leave very, very little doubt but that EPA’s claim of a Tropical Hot Spot (THS), caused by rising atmospheric CO2 levels, simply does not exist in the real world. Also critically important, even on an all-other-things-equal basis, this analysis failed to find that the steadily rising Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations have had a statistically significant impact on any of the 13 critically important temperature time series analyzed. Thus, the analysis results invalidate each of the Three Lines of Evidence in its CO2 Endangerment Finding. Once EPA’s THS assumption is invalidated, it is obvious why the climate models they claim can be relied upon, are also invalid. And, these results clearly demonstrate--13 times in fact--that once just the ENSO impacts on temperature data are accounted for, there is no “record setting” warming to be concerned about. In fact, there is no ENSO-Adjusted Warming at all. These natural ENSO impacts involve both changes in solar activity and the 1977 Pacific Shift. Moreover, on an all-other-things-equal basis, there is no statistically valid proof that past increases in Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations have caused the officially reported rising, even claimed record setting temperatures. To validate their claim will require mathematically credible, publicly available, simultaneous equation parameter estimation work. The temperature data measurements that were analyzed were taken by many different entities using balloons, satellites, buoys and various land based techniques. Needless to say, if regardless of data source, the results are the same, the analysis findings should be considered highly credible. Yet another example of the AGW theory being nothing more than a house of cards. Just like with the over-estimation of CO2 sensitivity, here we see the chief premise of the theory, the THS, being invalidated...completely, by 13 distinct data sets. IF you read the actual paper, you can see that these guys went out of their way to ensure that nothing was "cherry picked". They explain exactly what they did, how and why. In fact, they essentially preempted all of the usual attacks on papers like this, by accounting for them in their methodology, and explaining each point fully. Example: Given the potential significance of this research, it is appropriate to question everything about it. Questioning everything is fair game from 1) the selection of the particular 13 temperature time series by one of the authors for this analysis to the 2) econometric parameter estimation methods utilized to 3) the actual models estimated. On all three, the authors have attempted to be completely open. Regarding the model used for ENSO adjustment, recall that the exact same linear functional form and 3 MEI-related variables were used, except that the 1977 Pacific Shift variable is dropped for the Satellite data modeling since its history begins in 1979. And here's where things really stand as far as the actual science goes: Moreover, on an all-other-things-equal basis, there is no statistically valid proof that past increases in Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations have caused the officially reported rising, even claimed record setting temperatures. To validate their claim will require mathematically credible, publically available, simultaneous equation parameter estimation work. Where is it? Yes, baskin, where is it? Where is the work, not the talk? Where is the methodology, since the AGW people never seem to be willing to produce it, or, as soon as it is identified(and then proven faulty), they change it to something else, but never explain it. The contrast here should be obvious to anyone with an IQ above 80. On the one side, you have scientists who encourage questions about their work. On the other side, well, we have the word "denier", don't we? Once again, Game. Set. Match. One cannot talk AGW, without explaining where the F the missing heat is/why the climate isn't as sensitive to CO2 as was claimed, and now? Where the F the missing THS is...which WAS the premise that practically all AGW theory is predicated upon. Edited September 22, 2016 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TH3 Posted September 22, 2016 Share Posted September 22, 2016 Did you read the authors pledge to the Evangelical view of the climate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted September 22, 2016 Share Posted September 22, 2016 I missed the peer reviewed journal it was in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted September 22, 2016 Share Posted September 22, 2016 (edited) Did you read the authors pledge to the Evangelical view of the climate? I missed the peer reviewed journal it was in. Ahh, the ultimate indicator of defeat: Neither of you dares to argue the content, because let's face it: both of you have proven, beyond all doubt, that you don't know much of anything about anything. Instead, you try to play the process game. Then, you will try to pretend that you are making a choice and tell us that you "won't" discuss the content, but the reality is you have no choice, because: you can't. Read the paper: 7 scientists have signed on already, after having reviewed this work. That's peer review. Especially when one of the scientists is the "Former Chair EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee" and another is "IPCC Expert Reviewer". So much for your process arguments. The simple fact is: this is math, not psychology. The math is telling both of you that it's far past time to recognize the major flaws in AGW's theory, and frankly, that your views are based on beliefs, and not on math. Belief scrutiny: Where is the missing heat? How come the IPCC models only accurately predict temps when you dial down the CO2 sensitively variable in them to the "will have a result, but that result will be negligible, and thus won't affect us in any meaningful way" level? In fact, tell us why ALL of the models suffer from the exact same error in overestimation of CO2 sensitivity...if all these researchers are working "independently"? Tell us why every model is predicated on carbon and the sun...working in way that contradicts physics, and their own observed properties? While you're at it: tell us where the mythical THS can be found. We want to see lat/long coordinates. Show me the damn thing, because ALL 3 of the EPA's "Lines of Evidence" depend 100% on it being there. Again: where is it? Again: this is what real science looks like, especially when one considers the obvious difference in behavior of these scientists ("Questioning everything is fair game"), and the AGW scientists behavior ("Anybody that doesn't accept everything my science says is akin to a holocaust denier") One side says "feel free to show me where I'm wrong". The other side is demanding that anyone who doubts them be sued/thrown in jail. This has now reached the level of farce, and by all means, please continue to be characters in the farce. I love watching you dance. Edited September 22, 2016 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted September 22, 2016 Share Posted September 22, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 22, 2016 Share Posted September 22, 2016 That is the absolute weakest political comic I've ever seen. And I've been reading Tom Toles for some 30 years...so my measure of "weakest" is really !@#$ing weak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted September 22, 2016 Share Posted September 22, 2016 That is the absolute weakest political comic I've ever seen. And I've been reading Tom Toles for some 30 years...so my measure of "weakest" is really !@#$ing weak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 22, 2016 Share Posted September 22, 2016 I like to see how the other half thinks. In line drawings done by three year olds, apparently. I actually used to like his cartoons in my younger years. Then something happened: I grew up, and he didn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted September 22, 2016 Share Posted September 22, 2016 I like to see how the other half thinks. In line drawings done by three year olds, apparently. I actually used to like his cartoons in my younger years. Then something happened: I grew up, and he didn't. Good Lord Tom, I made the mistake of searching for just his (Toles) Climate cartoons page after page of the exact same viewpoint................it wasnt pretty. these two are fairly representative . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 23, 2016 Share Posted September 23, 2016 Good Lord Tom, I made the mistake of searching for just his (Toles) Climate cartoons page after page of the exact same viewpoint................it wasnt pretty. these two are fairly representative . Worse...they're just not funny. Once upon a time he had a decent sense of the sardonic. Now he's just a crusader. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted September 23, 2016 Share Posted September 23, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbillievable Posted September 23, 2016 Share Posted September 23, 2016 It's funny that a video showing how to debate Global Warming with skeptics has the comments section disabled. (they can't even support their own video) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 23, 2016 Share Posted September 23, 2016 I missed the peer reviewed journal this was in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted September 23, 2016 Share Posted September 23, 2016 I missed the peer reviewed journal this was in. I was told it wasn't needed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted September 25, 2016 Share Posted September 25, 2016 I was told it wasn't needed No, you weren't. You were shown exactly who did a study, who reviewed it, and who concurred with it. Nobody said anything about not needing peer review. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted September 25, 2016 Share Posted September 25, 2016 I missed the peer reviewed journal this was in. No, you weren't. You were shown exactly who did a study, who reviewed it, and who concurred with it. Nobody said anything about not needing peer review. Tony Baloney you don't read very well and neither do your posts but keep up with your CAN-DO-DO ideas and I will devote to them the energy they deserve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted September 25, 2016 Share Posted September 25, 2016 It's much cooler today. I don't believe in global warming now. In fact I do believe we're headed for at least a few months of cooler and even much colder temperatures. I'll check back in once I sense a change in that momentum and let you all know how I feel about the subject then. Until then, keep warm! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boater Posted September 26, 2016 Share Posted September 26, 2016 I missed the peer reviewed journal this was in. Sadly, peer review journals are not as robust and truthful as they once were. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts