Put this in your Hacienda and smoke it!
-
It's all a conspiracy!!! The Illuminati have all bought large amounts of land a few miles from shore. When the sea rises they get beach front property for cheap and sell it, thereby increasing their already ridiculous amounts of money and using that to leverage yet more take overs of political assets and their assault on our constitution!!!! It's all so clear! Only I know the truth, wait the men in black are at my door!!! Oh no there isn't much time you have to know the truth about the aliens they are actually il.bs dli.bcsmvgfy32o9hy;pp;n np helpme na90[-wn wn nw[-'an hjvucayvcajkarrrghalcgiyab.ithurtssobad.oahydiohuan owmyspleen/adghkawu7ydak
Cue post from CSS with a youtube link showing some nutjob blaming global warming on the Federal Reserve in 5... 4... 3... 2...
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Developer, Author (Guardians of Xen)
-
See Here[^] Call for Inquiry on AGM, as figures show Manipulation of Data!
------------------------------------ In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms. Stephen J Gould
Just a thought: A response by JNL, a statistical programmer, on this blog[^] makes the point that "BIG PHARMA" has to provide the FDA with raw data, analysis datasets (which are a merging of raw datasets and algorithms applied to raw data), a description of the algorithms and statistical methods, AND all our code and that, as the societal impact of Climate Change is greater than any one drug, ... we should demand a similar review process be applied to AGW claims. A further response by E.M.Smith, confirms JNL, and gives examples of how 'picky' the acceptance procedure is, finishing with But enslave the world with carbon taxes? Destroy world economies? Claim thermageddon happening now? That can be done with completely undefined and substantially broken software with no comments, no procedures, irreproducible runs (as the comments in HARRY_README show), and with no clue if the product works.
Bob Emmett
-
I pity you too. Damn fools.
Where as our great and enlightened leader here knows all, sees all, understands all with his mighty brain. Watch him flex it for you. Or wait, are you the guy who has some inconsequential job and posts utter bullshit which you buy completely because it came from someone you agree with?
-
I do not doubt Global Climate Change, only a fool would, for it has been happening for roughly 4.5 Billion Years. However, when they start pointing out the bleeding obvious, (too many Humans) I would listen. It is SCIENTIFICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to blame it on Industrialisation, for a) there is not enough data, b) there is no way of obtaining the correct data and c) regardless of what we do the climate will always be dynamic. Therefore to claim there is scientific proof is both dangerous and wrong. There is evidence, but no more than that. We are in the middle of an ice age, and for most of the earths history this has not been the case. Still, one good large volcanic eruption should do the trick.
------------------------------------ In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms. Stephen J Gould
Dalek Dave wrote:
It is SCIENTIFICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to blame it on Industrialisation, for a) there is not enough data, b) there is no way of obtaining the correct data and c) regardless of what we do the climate will always be dynamic.
Rubbish.
Dalek Dave wrote:
We are in the middle of an ice age, and for most of the earths history this has not been the case.
This much is true, and what is really claimed, not buy newspapers or by scientists, is that we are warming, and there's a good chance we are causing some of it. That's a world away from what Al Gore has to say.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Agreed... But try to get the general public to accept that... Scientists can not ethically say "Yes, this is definitely true," because of the reasons you stated, so people will assume "Well, if it's not definitely true, it must be false!" (Can't agree with the ice age part - Not saying it's false, just saying I haven't done the research)
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Developer, Author (Guardians of Xen)
The little ice age is a fascinating subject, well worth reading up on.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
You poor fool, I pity you.
Still willing to pay for that psych evaluation, if you're willing to try life without these delusions of adequacy.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
I pity you too. Damn fools.
I pity the fool !!!!!
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Dalek Dave wrote:
It is SCIENTIFICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to blame it on Industrialisation, for a) there is not enough data, b) there is no way of obtaining the correct data and c) regardless of what we do the climate will always be dynamic.
Rubbish.
Dalek Dave wrote:
We are in the middle of an ice age, and for most of the earths history this has not been the case.
This much is true, and what is really claimed, not buy newspapers or by scientists, is that we are warming, and there's a good chance we are causing some of it. That's a world away from what Al Gore has to say.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Rubbish? Why, which bit is rubbish? There certainly is not enough data, we would need data from some time BEFORE industrialisation, in order to shopw that there was no increase prior to this period. Unless we invent a time machine there is no way of getting that data. The Climate has always been dynamic, proof is in the many different Ice ages and Warm Periods in the 4.5 Billion years of the Earths History. A scientist can make a theory from the evidence provided, but that does not constitute proof. Therefore by the very definition of scientific proof it is impossible to say For Certain that it is industrialisation that caused it. Funnily enough, there is a counter argument that industrialisation has caused a cooling, as it has forced that particulates into the air that then act as condensation nucleii, increasing rain and snowfall. Again no proof, merely theory based on preliminary evidence on the study of microclimates and cryometrics. I agree that anyone can use evidence to support a theory, but a Statement of Scientific Fact is Unambiguous and very difficult to make.
