1. #301
    W. Rabbit's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    10,822
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Bneterasedmynam View Post
    @cullion do you believe that co2 is not in fact a greenhouse gas??
    He believes the moon landings were faked.

    He can't deny it, the data is right there.

  2. #302
    Permalost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,982
    Style
    street paddleboarding
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Cullion, I don't get how the info you're posting passes your own level of scrutiny you apply to every other person's sources.

  3. #303
    W. Rabbit's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    10,822
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Not a scientist by Cullion's defintion:


  4. #304
    Cullion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Oxford, UK
    Posts
    6,526
    Style
    Tai Chi
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Bneterasedmynam View Post
    @cullion do you believe that co2 is not in fact a greenhouse gas??
    No, CO2 is a greenhouse gas but in the real atmosphere complex, poorly understood feedbacks, forcings from other sources and measurement problems come into play which could render the kind of economic burdens being promoted by the AGW movement foolish.
    !!RENT SPACE HERE FOR 10 VBUCKS PER LINE PER MONTH!!

    !! PM ME FOR SPEEDY SERVICE !!

    Sponsored by our first customer: Repulsive Monkey



    I <3 Sirc.

  5. #305
    Cullion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Oxford, UK
    Posts
    6,526
    Style
    Tai Chi
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Permalost View Post
    Cullion, I don't get how the info you're posting passes your own level of scrutiny you apply to every other person's sources.
    Because I could find the same chart on a myriad other servers. It simply doesn't matter that that instance of the image happened to be hosted on a site which also includes crank material about creationism.

    Is it that you actually don't believe that's what the real UAH data ? Or is it that you think the real UAH data because falsified when somebody who is a crank hosts it on their website.

    The first assertion is very easy for me to disprove, the second assertion would be insane on your part.
    !!RENT SPACE HERE FOR 10 VBUCKS PER LINE PER MONTH!!

    !! PM ME FOR SPEEDY SERVICE !!

    Sponsored by our first customer: Repulsive Monkey



    I <3 Sirc.

  6. #306
    Cullion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Oxford, UK
    Posts
    6,526
    Style
    Tai Chi
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by W. Rabbit View Post
    Not a scientist by Cullion's defintion:

    Bell did original scientific research, so he is a scientist by my definition. Bill Nye hasn't.
    !!RENT SPACE HERE FOR 10 VBUCKS PER LINE PER MONTH!!

    !! PM ME FOR SPEEDY SERVICE !!

    Sponsored by our first customer: Repulsive Monkey



    I <3 Sirc.

  7. #307
    Permalost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,982
    Style
    street paddleboarding
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Cullion View Post
    Because I could find the same chart on a million other servers. It simply doesn't matter that that instance of the image happened to be hosted on a site which also includes crank material about creationism.
    So I guess the crux of all this is that you totally trust graphs, as if graphs and figures couldn't be presented in a misleading way (like cutting off the span of time that disproves the point).

    I'm past the creationist point; I just thought it was silly. The part you're quoting me on isn't about that one graph, its about your pattern throughout this thread.

    Is it that you actually don't believe that's what the real UAH data ? Or is it that you think the real UAH data because falsified when somebody who is a crank hosts it on their website.

    The first assertion is very easy for me to disprove, the second assertion would be insane on your part.
    False dichotomy.

  8. #308
    W. Rabbit's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    10,822
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    See here's where you have me Cullion:

    Quote Originally Posted by Cullion View Post
    No, CO2 is a greenhouse gas but in the real atmosphere complex, poorly understood feedbacks, forcings from other sources and measurement
    And here's where you lose almost everyone:

    Quote Originally Posted by Cullion View Post
    problems come into play which could render the kind of economic burdens being promoted by the AGW movement foolish.
    'AGW movement foolish'....right. Again you think the solution is throw everything out and do nothing, correct?

    Because when scientists aren't 100% correct (or hell, if they're not 100%, unadulterated pure scientist) they're fools, right Cullion? Time to no longer trust their science. Time to get me own.

    They're "publicly raped" as you put it.

    They're blowing smoke.

    They're frauds.

    They're NASA, NSF, IPCC, Nature, Bill Nye, Sarah Palin...

    They faked the moon landings, the JFK assasination, the Holocaust.

    Why not fake Global Warming?

  9. #309
    Cullion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Oxford, UK
    Posts
    6,526
    Style
    Tai Chi
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Permalost View Post
    So I guess the crux of all this is that you totally trust graphs, as if graphs and figures couldn't be presented in a misleading way (like cutting off the span of time that disproves the point).
    No, you've misunderstood the point.

    Changing the span doesn't disprove the specific point that it hasn't warmed for 15 years, or the specific point that observed temperature has been outside of the error bounds of all previous IPCC models for years.

    How do you check the claim 'it hasn't warmed for 15 years' ?

    You look for the temperature data of the last 15 years. You can weave about saying 'well if I expand the timescale I can recover an upward trend', but then I can weave about and expand the timescale some more and make your upward trend disappear again. This isn't about looking for trends over any period of time either of us choose to prove a point, this is about comparing model predictions to observations.

    How do you check the accuracy of a model? You look at it's predictions (with error bounds), and compare them to observation. If repeated observations lie outside the error bounds of the model then there is a problem with the model.

    People are trying to panic us into completely re-engineering the infrastructure of modern industrial civilization at enormous cost on the basis of predictions from models which already fail to check out against current observations.

    Ignoring those problems to reassert an original prediction of disaster further in the future from that model doesn't make sense.
    !!RENT SPACE HERE FOR 10 VBUCKS PER LINE PER MONTH!!

    !! PM ME FOR SPEEDY SERVICE !!

    Sponsored by our first customer: Repulsive Monkey



    I <3 Sirc.

  10. #310
    Cullion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Oxford, UK
    Posts
    6,526
    Style
    Tai Chi
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by W. Rabbit View Post
    And here's where you lose almost everyone:

    problems come into play which could render the kind of economic burdens being promoted by the AGW movement foolish.
    I think the solution is to come up with more plausible models and then decide what to do. I don't think we should re-engineer the whole infrastructure of transport, construction, agriculture and industrial production on the basis of a prediction of disaster in the future from models which are already failing.

    Climate refugees? Nowhere. Warming? None for over a decade.
    Ultimately it doesn't matter what anybody says, what matters is when is it actually going to start getting hotter again, by how much, and what will the actual effect be?

    You see? People are trying to scare you with their predictions, but when the crunch comes they don't deliver the goods. This is like a massive secular version of one of those 'end of the world' religious movements that never goes away because the believers all refuse to agree on an actual test of falsifiability.

    And yes, there are excellent reasons to not trust all of the scientific research coming from certain scientists and certain institutes.
    !!RENT SPACE HERE FOR 10 VBUCKS PER LINE PER MONTH!!

    !! PM ME FOR SPEEDY SERVICE !!

    Sponsored by our first customer: Repulsive Monkey



    I <3 Sirc.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Log in

Log in
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO