You don't say...lol

[westwall]

Do you think AGW scientists are basing their claims on no evidence?

what kind of question is that to MY QUESTION of what YOU believe?? My question was --- "So you don't give a ratzass about the ACTUAL science?? "": Well apparently you don't and have no use for understanding what the projections are, what they are based on, and what the history of this circus has been in terms of theory, numbers or opinions...

You refuse to actually engage my position. Why?

Apparently, you HAVE NO POSITION on whether GW/CC is a nuisance, a concern, or a freak-out PANIC... You only seem to concerned about defending every pronouncement you ever heard or read that MIGHT NOT ACTUALLY reflect what the science says...


QUOTE="Confounding, post: 22923751, member: 56667"]You should understand that a PhD doesn't make you qualified to prattle on about an area of science you're not actually a career expert in.

You have no fucking idea how fungible and transferring basic science/engineering is to other specialities and disciplines. In my background and training I've worked at Kennedy Space Center, developed and designed MANY medical instruments that went into different labs and applications, spent 7 years in Intelligence, published across 3 very different disciplines... I've detected signals and images in data that no one else could find, help marine biologists understand dolphin communications, helped develop algorithms for some of 1st earth resource satellites to classify and use their multi-spectral imagery.. Aint NO PLACE I haven't been and worked hardly..

And each time I moved from Medicine to space vehicles to basic research in AI, I've had to go learn the lingo and the basics of each application area.. Aint nothing difficult about reading and interpreting temperature records. And MODELING is one of my specialties..

My buds at Lawrence Livermore went from atomic weapons to kidney dialysis machines after the Cold war.. There's a fabric of knowledge that REQUIRED in ALL application areas..

GW/CC science is about 25 different disciplines.. That's how little you apparently know..[/QUOTE]






Did you work on LANDSAT 1? I had a friend at SBRC who was working under contract for Hughes and he brought me in to help on the MSS.

 

[abu afak]

So there will be NO answer to my #250 Refuting Westwall's Incoherent take on he Danish Temperature adjustment...
Nor it's minor importance to the disastrously Warm July in melting Greenland.

I guess you didn't bother to read the OP where this "info" is refuted. Go figure, this is the village idiot abu we are talking about!

You 12 IQ Clown

Note in my post above the first three sentences

You might want to "say"/mention this much more Cogent fact instead on the mini-blip of a temp record or not.

And nice to know all the Science deniers accept later adjustments by Official Climate bodies. (but only if they adjust lower).

The Same body as the OP - DMI - had more to say though about the much month tho...​

It wasn't "Refuted," it was "adjusted" by the people who made it.
By the people who officially submit info to/Are the IPCC..

Wetballs YOU ******* MORON.
It's Not like LOLWUWT/WTFUWT caught them.
They adjusted the temp.
The same adjustments you 12 IQ deniers castigate/scandalize when they're up.

The Major and simple and LARGER Fact is that July in Greenland (and everywhere else) was devastating to stupid twerps like you... and IrishAss regardless of one msrt.

byeeee!'

`

 

[SSDD]

Now you are being dishonest since I gave YOU a another source providing the same information

The difference being that one source is an opponent of AGW science and the other isn't. Do you really not understand why that is significant? The scientists being propped up by you clowns for their "whistle-blowing" still believe that AGW is happening. They are the same kinds of scientists you call frauds and liars.

So tell me...when cigarettes were under fire for causing cancer...did you only believe the "science" that the tobacco companies provided since they were the true experts on tobacco? Or did you believe the scientists who called them on the propaganda they were pushing but had no actual evidence to support?

 

[SSDD]

Actually...I do.

In addition to the hours and hours you spend on this sub-forum spouting the same talking point over and over again? You're a one trick pony and a liar.

Do feel free to bring forward any lie I have told

I believe you're lying about having conversations with climate scientists, especially ones that disagree with you.

So you call people names based on what you "believe"? Not surprising since your position on the science of climate is based on what you believe as well. Is there any part of your life where you actually examine the evidence before you assume a position?

 

[SSDD]

Looks at the initial debunking of michael mann's hockey stick...it was ripped to shreds...which is why he has spend millions of dollars trying to keep it hidden from general view....if his data and methods are ever revealed, his career will be over....

You won't provide me with what I asked for because you can't.

What do you want?

Reread the thread if it actually went over your head. I'm not convinced that you're not just playing games at this point.

What's the matter? Are you unable to simply state what you want?

 

[SSDD]

I don't trust anyone who lies. The only question is...why do you?

You are too ignorant to understand the difference between lies and adjustments in science. Surprisingly it seems some of the "scientists" in this thread are too.

It seems that you are the one who is unable to understand the difference.

Take sea level for example...3mm of sea level increase per year was just not a scary enough number so a global isostatic adjustment was applied to the sea level data. Isostatic adjustments have nothing to do with sea level Isostatic adjustments are used in areas where the sea floor is sinking like areas on the gulf coast, florida and the mid atlantic seaboard...this global isostatic adjustment effectively increased the rate of sea level rise by a couple of mm per year.

Now practically anyone who knows the first thing about sea level knows that an isostatic adjustment is not applicable to the global numbers...yet, the adjustment was applied and the news went wild over the rapid acceleration of sea level...and I have no doubt that you "know" that sea levels are rising at alarming rates...even though they aren't...whoever applied that isostatic adjustment to the sea level data was either incompetent beyond belief, or simply lied about what was happening to sea level.

The same is true for michael mann's hockey stick...any half way decent scientist knows that you don't attach an instrumental record onto a long proxy record...so either the star of climate change is incompetent, or he simply lied in an effort to disappear the medieval warm period..

Which do you think is true? Were they blindingly incompetent , or did they lie?

 

[SSDD]

Yeah, now show me where consensus is described anywhere within the scientific method. GO!

It doesn't have to be. It's just a word that can be used when scientists are in general agreement about something. When somebody mentions the consensus they are simply saying that there is a general agreement among scientists when it comes to this issue.

For it to be SCIENCE it does. Where did you get your so called education again? Out of a cereal box?

I am amazed that you have a PhD and fail to understand why it's not inappropriate for me to use the word consensus when describing the fact that there is a general agreement on a scientific matter. I am not saying a consensus is guaranteed to be right and leaves no room for skepticism.

Here is a quote from a pretty smart guy regarding consensus as it applies to science...and it hits the nail right on the head...you guys go on incessantly about consensus because you aren't able to provide even the first piece of observed measured evidence to support your case...if you had evidence, you wouldn't need consensus...

“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

“Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

“There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.

“In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of”

There is "consensus for practical purpose" which is the type that occurs once stuff appears in multiple textbooks on the subject. THIS might be endangered due to the HASTE of declaring consensus BECAUSE politics is mightily involved, but it still holds...

How many examples of "consensus" science being in multiple textbooks that was still wrong would you like? Shall we start with stress being the cause of gastric ulcers? That was in every textbook on gastroenterology for generations...and it was wrong...being in multiple textbooks doesn't really mean anything unless you are offering up consensus as evidence rather than offering up evidence as evidence...

 

[SSDD]

Hardly any that matter

Apparently one of you believes that AGW is happening and the other believes it's a hoax floating without any real evidence.

Westwall does tend to go back to the Jurassic/Cretaceous period often -- and I find THAT annoying....

Care to explain in detail which part of my position you disagree with?

You've been completely sketchy and elusive about YOUR beliefs.. Probably on purpose hey??

Why don't you get up to tell your story and let us grade YOU???

He has already given his story on another thread. By his admission, he is unable to grasp the science at any level.. He sees scientists as superhuman with godlike intellectual powers that mere mortals could never aspire to and the only thing that "MIGHT" ever change his mind on the AGW hypothesis is if michael mann, trenberth, et al hold a teary eyed press confrence begging the world to forgive them for their deceptions..

