Ever wonder if the media thinks for itself?
-
http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&xhr=t&q=scientists+connect++global+warming+to+extreme+rain+computer+model&cp=65&pf=p&sclient=psy&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=scientists+connect++global+warming+to+extreme+rain+computer+model&pbx=1&fp=671824e91cd0aadc[^] Anyway, the only proof is that provided by computer models, programmed to provide such proof. Fortunately most people on CP, having an innate understanding of computers, will be able to se this for the sham science that it is.
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
-
http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&xhr=t&q=scientists+connect++global+warming+to+extreme+rain+computer+model&cp=65&pf=p&sclient=psy&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=scientists+connect++global+warming+to+extreme+rain+computer+model&pbx=1&fp=671824e91cd0aadc[^] Anyway, the only proof is that provided by computer models, programmed to provide such proof. Fortunately most people on CP, having an innate understanding of computers, will be able to se this for the sham science that it is.
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
Just because you don't like the results, doesn't mean they're wrong. If you're going to criticize them without any basis, you're no better than Glenn Beck.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&xhr=t&q=scientists+connect++global+warming+to+extreme+rain+computer+model&cp=65&pf=p&sclient=psy&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=scientists+connect++global+warming+to+extreme+rain+computer+model&pbx=1&fp=671824e91cd0aadc[^] Anyway, the only proof is that provided by computer models, programmed to provide such proof. Fortunately most people on CP, having an innate understanding of computers, will be able to se this for the sham science that it is.
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
Was your initial point with the link that all of the media sources had the same article? It's called an AP story that everyone just picked up on.
-
Just because you don't like the results, doesn't mean they're wrong. If you're going to criticize them without any basis, you're no better than Glenn Beck.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
If you're going to criticize them without any basis, you're no better than Glenn Beck.
Speaking of which, if you're going to criticize Glen Beck, shouldn't you provide some basis for it? I think he has a tendency to jump around like Richard Simmons from time to time, and I have grown really tired of his saying that only religionists are good guys, but I am in awe of his research team. He presents hard cold facts to back up his opinions and then says something like, "Just because you don't like the results, doesn't mean they're wrong." ;) Now, if I understood what fat_boy was driving at, it wasn't that he disagreed with the message (though we all know he does) but that fact that there really was only one story written by some A.P hack and picked up and quoted verbatim by many newspapers, even using the suggested headline which used to be a no-no in the not-so-distant past.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” ~ H.L. Mencken
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
If you're going to criticize them without any basis, you're no better than Glenn Beck.
Speaking of which, if you're going to criticize Glen Beck, shouldn't you provide some basis for it? I think he has a tendency to jump around like Richard Simmons from time to time, and I have grown really tired of his saying that only religionists are good guys, but I am in awe of his research team. He presents hard cold facts to back up his opinions and then says something like, "Just because you don't like the results, doesn't mean they're wrong." ;) Now, if I understood what fat_boy was driving at, it wasn't that he disagreed with the message (though we all know he does) but that fact that there really was only one story written by some A.P hack and picked up and quoted verbatim by many newspapers, even using the suggested headline which used to be a no-no in the not-so-distant past.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” ~ H.L. Mencken
Oakman wrote:
but I am in awe of his research team. He presents hard cold facts to back up his opinions
I would love to see one his awesomely researched programs filled with cold hard facts. Everything of his that I've have seen is nothing more than the ramblings of a seriously disturbed conspiracy nut-job. Fear and hate are his stock in trade. I really have to wonder if he isn't completely insane.
-
Oakman wrote:
but I am in awe of his research team. He presents hard cold facts to back up his opinions
I would love to see one his awesomely researched programs filled with cold hard facts. Everything of his that I've have seen is nothing more than the ramblings of a seriously disturbed conspiracy nut-job. Fear and hate are his stock in trade. I really have to wonder if he isn't completely insane.
Majerus wrote:
I would love to see one his awesomely researched programs filled with cold hard facts.
I'd be willing to bet that the next one you watch would be your first.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” ~ H.L. Mencken
-
Just because you don't like the results, doesn't mean they're wrong. If you're going to criticize them without any basis, you're no better than Glenn Beck.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)The reason I gave the google searchlink is because every single site ran the story with almost exactly the same same text, that was my point, the media just reprint word for word some release, including the headline, bu some scientific (special interest) group. OK, as it turns out the story itself is all about using computer models to prove a theory. Whcih of course is junk science because they can be programmed to prove any damn thing you want, such as Martians being behind extreme rain.
