To My Friends In South Texas This Evening

Page 6 of 10  


And you know that seems to be the problem.
What have you personally seen with your own eyes that has become a world problem in this situation.
What have you read?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Leon wrote:

prejudice as possible. Report back in a week. Do not cite wingnut blogs as rebuttal - only refereed scientific papers.     TIA,     
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Nope! I want to see it not be told what I am seeing.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Leon wrote:

To all readers: look at that website anyway. Lots of information that is quite understandable without a lot of science background.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
jo4hn wrote:

Agreed ... damned trouble is it seems everyone has an agenda of some sort, making any data, and any modeling using same, subject to suspicion.
All temperature data is massaged, supposedly to reduce error inherent in historical readings, but I'm personally, and simply, at the point of not trusting those doing the "massaging", and there is ample evidence to back up that skepticism.
What should have been an age of enlightenment has demonstrably turned into and age of skepticism and suspicion.
IOW, I've been right all along ... <g>
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Swingman wrote:

from data numbers to engineering/science values, applying instrument calibration values, and the like. Fraud is very rare (Fox rants notwithstanding), since it will be found out by ones peers.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
jo4hn wrote:

Massaging data is not the issue. Taking a short term item of noise in a long term cycle and claiming that your model projects the long term trend is the problem. The climate cycle is at least 120,000 years, the models that purport to project that cycle are working on 40 years of data. See the problem?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
J. Clarke wrote:

operate on 40 years worth of data. Tree rings, earth cores, sea cores, and even the written descriptions of various weather phenomena go back hundreds, if not thousands of years. New Vostok data have extended the historical record of temperature variations and atmospheric concentrations of CO2, methane and other greenhouse trace gases (GTG) back to 420,000 years before present.
This is all science that won't go away just because you will it so. Perhaps nothing will come of it or even the massive amounts of fresh water that are entering the oceans will alter the thermohaline circulation patterns resulting in colder temperatures. Research in these areas should not be curtailed despite the anti-science popularity in certain political arenas.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
jo4hn wrote: ...

Which all indicates that the previous temperature rises (greater by far than the recent) all _precede_ the CO2 levels thereby negating the cause of higher temperatures being CO2 but rather that it appears that the rising temperatures resulted in higher CO2 levels (probably by stimulating additional plant growth???)
IOW, it refutes the hypothesis currently being posited as the causative factor.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
dpb wrote:

supports neither possibility.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

What I'm seeing from the "skeptics", many of whom are scientists (for instance at wattsupwiththat.com), is that they want science to be done.
The reluctance of the CRU, as evident in the emails, to have their work scrutinized is not an attitude that scientists should hold.
For that reason alone, their work is suspect.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
jo4hn wrote:

I am well aware of the _data_. You understand, do you not, that _data_ is not a _model_?
Show me a _model_--something that allows computation--that accurately describes a full glaciation cycle and that is accepted by IPCC, and then tell us why NASA Goddard is not using _that_ model instead of the one that they _are_ using which according to their own reports has only been validated for the period subsequent to 1951.

I have been asking you people to present me with a model that accurately describes the full glaciation cycle for years and you are the first who has not simply told me that I was crazy for wanting such a thing. If the model exists please present it and then explain to us why _that_ model is not being used by IPCC instead of the Hansen model.
A model will not spring into existence simply because you wish it so.

Who has advocated "curtailing research". Research anything you want to. But don't tell me that something is proven because somebody got some numbers out of a computer.
You seem to have only the most nebulous familiarity with the scientific method and even less with the actual basis for the assertions of global warming.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Why is this a requirement?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
jo4hn wrote:

The warmist religion is attempting to predict disaster with average temperature increases on the order of 0.6 deg C (~1.2 deg F). In order for the models to be believable to that degree of precision, then the records going back in time must be accurate on the order of 0.1 deg C. Do you seriously believe that tree rings, driven by multiple confounding factors, average temperature being much smaller in contribution than rainfall, or ice core samples, again driven by multiple confounding factors can be relied upon to that degree of precision? That isn't science, that's reading goat entrails.

--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mark & Juanita wrote:

Mark is mixing micro- with macro-climatology here. Models of this type deal with long term trends. I will sign off now. Good night and good grief.     yours in science,     jo4hn
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
jo4hn wrote:

Geez, even uses the same patter as the creationist loons.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Snip
The climate cycle is at least 120,000 years, the models that

Eggsactly.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
jo4hn wrote:

Not if you don't allow, or actively discourage, peer review. Proof of that happening is available, but you just don't seem to be hearing about it from the AP.
Just call me skeptical/suspicious as to why ... but I'll be glad to change my mind if someone can refute it beyond doubt and from an unbiased source.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 18:50:18 -0600, the infamous Swingman

Overheard, quietly, in the back room of the interview suite of a Chicken Little AGWK outfit:
"Mr/Ms. (New Scientist), would you rather be outcast and unfunded by following the truth, or would you rather get funding by skewing it and going along with those who have deeper agendas? It's up to you."
-- Follow the path of the unsafe, independent thinker. Expose your ideas to the dangers of controversy. Speak your mind and fear less the label of 'crackpot' than the stigma of conformity. And on issues that seem important to you, stand up and be counted at any cost. -- Thomas J. Watson
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
jo4hn wrote:

Well, one case in point, if you feed a flat temperature reading into one of CRU's models, it returns the infamous "Hockey Stick" result. i.e., it massages data in a way that appears to have hardcoded in the researcher's bias.
All of this bleating about peer reviews would be a lot more credible if the peer review process had not been subverted. *That* is definitely shown in the released e-mails. When the only peers who review your work are those who agree with your conclusions, and the only papers accepted for peer review in journals are those that agree with AGW, and when journals that dare publish peer reviewed papers that don't agree with AGW are threatened and coerced into stopping that behavior, one no longer has science. One has dogma and religion. In this case, the collars and cassocks have been replaced with white labcoats. Still religion with orthodoxy being strictly enforced.
--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.