 

[Confounding]

what kind of question is that to MY QUESTION of what YOU believe??

You are desperately trying to change the goalposts to what I believe rather than what climate scientists the world over believe and I won't let you. I might entertain your games after you actually concede the things a person with intellectual integrity would have conceded by now. You apparently have none of that.

Apparently, you HAVE NO POSITION on whether GW/CC is a nuisance, a concern, or a freak-out PANIC...

That's not the position I'm talking about and you know it. You're dancing like MC Hammer and refusing to have a conversation that isn't polluted with misdirection.

That's how little you apparently know..

I know a lot more than you realize. That's why I don't prattle on like you do.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

what kind of question is that to MY QUESTION of what YOU believe??

You are desperately trying to change the goalposts to what I believe rather than what climate scientists the world over believe and I won't let you. I might entertain your games after you actually concede the things a person with intellectual integrity would have conceded by now. You apparently have none of that.

Apparently, you HAVE NO POSITION on whether GW/CC is a nuisance, a concern, or a freak-out PANIC...

That's not the position I'm talking about and you know it. You're dancing like MC Hammer and refusing to have a conversation that isn't polluted with misdirection.

That's how little you apparently know..

I know a lot more than you realize. That's why I don't prattle on like you do.

If you know so much then say it.

Yoyre just blabbering away...more or less trolling the thread

 

[Confounding]

And no. I'm interested only in the science here. Not in your pleasuring yourself by pitting members against each other

If you're interested in the science you should be correcting the science deniers rather than trying to attack my defense of science and scientists.

 

[Confounding]

If you know so much then say it.

Yoyre just blabbering away...more or less trolling the thread

I only have interest in exchanging with Flacal at this point. I'm bored of the rest of you.

 

[Confounding]

So there will be NO answer to my #250

You afford these people far too much of your effort Abu. Thank you for trying, but I hope you're not surprised or disappointed by the result.

 

[SSDD]

If you know so much then say it.

Yoyre just blabbering away...more or less trolling the thread

I only have interest in exchanging with Flacal at this point. I'm bored of the rest of you.

Blatant retreat...typical of warmers when it comes time to start producing evidence to support AGW. The claim of boredom is nothing more than whistling by the graveyard.

 

[SSDD]

I guess you didn't bother to read the OP where this "info" is refuted. Go figure, this is the village idiot abu we are talking about!

You 12 IQ Clown

Note in my post above the first three sentences

You might want to "say"/mention this much more Cogent fact instead on the mini-blip of a temp record or not.

And nice to know all the Science deniers accept later adjustments by Official Climate bodies. (but only if they adjust lower).

The Same body as the OP - DMI - had more to say though about the much month tho...​

It wasn't "Refuted," it was "adjusted" by the people who made it.
By the people who officially submit info to/Are the IPCC..

Wetballs YOU ******* MORON.
It's Not like LOLWUWT/WTFUWT caught them.
They adjusted the temp.
The same adjustments you 12 IQ deniers castigate/scandalize when they're up.

The Major and simple and LARGER Fact is that July in Greenland (and everywhere else) was devastating to stupid twerps like you... and IrishAss regardless of one msrt.

byeeee!'

`

Care to give a rational, scientifically valid reason for "adjusting" temperatures from 25, 50, 75 and even 100 years ago or more?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

If you know so much then say it.

Yoyre just blabbering away...more or less trolling the thread

I only have interest in exchanging with Flacal at this point. I'm bored of the rest of you.

That's fine, you bring nothing but nonsense anyway. What you know on the topic would fit in a thimble, all you're doing is parroting shit your masters tell you.

 

[SSDD]

And no. I'm interested only in the science here. Not in your pleasuring yourself by pitting members against each other

If you're interested in the science you should be correcting the science deniers rather than trying to attack my defense of science and scientists.