------------------------------------ In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms. Stephen J Gould
-
Rubbish? Why, which bit is rubbish? There certainly is not enough data, we would need data from some time BEFORE industrialisation, in order to shopw that there was no increase prior to this period. Unless we invent a time machine there is no way of getting that data. The Climate has always been dynamic, proof is in the many different Ice ages and Warm Periods in the 4.5 Billion years of the Earths History. A scientist can make a theory from the evidence provided, but that does not constitute proof. Therefore by the very definition of scientific proof it is impossible to say For Certain that it is industrialisation that caused it. Funnily enough, there is a counter argument that industrialisation has caused a cooling, as it has forced that particulates into the air that then act as condensation nucleii, increasing rain and snowfall. Again no proof, merely theory based on preliminary evidence on the study of microclimates and cryometrics. I agree that anyone can use evidence to support a theory, but a Statement of Scientific Fact is Unambiguous and very difficult to make.
------------------------------------ In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms. Stephen J Gould
Dalek Dave wrote:
Rubbish? Why, which bit is rubbish?
The claim that there's no data.
Dalek Dave wrote:
There certainly is not enough data, we would need data from some time BEFORE industrialisation, in order to shopw that there was no increase prior to this period.
Data of what ? We can get data regarding past temperatures from all sorts of sources. We won't have human stored data for the whole world, it is true, but we don't need it.
Dalek Dave wrote:
The Climate has always been dynamic, proof is in the many different Ice ages and Warm Periods in the 4.5 Billion years of the Earths History.
Yes, there's no denying that. So what ? How does the fact that the climate has changed in the past, prove that humans can't possibly be causing a change today ?
Dalek Dave wrote:
A scientist can make a theory from the evidence provided, but that does not constitute proof. Therefore by the very definition of scientific proof it is impossible to say For Certain that it is industrialisation that caused it.
I didn't say otherwise. In fact, I commented on the idiocy of both extremes ( saying there can't be AGW and saying there must be ). The actual scientific bodies involved say they think it's 90% likely that we have caused some or all of the warming we are experiencing.
Dalek Dave wrote:
Funnily enough, there is a counter argument that industrialisation has caused a cooling, as it has forced that particulates into the air that then act as condensation nucleii, increasing rain and snowfall.
Yes, I am aware of that. However, that theory isn't given anywhere near as much weight based on the available evidence.
Dalek Dave wrote:
I agree that anyone can use evidence to support a theory, but a Statement of Scientific Fact is Unambiguous and very difficult to make.
My complaint is not that we should 100% accept Al Gore's movie, it's that we shouldn't 100% reject any claim about any human affect on climate, that proving Al lied, doesn't prove the exact opposite is 100% true.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked
-
Dalek Dave wrote:
Rubbish? Why, which bit is rubbish?
The claim that there's no data.
Dalek Dave wrote:
There certainly is not enough data, we would need data from some time BEFORE industrialisation, in order to shopw that there was no increase prior to this period.
Data of what ? We can get data regarding past temperatures from all sorts of sources. We won't have human stored data for the whole world, it is true, but we don't need it.
Dalek Dave wrote:
The Climate has always been dynamic, proof is in the many different Ice ages and Warm Periods in the 4.5 Billion years of the Earths History.
Yes, there's no denying that. So what ? How does the fact that the climate has changed in the past, prove that humans can't possibly be causing a change today ?
Dalek Dave wrote:
A scientist can make a theory from the evidence provided, but that does not constitute proof. Therefore by the very definition of scientific proof it is impossible to say For Certain that it is industrialisation that caused it.
I didn't say otherwise. In fact, I commented on the idiocy of both extremes ( saying there can't be AGW and saying there must be ). The actual scientific bodies involved say they think it's 90% likely that we have caused some or all of the warming we are experiencing.
Dalek Dave wrote:
Funnily enough, there is a counter argument that industrialisation has caused a cooling, as it has forced that particulates into the air that then act as condensation nucleii, increasing rain and snowfall.
Yes, I am aware of that. However, that theory isn't given anywhere near as much weight based on the available evidence.
Dalek Dave wrote:
I agree that anyone can use evidence to support a theory, but a Statement of Scientific Fact is Unambiguous and very difficult to make.
My complaint is not that we should 100% accept Al Gore's movie, it's that we shouldn't 100% reject any claim about any human affect on climate, that proving Al lied, doesn't prove the exact opposite is 100% true.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked
Christian Graus wrote:
The claim that there's no data.
