Global Warming is political "science" and politicians need a question put to them

[Cardinal Carminative]

And when they add them together, they're a lie.

Said like you even know how ANY of this is done. LOL.

I love how folks who last darkened the door of a science class was high school telling us ALL about proxy data and it's potential misapplication.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

The reality is that almost all of us are laymen. That means we need to rely on experts. Unfortunately, the experts will not discuss the issue in front of us laymen because the alarmist side refuse and are afraid they’ll be exposed while the media cover for them.
That speaks for itself and pretty much settles the issue. AGW is a control scam.

 

[westwall]

If you want to look at this and then tell us there's no warming going on, we can't stop you. But anyone with two neurons to rub together fully understands how overwhelmingly full of shit you are.

View attachment 641012

What you ignore with your cute graph is that shows a RECOVERY FROM THE LITTLE ICE AGE.

That isn't global warming at all, that is a recovery to the normal temps.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

The reality is that almost all of us are laymen. That means we need to rely on experts. Unfortunately, the experts will not discuss the issue in front of us laymen because the alarmist side refuse and are afraid they’ll be exposed while the media cover for them.
That speaks for itself and pretty much settles the issue. AGW is a control scam.

We ARE all laymen. That is why it is VITAL to listen to the experts. The Denialist and "Skeptics" you see for the most part are NOT the experts. There are vanishingly few experts who are denialists or significant skeptics.

There is no "control scam", that's absurd. It's just fear talking points from people who are NOT experts on the topic.

 

[westwall]

We ARE all laymen. That is why it is VITAL to listen to the experts. The Denialist and "Skeptics" you see for the most part are NOT the experts. There are vanishingly few experts who are denialists or significant skeptics.

There is no "control scam", that's absurd. It's just fear talking points from people who are NOT experts on the topic.

The experts are all invested in the scam. Thus their arguments are automatically suspect. Add to this the fact that they have been caught multiple times lying, and more importantly denying the scientific method, and it is clear that yes, the global warming fraud IS all about power.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Said like you even know how ANY of this is done. LOL.

I love how folks who last darkened the door of a science class was high school telling us ALL about proxy data and it's potential misapplication.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.

Not like Nobel Prize winner Michael Mann.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

We ARE all laymen. That is why it is VITAL to listen to the experts. The Denialist and "Skeptics" you see for the most part are NOT the experts. There are vanishingly few experts who are denialists or significant skeptics.

There is no "control scam", that's absurd. It's just fear talking points from people who are NOT experts on the topic.

You just made my point. You just disparaged and marginalized legit dissent.
You need to explain how a professor emeritus of atmospherics from MIT is not an expert.
What’s more, it IS a control scam when economically stifling measures are being undertaken with no practical substitute in place. That results in economic dependency. That is control.

 

[bripat9643]

You don't seem to understand what I'm saying. The proxy data were valid. The instrumented data were valid. What falsehood do you think is being perpetrated here Todd?

Even if they were both "valid," that doesn't mean you can combine them. However, a lot of scientists are skeptical of their validity. Many scientists have stated that the "homogenization" process is questionable. If you look at the data prior to "homogenization" and then after it, it shows a clear bias towards increasing temperatures in later years and decreasing temperatures in earlier years.

 

[bripat9643]

You don't seem to understand what I'm saying. The proxy data were valid. The instrumented data were valid. What falsehood do you think is being perpetrated here Todd?

How were they "valid?" Neither were valid. They both have problems, and you can't combine them in a single chart. That's scientific malpractice.

 

[bripat9643]

Said like you even know how ANY of this is done. LOL.

I love how folks who last darkened the door of a science class was high school telling us ALL about proxy data and it's potential misapplication.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.

Did you imagine that was a valid criticism of his post rather than just an ad hominem?

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Did you imagine that was a valid criticism of his post rather than just an ad hominem?

I felt no reason for providing a valid criticism.

 

[bripat9643]

I felt no reason for providing a valid criticism.

Then you can be ignored.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

You just made my point. You just disparaged and marginalized legit dissent.

Not really. I noted that if laypeople are faced with a choice of which science to go with they should stick with the consensus. We lack the skill to side with a minority opinion.

You need to explain how a professor emeritus of atmospherics from MIT is not an expert.

Never said Lindzen wasn’t just that he is an outlier in the field.

What’s more, it IS a control scam when economically stifling measures are being undertaken with no practical substitute in place. That results in economic dependency. That is control.

Nope

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Even if they were both "valid," that doesn't mean you can combine them. However, a lot of scientists are skeptical of their validity. Many scientists have stated that the "homogenization" process is questionable. If you look at the data prior to "homogenization" and then after it, it shows a clear bias towards increasing temperatures in later years and decreasing temperatures in earlier years.

Can you tell me mathematically why measures with different temporal resolutions cannot be combined?