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
If you're going to criticize them without any basis, you're no better than Glenn Beck.
Speaking of which, if you're going to criticize Glen Beck, shouldn't you provide some basis for it? I think he has a tendency to jump around like Richard Simmons from time to time, and I have grown really tired of his saying that only religionists are good guys, but I am in awe of his research team. He presents hard cold facts to back up his opinions and then says something like, "Just because you don't like the results, doesn't mean they're wrong." ;) Now, if I understood what fat_boy was driving at, it wasn't that he disagreed with the message (though we all know he does) but that fact that there really was only one story written by some A.P hack and picked up and quoted verbatim by many newspapers, even using the suggested headline which used to be a no-no in the not-so-distant past.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” ~ H.L. Mencken
Thank you, at least someone understood what I was getting at!
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
-
Was your initial point with the link that all of the media sources had the same article? It's called an AP story that everyone just picked up on.
Yeah, its just verbatim regurgitation, even down to the headline. Hence my quesiton, do they think for themselves? Heck, do they even write these days or just copy paste?
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
-
Yeah, its just verbatim regurgitation, even down to the headline. Hence my quesiton, do they think for themselves? Heck, do they even write these days or just copy paste?
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
-
The reason I gave the google searchlink is because every single site ran the story with almost exactly the same same text, that was my point, the media just reprint word for word some release, including the headline, bu some scientific (special interest) group. OK, as it turns out the story itself is all about using computer models to prove a theory. Whcih of course is junk science because they can be programmed to prove any damn thing you want, such as Martians being behind extreme rain.
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
fat_boy wrote:
The reason I gave the google searchlink is because every single site ran the story with almost exactly the same same text, that was my point, the media just reprint word for word some release, including the headline, bu some scientific (special interest) group.
That's how all the news outlets work... The Associated Press (Or similar) releases a story... The major papers pick it up on their feeds... If they aren't giving it any special attention, they just post it verbatim. The blogs just syndicate what they see in the major papers, so that'll be verbatim too. It's not some vast conspiracy... It's just how data travels.
fat_boy wrote:
OK, as it turns out the story itself is all about using computer models to prove a theory. Whcih of course is junk science because they can be programmed to prove any damn thing you want, such as Martians being behind extreme rain.
Just because people program the models, doesn't mean they already know what the results will be. You tell the model the "rules" of how things interact... You feed it the inputs as you've observed through sensors and the like... Then you start the model and see how it all balances out. Haven't you ever built a simulation? I played around with genetic programming a few years back... Made an RPG-style dungeon thing... Generated a maze and put a bunch of stupid AIs in it... Gave them "DNA" that determined their behavior and stats... Set the rules for movement, combat (Two warring factions), and reproduction (Male + Female in the same square + Survive until birth while female has combat penalties)... I had no idea what would happen... I just set the rules, turned it on, and watched the little colored dots moving through the maze... In the end, evolution outsmarted me... I expected them to develop a good mix of "stats" and "skills" for combat, maybe figure out how to protect the breeders, etc... But within a few dozen generations, all they did was wander randomly until they bumped into the opposite gender, then sat there constantly reproducing... And if they DID run into a combat situation, both sides would immediately run away instead of attacking.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians -
fat_boy wrote:
The reason I gave the google searchlink is because every single site ran the story with almost exactly the same same text, that was my point, the media just reprint word for word some release, including the headline, bu some scientific (special interest) group.
That's how all the news outlets work... The Associated Press (Or similar) releases a story... The major papers pick it up on their feeds... If they aren't giving it any special attention, they just post it verbatim. The blogs just syndicate what they see in the major papers, so that'll be verbatim too. It's not some vast conspiracy... It's just how data travels.
fat_boy wrote:
OK, as it turns out the story itself is all about using computer models to prove a theory. Whcih of course is junk science because they can be programmed to prove any damn thing you want, such as Martians being behind extreme rain.
Just because people program the models, doesn't mean they already know what the results will be. You tell the model the "rules" of how things interact... You feed it the inputs as you've observed through sensors and the like... Then you start the model and see how it all balances out. Haven't you ever built a simulation? I played around with genetic programming a few years back... Made an RPG-style dungeon thing... Generated a maze and put a bunch of stupid AIs in it... Gave them "DNA" that determined their behavior and stats... Set the rules for movement, combat (Two warring factions), and reproduction (Male + Female in the same square + Survive until birth while female has combat penalties)... I had no idea what would happen... I just set the rules, turned it on, and watched the little colored dots moving through the maze... In the end, evolution outsmarted me... I expected them to develop a good mix of "stats" and "skills" for combat, maybe figure out how to protect the breeders, etc... But within a few dozen generations, all they did was wander randomly until they bumped into the opposite gender, then sat there constantly reproducing... And if they DID run into a combat situation, both sides would immediately run away instead of attacking.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the GuardiansI didnt call it a conspiracy Ian. Its unprofessional though.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
doesn't mean they already know what the results will be
But i'll bet the know what they want the results to be eh? In any case models are a long way from the real world. This kind of junk science and its false results has been shown to be such by studies of real world frequency of extreme weather events and their non correlaton to temperature. And no, I am not going to cite, you should know of this already.
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
-
Yeah, its just verbatim regurgitation, even down to the headline. Hence my quesiton, do they think for themselves? Heck, do they even write these days or just copy paste?
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
-
I didnt call it a conspiracy Ian. Its unprofessional though.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
doesn't mean they already know what the results will be
But i'll bet the know what they want the results to be eh? In any case models are a long way from the real world. This kind of junk science and its false results has been shown to be such by studies of real world frequency of extreme weather events and their non correlaton to temperature. And no, I am not going to cite, you should know of this already.
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
fat_boy wrote:
But i'll bet the know what they want the results to be eh?
I wanted the simulated genetic thingies in my program to start working together and be effective fighters. What I wanted didn't change what happened. I set the rules, I gave it the parameters, and I witnessed the results. Same thing with the climate models, except that the rules are based on hard science instead of some imaginary dungeon-crawling game.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
fat_boy wrote:
But i'll bet the know what they want the results to be eh?
I wanted the simulated genetic thingies in my program to start working together and be effective fighters. What I wanted didn't change what happened. I set the rules, I gave it the parameters, and I witnessed the results. Same thing with the climate models, except that the rules are based on hard science instead of some imaginary dungeon-crawling game.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
except that the rules are based on hard science
Wrong! The rules are 70% unknown. And I am sure you are aware of that if you have followed the subject as closely as I have. :)
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
-
fat_boy wrote:
But i'll bet the know what they want the results to be eh?
I wanted the simulated genetic thingies in my program to start working together and be effective fighters. What I wanted didn't change what happened. I set the rules, I gave it the parameters, and I witnessed the results. Same thing with the climate models, except that the rules are based on hard science instead of some imaginary dungeon-crawling game.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
I set the rules, I gave it the parameters, and I witnessed the results
Yes. But that's because you are honest. If you had gone back and tweaked your rules until they behaved exactly as you expected them to, then you would be eligible to be hired by the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit. ;)
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” ~ H.L. Mencken
-
fat_boy wrote:
The reason I gave the google searchlink is because every single site ran the story with almost exactly the same same text, that was my point, the media just reprint word for word some release, including the headline, bu some scientific (special interest) group.
That's how all the news outlets work... The Associated Press (Or similar) releases a story... The major papers pick it up on their feeds... If they aren't giving it any special attention, they just post it verbatim. The blogs just syndicate what they see in the major papers, so that'll be verbatim too. It's not some vast conspiracy... It's just how data travels.
fat_boy wrote:
OK, as it turns out the story itself is all about using computer models to prove a theory. Whcih of course is junk science because they can be programmed to prove any damn thing you want, such as Martians being behind extreme rain.
Just because people program the models, doesn't mean they already know what the results will be. You tell the model the "rules" of how things interact... You feed it the inputs as you've observed through sensors and the like... Then you start the model and see how it all balances out. Haven't you ever built a simulation? I played around with genetic programming a few years back... Made an RPG-style dungeon thing... Generated a maze and put a bunch of stupid AIs in it... Gave them "DNA" that determined their behavior and stats... Set the rules for movement, combat (Two warring factions), and reproduction (Male + Female in the same square + Survive until birth while female has combat penalties)... I had no idea what would happen... I just set the rules, turned it on, and watched the little colored dots moving through the maze... In the end, evolution outsmarted me... I expected them to develop a good mix of "stats" and "skills" for combat, maybe figure out how to protect the breeders, etc... But within a few dozen generations, all they did was wander randomly until they bumped into the opposite gender, then sat there constantly reproducing... And if they DID run into a combat situation, both sides would immediately run away instead of attacking.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the GuardiansIan Shlasko wrote:
In the end, evolution outsmarted me... I expected them to develop a good mix of "stats" and "skills" for combat, maybe figure out how to protect the breeders, etc... But within a few dozen generations, all they did was wander randomly until they bumped into the opposite gender, then sat there constantly reproducing... And if they DID run into a combat situation, both sides would immediately run away instead of attacking.
