Say what you will about the W administration, we at least avoided Gore
-
majorspark
MB said he was a charlatan. Charlatans can be quite successful, achieve prominent positions in society, and bank a lot of cash.BoatShoes;1490786 wrote:What a failure...he left law school to become a Congressmen, Senator, Vice President of the U.S. and Multi-Millionaire.
Anyways whats with your hard on for Al Gore? We all have frauds and loons humping ideas or positions we align with for personal gain. -
QuakerOatsBoatShoes;1490786 wrote:What a failure...he left law school to become a Congressmen, Senator, Vice President of the U.S. and Multi-Millionaire.
Sounds a lot like the plaintiff's lawyers who are ruining this country; just a bunch of a-hole leaches who never contributed a dime to GDP. -
QuakerOatshttp://www.climatescienceinternational.org/
I have dined with Mr Harris; extremely sharp in totally dismantling the incredibly erroneous data and statistics used by the left to perpetuate their hoax. Politicians and leftists lie a lot, but math does not, nor do accurate models based on accurate, unbiased statistics. This guy completely destroyed the statistical basis underlying the warming predictors.
And there are thousands more like him, but you would never know it since the left-wing media has control over the narrative. Those pushing that false agenda need to take a hard look in the mirror; they ought to be ashamed. -
ts1227
On the whole, the Earth's temperature pattern are entirely cyclical. Any up and downs are because it's supposed to.
There simply is nothing out there that proves or disproves that we are sharpening or extending the extremes of the cycle.
That being said, regardless of whether it does anything for global warming or not, it still doesn't hurt to try and do at least some of this environmental stuff because of the one thing that we can control and can directly affect us, which is air quality.
But you all keep pulling out bullshit to push your political extremism. It keeps me amused. -
jmog
This is 100% fact, the only set of facts really that anyone needs to know.ts1227;1491035 wrote:On the whole, the Earth's temperature pattern are entirely cyclical. Any up and downs are because it's supposed to.
There simply is nothing out there that proves or disproves that we are sharpening or extending the extremes of the cycle.
That being said, regardless of whether it does anything for global warming or not, it still doesn't hurt to try and do at least some of this environmental stuff because of the one thing that we can control and can directly affect us, which is air quality.
But you all keep pulling out bull**** to push your political extremism. It keeps me amused.
I work in the emission field and work with the EPA regularly. Trust me, the things they TYPICALLY worry about on the state/local level are the "right" things, NOx, CO, SOx, etc emissions.
Those things are/can be serious to local air quality (smog, acid rain, etc).
CO2 is not a polutant that hurts any human, animal, etc when breathed in. Matter of fact it HELPS plants (there is a reason that green houses pump extra CO2 into the inside to make the plants grow better).
Is CO2 a greenhouse gas? Absolutely (so is water vapor, methane, and many others)
Is CO2 a major contributor to global climate change? There is zero proof either way, yes or no. Matter of fact, most of the statistical data used is so flawed it isn't even funny and shouldn't be considered scientific. -
believer
Now, Quaker, where's the thought process and narrative in any of this? You are just a brainwashed cyborg unwilling to see the light that you, and others like you, are mindlessly willing to follow a vast right-wing conspiracy to melt our polar ice caps and doom us all to greenhouse hell.QuakerOats;1491003 wrote:http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/
I have dined with Mr Harris; extremely sharp in totally dismantling the incredibly erroneous data and statistics used by the left to perpetuate their hoax. Politicians and leftists lie a lot, but math does not, nor do accurate models based on accurate, unbiased statistics. This guy completely destroyed the statistical basis underlying the warming predictors.
And there are thousands more like him, but you would never know it since the left-wing media has control over the narrative. Those pushing that false agenda need to take a hard look in the mirror; they ought to be ashamed.
:thumbup: -
BoatShoes
No see there is no right-wing conspiracy to destroy the earth or whatever etc. Wild Eyed LibruLz don't believe this. It is you folks who think the overwhelming consensus amongst apolitical scientists that humans are causing and/or contributing greatly to global warming based on empirical research is a staggering hoax requiring unprecedented fraud and deceit in order to facilitate wealth redistribution to teh p00rz.believer;1491223 wrote:Now, Quaker, where's the thought process and narrative in any of this? You are just a brainwashed cyborg unwilling to see the light that you, and others like you, are mindlessly willing to follow a vast right-wing conspiracy to melt our polar ice caps and doom us all to greenhouse hell.
:thumbup: -
BoatShoes
What is your standard of proof? The overwhelming majority of researchers disagree with your assessment and believe the available evidence indicates that humans are causing and/or greatly contributing to global warming. Wonder why they haven't thought of all of your biting criticisms????jmog;1491097 wrote:This is 100% fact, the only set of facts really that anyone needs to know.
I work in the emission field and work with the EPA regularly. Trust me, the things they TYPICALLY worry about on the state/local level are the "right" things, NOx, CO, SOx, etc emissions.
Those things are/can be serious to local air quality (smog, acid rain, etc).
CO2 is not a polutant that hurts any human, animal, etc when breathed in. Matter of fact it HELPS plants (there is a reason that green houses pump extra CO2 into the inside to make the plants grow better).
Is CO2 a greenhouse gas? Absolutely (so is water vapor, methane, and many others)
Is CO2 a major contributor to global climate change? There is zero proof either way, yes or no. Matter of fact, most of the statistical data used is so flawed it isn't even funny and shouldn't be considered scientific. -
BoatShoes
Right so all of these other researchers who are just as smart as you and overwhelmingly disagree with your assessment are either willfully or recklessly ignoring what they've learned in their higher order math and science training and "pull the wool over people's eyes" for political and pecuniary gain. Got it. Widespread international conspiracy feigning true science for pecuniary and political gainjmog;1490920 wrote:I am not going into the detail of th statistical models they falsely use to predict or the fact the weather and climate is the most complicated mathematical system know to man. It is a mathematical model with 1000s of bifurcating systems which by definition is chaos theory. Chaotic problems are ones that by definition can not be solved...period.
Everyone who has ever taken a chaos theory PhD math course as I have knows this, but they will continue to pull the wool over people's eyes as long as it is profitable and political gains can be made.
Here is another group...and they also explain why more dont come out.
http://news.yahoo.com/16-scientists-declare-no-compelling-scientific-argument-drastic-183255794.html
Those 16 scientists are not a "group" like the National Academy of Engineering. You have still failed to provide a formal organization of scientists with a formal dissenting opinion. I never denied that there were a few scientists who didn't agree with the overwhelming consensus who might co-sign an op-ed. Like I said, 97% of scientists concur with AGW, not 100%. -
BoatShoes
MB also inferred that Al Gore is some kind of flunky that "flunked out" of divinity school and/or law school when that's not what really happened. He also describes Al Gore as some dope about science because he has "no science background." A person need not have a Ph.D in chemistry to be able to learn and form opinions about these issues...as many of our own OCers who appear to have knowledge about the climate that has escaped the overwhelming majority of climate researchers readily indicates. In fact, that is one of the jobs of congressmen because they can't be experts on everything. For sure, MB wouldn't rant about the lack of scientific knowledge of a prominent Republican like Paul Ryan when he's blabbering about Iran "spinning their centrifuges faster", or whatever else, etc.majorspark;1490947 wrote:MB said he was a charlatan. Charlatans can be quite successful, achieve prominent positions in society, and bank a lot of cash.
Anyways whats with your hard on for Al Gore? We all have frauds and loons humping ideas or positions we align with for personal gain.
I don't have boner for Al Gore. I said at the outset that I think he would've been a worse president economically than W just to avoid such an allegation. I said Al Gore is pretty weird. I'm simply saying that MB is exaggerating...which is par for the course. It's just like his opinion of Obama....everything is the WORST in the world....they're incompetent bumbling knaves who had the audacity to become more successful than working at a White Shoe firm and by golly is that annoying. It's silly and this thread was silly. -
jmog
Your first thing that is incorrect is that climate researchers are apolitical. That is false.BoatShoes;1491279 wrote:No see there is no right-wing conspiracy to destroy the earth or whatever etc. Wild Eyed LibruLz don't believe this. It is you folks who think the overwhelming consensus amongst apolitical scientists that humans are causing and/or contributing greatly to global warming based on empirical research is a staggering hoax requiring unprecedented fraud and deceit in order to facilitate wealth redistribution to teh p00rz. -
jmog
Your second bad assumption is that climate researchers have taken bifurcating systems or chaos theory mathematics. Many climate scientists are either PD meteorologists who don't take math higher than differential equations or they are PhD civil engineers that specialize in environmental studies. They again, only take differential equations and typically a high level statistics class. FYI, civil engineers are typically not the brightest engineers.BoatShoes;1491286 wrote:Right so all of these other researchers who are just as smart as you and overwhelmingly disagree with your assessment are either willfully or recklessly ignoring what they've learned in their higher order math and science training and "pull the wool over people's eyes" for political and pecuniary gain. Got it. Widespread international conspiracy feigning true science for pecuniary and political gain
Those 16 scientists are not a "group" like the National Academy of Engineering. You have still failed to provide a formal organization of scientists with a formal dissenting opinion. I never denied that there were a few scientists who didn't agree with the overwhelming consensus who might co-sign an op-ed. Like I said, 97% of scientists concur with AGW, not 100%.
You get a lot of statisticians in climate research to help the meteorologists out, unfortunately you don't get enough chaoticians (yes, like the guy from Jurassic Park) to fix their models. -
BoatShoes
So basically all these people are dumb and/unqualified but an engineer who is a life-long partisan conservative who also rejects the even greater overwhelming consensus with regard to darwinian evolution has got it?jmog;1491296 wrote:Your second bad assumption is that climate researchers have taken bifurcating systems or chaos theory mathematics. Many climate scientists are either PD meteorologists who don't take math higher than differential equations or they are PhD civil engineers that specialize in environmental studies. They again, only take differential equations and typically a high level statistics class. FYI, civil engineers are typically not the brightest engineers.
You get a lot of statisticians in climate research to help the meteorologists out, unfortunately you don't get enough chaoticians (yes, like the guy from Jurassic Park) to fix their models.
The national academy of engineering which concurs with AGW surely has plenty of people who took the same math courses, yes? The National Academy of Engineering doesn't have any of teh SmaRt engineers...only the dumb ones? Why are your colleagues in the engineering community so united in opposition? Surely there are plenty of engineers who've taken higher order math? Why do the non-dumb engineers who know math not dissent from their colleagues? Why are they letting dumb engineers propagate nonsense? Are you the only engineer who has a grasp of chaos theory?
Even if not, a quick internet search doesn't appear to yield the result that mathematicians who surely share your math background generally are in concurrence with AGW.
i.e. http://mpe2013.org/
So, it seems that even if we accept your assertions that the evidence provided by most climate researchers is prima facie worthless (which is pretty absurd but I'll grant it anyways) it seems like the folks you think are qualified to have an opinion generally disagree with you also.
Since I know nothing about chaos theory I thought I would look into your suggestion. To my surprise, the founder of chaos theory, Edward Norton Lorenz of MIT, was a mathematician and meteorologist and his underlying work on chaos theory has laid the groundwork for modern day climate modeling lol. How can you say there's not enough chaos theory for sure when it's pretty much what started the enterprise of climate research???
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Lorenz
In fact, it seems pretty clear to me that Lorenz is basically the progenitor of climate research and subsequent research has been grounded upon his foundational work. Indeed, the idea of the greenhouse effect and humans causing climate change appears to be grounded in his notion of the "butterfly effect".Lorenz also argued that climate forecasting need not be impossible, even if detailed weather forecasts proved impossible due to chaos. His original paper on chaos is often cited by climate-change nay-sayers, who fail to note that in a paper published in the 1970s, "Climate Predictability", he stressed that chaos "does not indicate the rate of decay of climate predictability". In the same paper, Lorenz touched on a theme he was still developing last year: just how long might we need to run a realistic climate model if we want to be fairly sure we know what its climatological distribution really is?
Seems pretty clear to me that climate researchers generally are working within the Lorenzian paradigm from this history. The guy seemed skeptical of determining climate change at the outset...a healty skepticism that subsequently informed the entire enterprise.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/chaos.htm
http://web.mit.edu/lorenzcenter/about/lorenz.htmlClimate may or may not be deterministic. We shall probably never know for sure, but as further mathematical theory is developed, and as more realistic models are constructed, we may become more and more confident of our opinions.
That's just what has happened...scientists have become more confident in their opinions. Methinks your dismissal of climate research because it's not informed enough by chaos theory is not correct. The chaos theory based models of Lorenz have informed the entire project it looks like to me.
Unimaginable that climate researchers are ignoring the founder of their field. Like a neo-keynesian ignoring Keynes. It's like you're saying a neo-keynesian economic model is ignoring Keynes when the whole model is informed by his work.
Why does only Jmog know to use the founder of climate research when the whole rest of the academy of engineering would ignore it, etc. -
BoatShoes
The overwhelming majority of empirical scientists are not irredeemable partisan political hacks who would fraudulently tarnish themselves. It's an absurd claim. Empirical scientists are not fraudulently doing research to satisfy their political agendas if they have any. Again...widespread liberal corruption and fraud is the underlying claim and it's absurd. Even if most scientists were secular atheists amenable to liberalism that doesn't mean they're defrauding the world to secretly implement their liberal agenda.jmog;1491292 wrote:Your first thing that is incorrect is that climate researchers are apolitical. That is false. -
QuakerOatsExactly, most of the climatologists will never question the underlying data, its collection methodology, or the accuracy of the statistics. Doing so would cause questions that 'should not be asked', don't you know. Instead, we get: "here is all the data, what is your conclusion based on it"....................even though the data is pathetically flawed and inaccurate. Hysterical!
