Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Only if you discount any and all other possible explanations, like a weaker magnetosphere, out of hand and downplay the infinite about of organic compensatory mechanisms.It doesn't by itself. What we do is look at other evidence than the chart. For instance:
1) it is a scientific fact that CO2 and green house gasses absorb certain bandwidths of infra-red radiation more than other atmospheric gases
2) it is a fact that we have been producing enough CO2 to significantly increase the atmosphere's CO2 content. We know this based on the known approximate mass of fossil fuels burnt since the industrial revolution, and the basic chemistry that tells us how much CO2 will be released when a fossil fuel is burnt
3) We have observed said CO2 increase
4) We have observed temperature increases
Given that we know CO2 CAN cause the earth to warm, given that we've been emitting gigatons of the stuff over the past hundred fifty years or so, and given that we've observed a rise in temperatures - what other conclusion would you draw? Mere coincidence?
It's profitable if you come to the same conclusions as everyone else, join the academe clique, then never have to go out and produce things others would want to buy.
It isn't actually. You don't even know what you're talking about. You don't get a PhD by repeating the work of others, you get one by doing original work.
And the fact that you are suggesting that there is more profit in NOT making things people want to buy reveals a bit about your intelligence.
It's profitable if you come to the same conclusions as everyone else, join the academe clique, then never have to go out and produce things others would want to buy.
It isn't actually. You don't even know what you're talking about. You don't get a PhD by repeating the work of others, you get one by doing original work.
And the fact that you are suggesting that there is more profit in NOT making things people want to buy reveals a bit about your intelligence.
And politics have nothing to do with one being able to get a PhD?
Only if you discount any and all other possible explanations, like a weaker magnetosphere,
out of hand and downplay the infinite about of organic compensatory mechanisms.
The planet is not in a bell jar, and your "conclusions" cannot be repeated on demand in the context of a dynamic system....If you can't recreate it on demand, it's not science.
It's even worse than that.And politics have nothing to do with one being able to get a PhD?
And politics have nothing to do with one being able to get a PhD?
And politics have nothing to do with one being able to get a PhD?
Not in my experience. I've been in a PhD program for 5 years now and we've had both a Democratic and a Republican governor in this state in that time - when the Republican took over my advisor must not have gotten the memo to call me into his office and direct me to make different conclusion.
It's even worse than that.And politics have nothing to do with one being able to get a PhD?
In many instances, you have to make up new shit out of whole cloth (i.e. psych candidates have to discover a "new" neurosis/psychosis).....Which is, more often than not, built upon what previous PhDs made up.
And politics have nothing to do with one being able to get a PhD?
Not in my experience. I've been in a PhD program for 5 years now and we've had both a Democratic and a Republican governor in this state in that time - when the Republican took over my advisor must not have gotten the memo to call me into his office and direct me to make different conclusion.
I am talking about within the program, not who the fucking governor is.
It's even worse than that.And politics have nothing to do with one being able to get a PhD?
In many instances, you have to make up new shit out of whole cloth (i.e. psych candidates have to discover a "new" neurosis/psychosis).....Which is, more often than not, built upon what previous PhDs made up.
I take it in general you are against science, then? So stop typing on your computer. It was created partially based on the research done by government funded scientists.
Or - i think I got it. Any science which comes to conclusions that the DUDE doesnt like is overly influence by politics and wrong - when it comes to conclusions that DUDE likes or results in technology he uses - it must be right!
Only if you discount any and all other possible explanations, like a weaker magnetosphere,
Already discounted by the very article you linked to. I guess you didn't see it above. I'll try again.
From the article YOU linked to here: Earth's Core, Magnetic Field Changing Fast, Study Says
From page 2 paragraph 4
"This radiation does not influence temperatures on Earth."
"This radiation does not influence temperatures on Earth."
"This radiation does not influence temperatures on Earth."
"This radiation does not influence temperatures on Earth."
"This radiation does not influence temperatures on Earth."
"This radiation does not influence temperatures on Earth."
"This radiation does not influence temperatures on Earth."
"This radiation does not influence temperatures on Earth."
"This radiation does not influence temperatures on Earth."
He never said he was against science, dipshit.
We are making the point that politics plays a heavy role in the PhD process.
If you don't believe that, you must not really be in a Phd program.
He never said he was against science, dipshit.
Right - he just thinks its all made up. He's no against it, he just thinks its a bunch of people making shit up. I get it.
We are making the point that politics plays a heavy role in the PhD process.
In what sense?
If you don't believe that, you must not really be in a Phd program.
I believe its you are the one who is not in a PhD program.
Wrong, numbnuts.I take it in general you are against science, then? So stop typing on your computer. It was created partially based on the research done by government funded scientists.
Or - i think I got it. Any science which comes to conclusions that the DUDE doesnt like is overly influence by politics and wrong - when it comes to conclusions that DUDE likes or results in technology he uses - it must be right!