I can't resist saying it. Sounds like reality to me. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: ;P
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
-
fat_boy wrote:
But i'll bet the know what they want the results to be eh?
I wanted the simulated genetic thingies in my program to start working together and be effective fighters. What I wanted didn't change what happened. I set the rules, I gave it the parameters, and I witnessed the results. Same thing with the climate models, except that the rules are based on hard science instead of some imaginary dungeon-crawling game.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)You're trying to reason with him again? Usually his posts on the subject get ignored because they've been so completely argued out. When it becomes really apparent to everyone the deniers won't be around. The 5th Great Extinction didn't occur all at once one day. It took time. Rest assured gays will get to marry, pot will be legalized, and climate science will be proven true. There is always going to be a portion of the human race that doesn't like change for one reason or another. I've stopped bothering. Like so many problems I see created by short sided narcissistic people, economics and politics trumps solving problems. I guess it's like the Dilbert cartoon. I'm paraphrasing here, "There are those who make problems and those who solve them." I just go around them rather than trying to convince them. It's like at my current job. I can tell them that not putting in this bit of error checking code creates an opening for x or y issue that will occur because of such and such condition. They tell me not to put in the code and then x or y issues occur because of it. Rather than saying "I told you so" I just let them come to the conclusion that the code should be put in. I'm sure I do it too, but at least I'm aware of it so I can try and limit it to the mundane and inconsequential.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
except that the rules are based on hard science
Wrong! The rules are 70% unknown. And I am sure you are aware of that if you have followed the subject as closely as I have. :)
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
You keep using the old "You already know I'm right" argument... Quite arrogant and presumptive, and goes a long way to convincing people that you're wrong.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
You're trying to reason with him again? Usually his posts on the subject get ignored because they've been so completely argued out. When it becomes really apparent to everyone the deniers won't be around. The 5th Great Extinction didn't occur all at once one day. It took time. Rest assured gays will get to marry, pot will be legalized, and climate science will be proven true. There is always going to be a portion of the human race that doesn't like change for one reason or another. I've stopped bothering. Like so many problems I see created by short sided narcissistic people, economics and politics trumps solving problems. I guess it's like the Dilbert cartoon. I'm paraphrasing here, "There are those who make problems and those who solve them." I just go around them rather than trying to convince them. It's like at my current job. I can tell them that not putting in this bit of error checking code creates an opening for x or y issue that will occur because of such and such condition. They tell me not to put in the code and then x or y issues occur because of it. Rather than saying "I told you so" I just let them come to the conclusion that the code should be put in. I'm sure I do it too, but at least I'm aware of it so I can try and limit it to the mundane and inconsequential.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
You know, a few weeks ago, Bill Maher had a scientist on his show, and they briefly mentioned both Evolution/Creationism and Climate Change... I don't remember the guy's name... I think he was connected with the Natural History Museum or something... But he said, and I really love this quote: "Science doesn't care if you believe in it or not." So yeah, I'm going to be laughing when the last holdouts finally accept the fact that global warming IS happening, and that we're causing it... Actually, they never will... For some reason, people have a hard time grasping events that take more than a year to occur.
wolfbinary wrote:
It's like at my current job. I can tell them that not putting in this bit of error checking code creates an opening for x or y issue that will occur because of such and such condition. They tell me not to put in the code and then x or y issues occur because of it. Rather than saying "I told you so" I just let them come to the conclusion that the code should be put in. I'm sure I do it too, but at least I'm aware of it so I can try and limit it to the mundane and inconsequential.
Guess I can consider myself lucky... When I start a new job, my colleagues are always a bit hesitant (I look rather young), but once I've established my Scotty-type reputation as a miracle worker, my warnings are always taken seriously :)
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)