This is why ICSC systematically and mathematically disproves the data and its methodology. When proven, mathematically, the political and monetary bias is eliminated. -
jmog
Your last two arguments/posts have been so full of different logical fallacies it's almost comical.BoatShoes;1491327 wrote:The overwhelming majority of empirical scientists are not irredeemable partisan political hacks who would fraudulently tarnish themselves. It's an absurd claim. Empirical scientists are not fraudulently doing research to satisfy their political agendas if they have any. Again...widespread liberal corruption and fraud is the underlying claim and it's absurd. Even if most scientists were secular atheists amenable to liberalism that doesn't mean they're defrauding the world to secretly implement their liberal agenda.
I will list a few...
Strawman-misrepresenting my argument just to make it easier to attack.
Bandwagon-You are definitely miss using this as "well, everyone else says its true so therefore it is true".
Appeal to Authority-Instead of having a clue what you are talking about yourself, if someone with a PhD says it's true then it must be true.
Black or white-There is a spectrum here, your assuming that there are arguments that are either "we are causing GW" and "we have zero affect". There is a whole spectrum here, I happen to find the validity of a lot of the data so bad combined with some knowledge of my own to come up with the belief that we affect GW very little. This idea of AGW is not yes or no.
That's just to name a few. -
queencitybuckeye100% of all credible, non-political scientists once believed the Earth was the center of the universe, and that the world was flat. The idea that even accepting a blatently exaggerated notion that most scientists believe that humans are the primary cause of climate change makes it (or even suggests it's) true is a logical fallacy.
-
QuakerOats
risky --- the libs are now going to accuse you of accessing wikipediaqueencitybuckeye;1491439 wrote:100% of all credible, non-political scientists once believed the Earth was the center of the universe, and that the world was flat. The idea that even accepting a blatently exaggerated notion that most scientists believe that humans are the primary cause of climate change makes it (or even suggests it's) true is a logical fallacy. -
ptown_trojans_1
No.queencitybuckeye;1491439 wrote:100% of all credible, non-political scientists once believed the Earth was the center of the universe, and that the world was flat. The idea that even accepting a blatently exaggerated notion that most scientists believe that humans are the primary cause of climate change makes it (or even suggests it's) true is a logical fallacy.
Pretty much in every ancient society, they figured out that the earth was a sphere, and not flat.
Just do some googling.
One of the great misnomers out there.
On the center of the universe, it was the church that was the only one that really thought the earth was the center for the longest time. -
queencitybuckeye
Even if you weren't incorrect (and you are), the point stands as valid. Those were two examples out of thousands with which one could prove the same case. Medical science alone is replete with such examples.ptown_trojans_1;1491451 wrote:No.
Pretty much in every ancient society, they figured out that the earth was a sphere, and not flat.
Just do some googling.
One of the great misnomers out there.
On the center of the universe, it was the church that was the only one that really thought the earth was the center for the longest time. -
ptown_trojans_1
I agree with your larger point.queencitybuckeye;1491458 wrote:Even if you weren't incorrect (and you are), the point stands as valid. Those were two examples out of thousands with which one could prove the same case. Medical science alone is replete with such examples.
But, would state that nearly all climate scientists agree the earth is getting warmer, thus creating more extreme temperatures and weather patters, but the cause, is the one in dispute.
Which, again, goes back to my point that the cause isn't the focal point. The concern is how do we limit the damage? Or, change it?
If we can figure out how the atom works, and how to build a huge collider to figure out the secrets of the sub-atom and matter, then we should be able to figure out, through the scientific process, how to limit the damage of changes in the climate. -
gut
I think the alarmists are pushing reforms doing more economic damage than anything. I'm not sure there's any real damage we need to limit or change. I'm not sure why would try to limit or change it rather than adapt.ptown_trojans_1;1491479 wrote:The concern is how do we limit the damage? Or, change it?
Not sure if I buy "more extreme temps" and "weather patterns", either. That's at least the 3rd major revision to the cries from climate alarmists over the past 2-3 decades (we're cooling....no we're warming...no it's extremes that are the problem). Not really sure why people aren't more skeptical of the "consensus" when about every 10 years they literally pull a complete 180. -
gutAnd setting aside the issues and potentially politics with the research...I don't know how anyone can't see a govt agenda to exert more control (and gather taxes!) wielding this research and claiming a duty to do something about it. And why is it that it's mostly liberals/socialists sound the alarm and demanding we need to do something now?
Conservatives certainly don't have much problem adding bureaucracy and throwing money at a problem. So if the "research" is so compelling, then why are conservatives supposedly so resistant? -
believer
2 words....gut;1491487 wrote:And setting aside the issues and potentially politics with the research...I don't know how anyone can't see a govt agenda to exert more control (and gather taxes!) wielding this research and claiming a duty to do something about it. And why is it that it's mostly liberals/socialists sound the alarm and demanding we need to do something now?
Conservatives certainly don't have much problem adding bureaucracy and throwing money at a problem. So if the "research" is so compelling, then why are conservatives supposedly so resistant?
Wealth redistribution