I didn't claim no data, I claimed not enough data
Christian Graus wrote:
Data of what ? We can get data regarding past temperatures from all sorts of sources. We won't have human stored data for the whole world, it is true, but we don't need it.
The arguements used are based on data recorded using human technology that didn't exist before industrialisation. In true science, the metrics must be comparable. Using Tree Rings and Peat Levels is ok for a general -ish measuremnt of long term, broad measurements, but is not relaiable in terms of the 0.x C per Decade that the AGWers are talking about.
Christian Graus wrote:
Yes, there's no denying that. So what ? How does the fact that the climate has changed in the past, prove that humans can't possibly be causing a change today ?
I agree it doesn't, it neither backs it nor confirms it, and even if it confirms it, it cannot give a value to it. Therefore it has no scientific value. I would say that Human Activity has altered the climate, but the draining of the Aral Sea has done more damage in 30 years to a much larger area than can be comfortably imagined. It is the level of that change, and whether it is to increase or decrease global temperatures that remains unknown. I agree that lack of proof does not mean something is wrong, nor that because something is DEFINITELY 1% wrong, it does not mean that the rest of it is wrong either. I just argue that until there is more study, and more understanding, we as a world should not throw ourselves wholeheartedly behind something with possible disasterous consequences. Nor should we just accept what governments say without any kind of reasoning, they say things not for our benefit, but for theirs, they need fear in order to rule.
------------------------------------ In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms. Stephen J Gould
-
Christian Graus wrote:
The claim that there's no data.
I didn't claim no data, I claimed not enough data
Christian Graus wrote:
Data of what ? We can get data regarding past temperatures from all sorts of sources. We won't have human stored data for the whole world, it is true, but we don't need it.
The arguements used are based on data recorded using human technology that didn't exist before industrialisation. In true science, the metrics must be comparable. Using Tree Rings and Peat Levels is ok for a general -ish measuremnt of long term, broad measurements, but is not relaiable in terms of the 0.x C per Decade that the AGWers are talking about.
Christian Graus wrote:
Yes, there's no denying that. So what ? How does the fact that the climate has changed in the past, prove that humans can't possibly be causing a change today ?
I agree it doesn't, it neither backs it nor confirms it, and even if it confirms it, it cannot give a value to it. Therefore it has no scientific value. I would say that Human Activity has altered the climate, but the draining of the Aral Sea has done more damage in 30 years to a much larger area than can be comfortably imagined. It is the level of that change, and whether it is to increase or decrease global temperatures that remains unknown. I agree that lack of proof does not mean something is wrong, nor that because something is DEFINITELY 1% wrong, it does not mean that the rest of it is wrong either. I just argue that until there is more study, and more understanding, we as a world should not throw ourselves wholeheartedly behind something with possible disasterous consequences. Nor should we just accept what governments say without any kind of reasoning, they say things not for our benefit, but for theirs, they need fear in order to rule.
------------------------------------ In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms. Stephen J Gould
Dalek Dave wrote:
I didn't claim no data, I claimed not enough data
But given how much we can tell from ice cores and tree rings, how is that possible ?
Dalek Dave wrote:
In true science, the metrics must be comparable.
Or you need to correct for your error, for example, the claim that hurricanes have increased exists only because we can detect them better. Correcting for this ( showing only hurricans we could find with our older technology ) shows this to be false. There are ways to proceed that have integrity. Having better tech does not doom us from being able to do some research.
Dalek Dave wrote:
Using Tree Rings and Peat Levels is ok for a general -ish measuremnt of long term, broad measurements, but is not relaiable in terms of the 0.x C per Decade that the AGWers are talking about.
Funny enough, I've let myself get sucked into this despite the fact that I've not read anything that talks about the pre industrial era, or in any way claims that we need to go back that far to find evidence of warming.
Dalek Dave wrote:
I would say that Human Activity has altered the climate
Well, what's the argument then ? We started to alter the climate when we started to cut all the trees down.
Dalek Dave wrote:
I just argue that until there is more study, and more understanding, we as a world should not throw ourselves wholeheartedly behind something with possible disasterous consequences.
Well, I would suggest you read 'the skeptical environmentalists guide to global warming'. It's an interesting read, and it probably will appeal to you ( I enjoyed it immensely ). His point is mostly to count the cost of any moves we make, and to understand the real figures, not the ones in the newspapers.
Dalek Dave wrote:
Nor should we just accept what governments say without any kind of reasoning, they say things not for our benefit, but for theirs, they need fear in order to rule.
I don't think they need fear at all. I don't know anyone who is scared of my government, we're more amused by it. But, I agree 100% that fear of the end of the world is being used to manipulate people. My core point is, that doesn't prove that there is no such thing as global