 

[bripat9643]

Not really. I noted that if laypeople are faced with a choice of which science to go with they should stick with the consensus. We lack the skill to side with a minority opinion.



Never said Lindzen wasn’t just that he is an outlier in the field.



Nope

"We're too dumb" to make decisions is not the principle that democracy is founded on. How do you support majority rule if you believe voters are all too dumb to determine what the truth is?

 

[bripat9643]

Can you tell me mathematically why measures with different temporal resolutions cannot be combined?

It's not because of different temporal resolutions. It's because the methods used to obtain those measures are vastly different. For example, obtaining temperature measurements based on tree ring growth is a vastly different process, with different error probabilities, than reading a temperature off a thermometer. As a matter of fact, it hasn't been demonstrated that different thicknesses of tree rings result from differences in temperature. A lot of scientists have said the difference is the result of differences in rainfall, not temperature.

You're comparing apples and oranges and putting them into the same bucket.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

It's not because of different temporal resolutions. It's because the methods used to obtain those measures are vastly different.

Not really a problem. Especially when the different methods are clearly marked as such (as they are on the HOckey Stick).

But more to the point I guess I don't really know what the problem is. If a proxy outputs a temperature estimate in degC why can't it be compared with a different method which also measures temperature in degC?

For example, obtaining temperature measurements based on tree ring growth is a vastly different process, with different error probabilities,

When you say "error probabilities" it sounds like you are just throwing out random sciencey-sounding words. I say that as someone who works with statistics a lot.

I think you are just handwaving. OF COURSE there's going to be different errors, but that doesn't mean you can't possibly compare two proxies!

than reading a temperature off a thermometer. As a matter of fact, it hasn't been demonstrated that different thicknesses of tree rings result from differences in temperature.

This is the "divergence problem" in some arctic trees. But there's a lot of good tree ring proxy info that stands up.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

"We're too dumb"

God just STOP IT! No one is calling you DUMB. Read what I'm actually SAYING!!!!!!!

to make decisions is not the principle that democracy is founded on. How do you support majority rule if you believe voters are all too dumb to determine what the truth is?

What I am saying and have said is YOUR OPINION ON SCIENCE WHICH YOU HAVE NO BACKGROUND IN IS EXACTLY WORTHLESS. That doesn't mean you are DUMB.

My point is and will remain (regardless of how dumb you actually are) that when you are unfamiliar with an area of expertise it is IRRATIONAL for you to side with the minority opinion that area of expertise.

How dumb does one have to be to NOT understand this simple point?

Let's see...based on your reply to this one.

 

[westwall]

God just STOP IT! No one is calling you DUMB. Read what I'm actually SAYING!!!!!!!



What I am saying and have said is YOUR OPINION ON SCIENCE WHICH YOU HAVE NO BACKGROUND IN IS EXACTLY WORTHLESS. That doesn't mean you are DUMB.

My point is and will remain (regardless of how dumb you actually are) that when you are unfamiliar with an area of expertise it is IRRATIONAL for you to side with the minority opinion that area of expertise.

How dumb does one have to be to NOT understand this simple point?

Let's see...based on your reply to this one.

How dumb do you have to be to follow the opinions of someone who refuses to follow the scientific method?

 

[Sunsettommy]

How dumb do you have to be to follow the opinions of someone who refuses to follow the scientific method?

Dumb enough not answer my two simple questions I asked this fake scientist:

POST 117

"What is the proxy data resolution of Tree rings from the paper?

How can Tree Rings measure snowfall when it is dormant?"

=====

Her/Him reply at post 118:

"-Yawn-"

My reply POST 120

Yeah, those reasonable questions are too much for you then, sleep well.



The turds next evasion at POST 139

"Ummm, yeah, your questions are always insightful and deep. Sorry I didn't give it the respect it "deserved".

My reply POST 146:

"Translation: I do not know the answers to easy questions because I don't know how to find them.

This was too easy"

The asshole then deflects further by asking me questions at POST 148:

"Then show me mathematically why the resolution details would make a significant issue.

(Don't worry, I know you won't, that's not your game)."

My Reply at POST 153:

LOL you expect me to answer your questions when you HABITUALLY ignore my questions.




You are ducking because you don't have the answer to easy questions and comically you don't even realize that I put you on the spot with those easy questions in the first place making a fool of you in front of the public reading and see YOU avoid easy to answer questions.



The hypocrite replies at POST 154:

"LOL. (I knew you couldn't)."

The turd who never answered my two simple questions has the gall to say I couldn't answer questions after he spends time making 4 evasive replies to these two easy to answer questions:

What is the proxy data resolution of Tree rings from the paper?

How can Tree Rings measure snowfall when it is dormant?

It is obvious the turd doesn't know.

This is a low-level thinking warmist/alarmist GOOK eating turd who shows NO evidence of real science training who often acts like a child and avoids questions posed by several members in various threads and gets schooled by several who have OBVIOUS science training and research career.