Wrong, numbnuts.I take it in general you are against science, then? So stop typing on your computer. It was created partially based on the research done by government funded scientists.
Or - i think I got it. Any science which comes to conclusions that the DUDE doesnt like is overly influence by politics and wrong - when it comes to conclusions that DUDE likes or results in technology he uses - it must be right!
I'm pointing out that if the PhD thesis being handed in to Paul Krugman is on the marvels of Austrian economics, or even the Chicago school, the odds of you getting your PhD are on an extremely low order of probability.
Wrong, numbnuts.I take it in general you are against science, then? So stop typing on your computer. It was created partially based on the research done by government funded scientists.
Or - i think I got it. Any science which comes to conclusions that the DUDE doesnt like is overly influence by politics and wrong - when it comes to conclusions that DUDE likes or results in technology he uses - it must be right!
I'm pointing out that if the PhD thesis being handed in to Paul Krugman is on the marvels of Austrian economics, or even the Chicago school, the odds of you getting your PhD are on an extremely low order of probability.
Perhaps I am the only one in here who has gone through the PhD process (to say nothing of the even more difficult world of tenure) - as well as been on the review side of said process.
There is ENORMOUS pressure to capitulate and simply "give them what they want to hear". While there are conservatives on college campuses, they are a decided minority. Liberalism - at times extreme liberalism, dominates the college campus. That is not to say these are bad people - some of them are close personal friends. They are simply deeply imbedded in the liberal philosophy, and as such, do all they can within their respective field, to protect and advance that philosophy.
Often you will not see a professor openly espouse conservative ideals until some time after gaining tenure - and even then, they go about it carefully. Another interesting offshoot of this transformation, is that these professors will often then gain very large and loyal followings from members of the student body who themselves are yearning to hear a more balanced/conservative approach from those responsible for their studies.
Currently, I would perhaps rate Bob George of Princeton as among the most influential and inspirational conservative minds at the University level. His lectures are consistently outstanding in both content and presentation. And Professor George is not beyond pushing the boundaries - a bit of a shock and awe approach to instructing if you will.
Sadly, his example is the too few exception to the rule of the overtly liberal American college campus...
Right.No. It proves the arctic ice cap has been melting.
So, how does correlation relate to causation??
Oh yeah.....It doesn't.
It doesn't by itself. What we do is look at other evidence than the chart. For instance:
1) it is a scientific fact that CO2 and green house gasses absorb certain bandwidths of infra-red radiation more than other atmospheric gases
2) it is a fact that we have been producing enough CO2 to significantly increase the atmosphere's CO2 content. We know this based on the known approximate mass of fossil fuels burnt since the industrial revolution, and the basic chemistry that tells us how much CO2 will be released when a fossil fuel is burnt
3) We have observed said CO2 increase
4) We have observed temperature increases
Given that we know CO2 CAN cause the earth to warm, given that we've been emitting gigatons of the stuff over the past hundred fifty years or so, and given that we've observed a rise in temperatures - what other conclusion would you draw? Mere coincidence?
If I took a bucket half filled with water, and started pouring water in it, when it overflowed you'd claim that there's no proof me pouring more water in it caused it to overflow.
Right.
So, how does correlation relate to causation??
Oh yeah.....It doesn't.
It doesn't by itself. What we do is look at other evidence than the chart. For instance:
1) it is a scientific fact that CO2 and green house gasses absorb certain bandwidths of infra-red radiation more than other atmospheric gases
2) it is a fact that we have been producing enough CO2 to significantly increase the atmosphere's CO2 content. We know this based on the known approximate mass of fossil fuels burnt since the industrial revolution, and the basic chemistry that tells us how much CO2 will be released when a fossil fuel is burnt
3) We have observed said CO2 increase
4) We have observed temperature increases
Given that we know CO2 CAN cause the earth to warm, given that we've been emitting gigatons of the stuff over the past hundred fifty years or so, and given that we've observed a rise in temperatures - what other conclusion would you draw? Mere coincidence?
If I took a bucket half filled with water, and started pouring water in it, when it overflowed you'd claim that there's no proof me pouring more water in it caused it to overflow.
Let's suppose that we are filling that bucket. The bucket in this case is the warming produced by GHG's. About 3% of those GHG's are CO2 and about 3% of that CO2 contributed is man made.
We know that in times of warming that the Earth naturally produces more CO2 and we know both that CO2 is actually, right now, being released naturally in greater quantities than at any time in recorded history and that natural warming has always preceeded natural CO2 increases.
We further know that every Ice Age for a million years has started when CO2 was at its peak for that cycle. We know that every interglacial for the same period has started when CO2 was at its low point. Is this also causation in your argument? While there is a correlation, it is in direct conflict with your thesis.
Your bucket doesn't seem to hold water.