The thing is, that they don't deserve, or merit any defense at all...they are doing nothing more than pushing a political alarmist agenda.

Here is a perfect example of the degree of dishonesty they are engaging in..This is the typical temperature chart you see from climate science covering the past century.. Even if we assume that it is accurate which I question, it's format is designed for one purpose..and one purpose only. It is designed to create a sense of unease, and urgency regarding the global temperature. The scaling, and the fact that the temperature is shown in terms of anomaly, rather than actual degrees of temperature serves no purpose other than to create anxiety.

The graph below describes the same temperature change as the one above, but the sole purpose of the one below is to impart information about the amount and rate that the temperature has changed since 1900. Clearly this graph would not create a sense of anxiety, or alarm in anyone even though it shows the same information.

The graph above.....the graph below. Both show the same information...one is designed specifically to create a sense of urgency and alarm..one is designed to impart scientific information...One is patently dishonest in its intent...can you guess which one that might be?

 

[westwall]

And no. I'm interested only in the science here. Not in your pleasuring yourself by pitting members against each other

If you're interested in the science you should be correcting the science deniers rather than trying to attack my defense of science and scientists.

The only deniers of science are those who willfully ignore the scientific method. That would be YOUR hero's. The climatologists who instead of making their raw data and methods available (as is required by the scientific method) instead resort to name calling and threats of imprisonment or death for the unbelievers.

Sound familiar?

Yup, that is the tactic of religious fanatics throughout history. NOT science!

 

[flacaltenn]

Do you think AGW scientists are basing their claims on no evidence?

what kind of question is that to MY QUESTION of what YOU believe?? My question was --- "So you don't give a ratzass about the ACTUAL science?? "": Well apparently you don't and have no use for understanding what the projections are, what they are based on, and what the history of this circus has been in terms of theory, numbers or opinions...

You refuse to actually engage my position. Why?

Apparently, you HAVE NO POSITION on whether GW/CC is a nuisance, a concern, or a freak-out PANIC... You only seem to concerned about defending every pronouncement you ever heard or read that MIGHT NOT ACTUALLY reflect what the science says...


QUOTE="Confounding, post: 22923751, member: 56667"]You should understand that a PhD doesn't make you qualified to prattle on about an area of science you're not actually a career expert in.

You have no fucking idea how fungible and transferring basic science/engineering is to other specialities and disciplines. In my background and training I've worked at Kennedy Space Center, developed and designed MANY medical instruments that went into different labs and applications, spent 7 years in Intelligence, published across 3 very different disciplines... I've detected signals and images in data that no one else could find, help marine biologists understand dolphin communications, helped develop algorithms for some of 1st earth resource satellites to classify and use their multi-spectral imagery.. Aint NO PLACE I haven't been and worked hardly..

And each time I moved from Medicine to space vehicles to basic research in AI, I've had to go learn the lingo and the basics of each application area.. Aint nothing difficult about reading and interpreting temperature records. And MODELING is one of my specialties..

My buds at Lawrence Livermore went from atomic weapons to kidney dialysis machines after the Cold war.. There's a fabric of knowledge that REQUIRED in ALL application areas..

GW/CC science is about 25 different disciplines.. That's how little you apparently know..

Did you work on Landsat 1? I was brought in by SBRC to help them and Hughes with the MSS.[/QUOTE]


In a way.. It was not still operational when I did my time in image processing and recognition at an "image array processor" company... But there were other multi-spectral platforms up by the time I got there and we did go back to Landsat1 images.. I did "forest classification" algorithms. Even studied "urban heat islands" and measuring sea ice.....

 

[flacaltenn]

Most of the ORIGINAL LandSat1 images were analyzed BY HAND from film on light tables.. The company I joined designed specialized computing for machine analysis.. Late 70, early 80s...