How NOAA back themselves out of a corner [modified]
-
After predicting that we will have warmer winters and less snow because of GW, they have new 'science' that actually GW is going to cause colder winters and more snow for in the sub arctic circle NH: http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/future/impacts.html[^] Mind you the arctic was as warm or warmer in the 1930s http://www.warwickhughes.com/cool/cool13.htm[^]so what were sub arctic NH winters sipposed to have been like back then given this new theory? Colder? Warmer? The same? Can they apply this theory to that period or have they jumped the gun and dug themselves another hole to fall into? Of course this is what happens when 'truths' are created to support an ideology. Inconsistencies. Its the same with all religions. Their inability to seperate truth from superstition or belief. It is sad to see science go the same way. The very basis of science is that fact takes precedence over belief.. Unfortunately this has been reversed and now in the world of GW, belief preceedes observed evidence.
"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
modified on Sunday, January 2, 2011 3:54 AM
-
After predicting that we will have warmer winters and less snow because of GW, they have new 'science' that actually GW is going to cause colder winters and more snow for in the sub arctic circle NH: http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/future/impacts.html[^] Mind you the arctic was as warm or warmer in the 1930s http://www.warwickhughes.com/cool/cool13.htm[^]so what were sub arctic NH winters sipposed to have been like back then given this new theory? Colder? Warmer? The same? Can they apply this theory to that period or have they jumped the gun and dug themselves another hole to fall into? Of course this is what happens when 'truths' are created to support an ideology. Inconsistencies. Its the same with all religions. Their inability to seperate truth from superstition or belief. It is sad to see science go the same way. The very basis of science is that fact takes precedence over belief.. Unfortunately this has been reversed and now in the world of GW, belief preceedes observed evidence.
"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
modified on Sunday, January 2, 2011 3:54 AM
fat_boy wrote:
It is sad to see science go the same way.
There is no science here. Science is based on skepticism - a demand for incontrovertible proof - for un-massaged data that leads inescapably to the same results no matter who looks at it. The very fact that skeptic is a pejorative term in the mouths of these poseurs is indicative of how little right they have to claim they are scientists.
"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth. I have observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." ~ Benj Franklin
-
After predicting that we will have warmer winters and less snow because of GW, they have new 'science' that actually GW is going to cause colder winters and more snow for in the sub arctic circle NH: http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/future/impacts.html[^] Mind you the arctic was as warm or warmer in the 1930s http://www.warwickhughes.com/cool/cool13.htm[^]so what were sub arctic NH winters sipposed to have been like back then given this new theory? Colder? Warmer? The same? Can they apply this theory to that period or have they jumped the gun and dug themselves another hole to fall into? Of course this is what happens when 'truths' are created to support an ideology. Inconsistencies. Its the same with all religions. Their inability to seperate truth from superstition or belief. It is sad to see science go the same way. The very basis of science is that fact takes precedence over belief.. Unfortunately this has been reversed and now in the world of GW, belief preceedes observed evidence.
"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
modified on Sunday, January 2, 2011 3:54 AM
You're so boring.
-
You're so boring.
Do you think your opinion is the universal truth or are you aware it is subjective?
"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
-
Do you think your opinion is the universal truth or are you aware it is subjective?
"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
Any opinion is subjective. This is the definition of it. And do you think your posts are the universal truth or are you aware they are subjective?
-
Any opinion is subjective. This is the definition of it. And do you think your posts are the universal truth or are you aware they are subjective?
Le Gauchiste wrote:
Any opinion is subjective. This is the definition of it.
Good, at least you are aware you speak for a portion of the people here.
Le Gauchiste wrote:
And do you think your posts are the universal truth or are you aware they are subjective?
Anyopinions I venture will be subjective, but the facts I post are facts. If the NZ government drops adjusted temperature data and the new set shows no warming since 1960 then that is a fact and not subjective. If I state, as in this thread, that NASA are now saying GW causes colder winters in the sub arctic NH then this is a fact, since I linked to their page stating as much. If i state they had previously stated warmer sub arctic NH winters are a rtesult of GW this is also a fact. If I state they are a bunch of pricks whoi couldnt get science right if they tried then this is an opinio, that is backed up by the facts.
"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
-
Le Gauchiste wrote:
Any opinion is subjective. This is the definition of it.
Good, at least you are aware you speak for a portion of the people here.
Le Gauchiste wrote:
And do you think your posts are the universal truth or are you aware they are subjective?
Anyopinions I venture will be subjective, but the facts I post are facts. If the NZ government drops adjusted temperature data and the new set shows no warming since 1960 then that is a fact and not subjective. If I state, as in this thread, that NASA are now saying GW causes colder winters in the sub arctic NH then this is a fact, since I linked to their page stating as much. If i state they had previously stated warmer sub arctic NH winters are a rtesult of GW this is also a fact. If I state they are a bunch of pricks whoi couldnt get science right if they tried then this is an opinio, that is backed up by the facts.
"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
My opinion was that you were boring. Why don't you move to another subject?
-
My opinion was that you were boring. Why don't you move to another subject?
What I want to know is why you and a few others find it so unsupportable that I post about GW? In my opinion I find almost all the posts in the Lounge boring. I dont tell them though because it is just an opinion, it is unconstructive, and it is rude.
"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
-
What I want to know is why you and a few others find it so unsupportable that I post about GW? In my opinion I find almost all the posts in the Lounge boring. I dont tell them though because it is just an opinion, it is unconstructive, and it is rude.
"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 know, repeating the same thing over and over does not make it true. Maybe you are right, maybe you are not. The problem with your posts is that you are cherry-picking articles that support your view. On a side note, again this year, we had a green Christmas, which temperatures way above average. Is that a proof of GW? I don't know, but winters are getting warmer and warmer. And this not data, it is a fact because I live it.
-
You know, repeating the same thing over and over does not make it true. Maybe you are right, maybe you are not. The problem with your posts is that you are cherry-picking articles that support your view. On a side note, again this year, we had a green Christmas, which temperatures way above average. Is that a proof of GW? I don't know, but winters are getting warmer and warmer. And this not data, it is a fact because I live it.
Le Gauchiste wrote:
The problem with your posts is that you are cherry-picking articles that support your view.
Which is entirely logical since I am quite certain GW is a crock.
Le Gauchiste wrote:
On a side note
Yes, its been unusual foir a few years now. The fact no one predicted this probably means no on understands it. That the arctic and west canada are warm, while the eastern US and europe are cold. The only guy who comes close is Corbyn but he is a UK only forcaster. What this all means is just how many unkowns there are and how little we really understand it all. Thats why I ridicule the simplistic post fact theory of NASAs that this thread is about.
"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