Global Warming, Mathematically Irrefutable

[konradv]

Redding.com: Blogs: Doug Craig's blog

 

[Oddball]

The silly notion that man is the cause: Mathematically incalculable and unquantifiable.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Redding.com: Blogs: Doug Craig's blog

Where does it say that it is my fault?

 

[gslack]

Redding.com: Blogs: Doug Craig's blog

Ah Doug's blog.... Well then it MUST be scientific...... LOL, so who is Doug Craig anyway?

Nice work genius you just found the evidence of a lifetime... maybe you should work for NASA?

In all of that nonsense, the writer states about the laws of averages and how the more times you roll dice or flip a coin, the closer to the projected average it should be... But then he tries to claim that using temps only since 1880 we can not only determine what current climate is in regards to change, but we can also determine what it Will be in the future as well as how it happens....

The mans own analogy negates his own claim... Wow, way to get the smart guy to tell us....

Damn man that was just retarded....

here is what I am talking about from your cited article...

A related concept is the central limit theorem which in my small brain I understand to mean that if you measure a frequent event, such as dice-rolling, the more you roll, the closer your actual average will approximate the theoretical average.

Then the author says this....

Imagine that you knew what the average temperature of the Earth has been for the last 1,000 years from ice core samples and other proxy readings.. Let us further suppose that you are able to accurately measure the average temperature readings for the planet for the last 130 years.

This is the equivalent to flipping a "temperature coin" for more than a century and getting the same average temperature. But what if at a certain point, your results began changing? What if year after year your "coin flip" began significantly deviating from this average?

If your temperature readings began deviating from the norm above and beyond what is statistically probable, you might conclude the climate was changing from its previous stable level. And if the temperatures were steadily increasing, you might even call it Global Warming.

He just told us that the more temperatures we have, the more accurate and close to the theoretical average we will have.. Then he tried to make that apply to 130 years of measured temps, compared to billions of years of the planet total and hundreds of millions of years with a proper climate and several tens of million years of very similar ecosystems, and millions of years of mammals....

That is a deliberate logical fallacy.... And kornhole here calls it evidence.... WOW!!!!!

Please keep posting this guys shit, hes too easy to show for a fraud...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Sighhhhhhh...what's the use?

 

[konradv]

The billions of years not measured are irrelevant, if underlying conditions have changed, e.g, humans emitting more CO2 in a day than all the volcanoes on earth do in a year. Wide swings in earth's climate aren't the issue, it's the time course.

 

[Gremlin-USA]

Global Warming, Mathematically Irrefutable
Redding.com: Blogs: Doug Craig's blog

If I make a Blog and use some fancy Calculus or Trig Equations and throw in some in some Scientific Formula's I can get everyone to believe that if we do not change our ways, we could all Com-bust and go up in flames?

Environmental changes have been going on for 1,000 of years, I do not adhere to Al Gore's self serving ideals of Global Warming.......



.

 

[konradv]

Global Warming, Mathematically Irrefutable
Redding.com: Blogs: Doug Craig's blog

If I make a Blog and use some fancy Calculus or Trig Equations and throw in some in some Scientific Formula's I can get everyone to believe that if we do not change our ways, we could all Com-bust and go up in flames?

Environmental changes have been going on for 1,000 of years, I do not adhere to Al Gore's self serving ideals of Global Warming.......



.

LOL!!! How about reading up on the subject before commenting? Those that know the subject, discuss it. Those that don't talk about Gore. This is a purely scientific question, but, per usual, the deniers want to make it a political one.

 

[Oddball]

What science?

The dreck on that blog was a bunch of logically erroneous statistical smoke blowing, as was already pointed out.

 

[gslack]

Global Warming, Mathematically Irrefutable
Redding.com: Blogs: Doug Craig's blog

If I make a Blog and use some fancy Calculus or Trig Equations and throw in some in some Scientific Formula's I can get everyone to believe that if we do not change our ways, we could all Com-bust and go up in flames?

Environmental changes have been going on for 1,000 of years, I do not adhere to Al Gore's self serving ideals of Global Warming.......



.

LOL!!! How about reading up on the subject before commenting? Those that know the subject, discuss it. Those that don't talk about Gore. This is a purely scientific question, but, per usual, the deniers want to make it a political one.

How about you respond to my post where I pointed the problems with the link and article?

That is one of the main reasons I treat you the way I do... You pop in and say one line and insult people or state some already covered nonsense, all the while avoiding all the real posts which dispute your claim or the AGW claims... And usually all you do is badger anyone who argues with you daddy oldsocks....

Thats why you get no respect from me kornhole... Now man up and face my previous post or continue to earn my disdain....