But, buster, they have something way more powerful than science: belief. They "believe" that the scientists are wrong, because it doesn't match up with their _____ (fill in the blank). Belief cannot be trumped by facts.
Super mega "godzilla" El Niño this winter
- Thread starter Drew99GT
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: jhellwig
What happend to the days when the weather was just weather?
Exactly. Weather is weather.
The global warming folk don't realize how long we have been recording weather to make such claims compared to the Earth and her climate that have been around for far much longer.
My personal favorite picture is the polar bear on the floating hunk of ice. Meanwhile that ice breaker got stuck... in the ice just a few years ago.
What happend to the days when the weather was just weather?
Exactly. Weather is weather.
The global warming folk don't realize how long we have been recording weather to make such claims compared to the Earth and her climate that have been around for far much longer.
My personal favorite picture is the polar bear on the floating hunk of ice. Meanwhile that ice breaker got stuck... in the ice just a few years ago.
Weather and climate are different- "The difference between weather and climate is a measure of time. Weather is what conditions of the atmosphere are over a short period of time, and climate is how the atmosphere "behaves" over relatively long periods of time."
Scientists are human and can be wrong. They are often wrong, however, I know of no better method. All others can just "believe" what they want.
Scientists are human and can be wrong. They are often wrong, however, I know of no better method. All others can just "believe" what they want.
Originally Posted By: surfstar
But, buster, they have something way more powerful than science: belief. They "believe" that the scientists are wrong, because it doesn't match up with their _____ (fill in the blank). Belief cannot be trumped by facts.
Neil deGrasse Tyson — 'The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.'
But, buster, they have something way more powerful than science: belief. They "believe" that the scientists are wrong, because it doesn't match up with their _____ (fill in the blank). Belief cannot be trumped by facts.
Neil deGrasse Tyson — 'The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.'
You can find patterns among these groups of folks that think this way. Even in economics....go back to 2008 and look at the gold/dollar predicions and the doom and gloom. They lacked the critical thinking skills and ability to look at data objectively. They went based on their "gut" and "beliefs" and were WRONG BIG TIME.
Originally Posted By: 4wheeldog
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/23/the-2015-el-nino-is-shaping-up-to-be-a-big-one/
http://www.vox.com/2015/8/17/9164499/el-nino-2015
They're really hyping this on up and relating it to "climate change" (rolleyes).
The great Joe [censored] says that after this El Niño and subsequent La Niña, global temps should be more accurately measurable.
http://notrickszone.com/2015/08/02/#sthash.LMtNT7Pm.dpbs
If you do not think climate change and warmer ocean surface water are related.......Then I am not going to try to explain it to you.
There were NO hurricanes before "global warming"?
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/23/the-2015-el-nino-is-shaping-up-to-be-a-big-one/
http://www.vox.com/2015/8/17/9164499/el-nino-2015
They're really hyping this on up and relating it to "climate change" (rolleyes).
The great Joe [censored] says that after this El Niño and subsequent La Niña, global temps should be more accurately measurable.
http://notrickszone.com/2015/08/02/#sthash.LMtNT7Pm.dpbs
If you do not think climate change and warmer ocean surface water are related.......Then I am not going to try to explain it to you.
There were NO hurricanes before "global warming"?
Originally Posted By: buster
Originally Posted By: surfstar
But, buster, they have something way more powerful than science: belief. They "believe" that the scientists are wrong, because it doesn't match up with their _____ (fill in the blank). Belief cannot be trumped by facts.
Neil deGrasse Tyson — 'The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.'
Nope some don't believe that certain grant grabbing "scientists" are as "right" as they think they are.
Originally Posted By: surfstar
But, buster, they have something way more powerful than science: belief. They "believe" that the scientists are wrong, because it doesn't match up with their _____ (fill in the blank). Belief cannot be trumped by facts.
Neil deGrasse Tyson — 'The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.'
Nope some don't believe that certain grant grabbing "scientists" are as "right" as they think they are.
Stephen Hawking was concerned about GW in 2007. The smartest man on the planet that has looked at it and can digest more in a minute than the 10 smartest people on the board should tell the deniers something.
http://350orbust.com/2010/07/23/carl-sag...arth-seriously/
Yea throw Carl Sagan who might be the second smartest person on the planet agrees with the GW threat. ...wait..I would rather believe Glen Beck.
Really not worth arguing with deniers.
http://350orbust.com/2010/07/23/carl-sag...arth-seriously/
Yea throw Carl Sagan who might be the second smartest person on the planet agrees with the GW threat. ...wait..I would rather believe Glen Beck.
Really not worth arguing with deniers.
Last edited:
Whether the climate change or global warming is human made or not is inconsequential. Our whole existence is based on perpetual growth. We need to have more money, drive the stock prices up, spend more, sell more, the economy has to always go up, and standard of living is always going up.
Simply put the whole notion that we can stop the climate change, manmade or not, is quite laughable, especially when our leaders say that we can stop climate change by simply collecting more money, recycling and using electricity. Even if we stopped the population growth, we need to consume resources, which mean burning fuel and spending energy even to recycle.
But then how are corporations supposed to grow? How are governments supposed to collect more tax money? How are we supposed to feed the constant up trend that is drilled into us? We cannot.
The moment the cave man discovered fire, we started to affect the environment around us. There is no escaping this fact. It is the price of having an advanced civilization. We are in control of our environment and not the other way around, like with all other species on this planet.
Of course, I know that the favorite answer to the above is population control. Great! So how are we going to decide who can reproduce and who cannot? Do you have to have a certain birth status? Net worth? Go back to the feudal system (which isn't too far out as is)? Who would be overseeing all of this? Who would oversee the overseers?
You cannot do it without enslaving the population.
Simply put the whole notion that we can stop the climate change, manmade or not, is quite laughable, especially when our leaders say that we can stop climate change by simply collecting more money, recycling and using electricity. Even if we stopped the population growth, we need to consume resources, which mean burning fuel and spending energy even to recycle.
But then how are corporations supposed to grow? How are governments supposed to collect more tax money? How are we supposed to feed the constant up trend that is drilled into us? We cannot.
The moment the cave man discovered fire, we started to affect the environment around us. There is no escaping this fact. It is the price of having an advanced civilization. We are in control of our environment and not the other way around, like with all other species on this planet.
Of course, I know that the favorite answer to the above is population control. Great! So how are we going to decide who can reproduce and who cannot? Do you have to have a certain birth status? Net worth? Go back to the feudal system (which isn't too far out as is)? Who would be overseeing all of this? Who would oversee the overseers?
You cannot do it without enslaving the population.
Originally Posted By: buster
Originally Posted By: surfstar
But, buster, they have something way more powerful than science: belief. They "believe" that the scientists are wrong, because it doesn't match up with their _____ (fill in the blank). Belief cannot be trumped by facts.
Neil deGrasse Tyson — 'The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.'
One of the best quotes ever illustrating the nonsense currently being put out. Almost all commonly accepted at one time "science" has been debunked. The flat earth guys were saying the exact quote back in the day. Whenever "the debate is over" it means the science can't stand on it's own. Solid science would welcome any debaters and simply mow them down with facts. With global warming they can't get one model or prediction right. Settled science doesn't need constant revisions and new theories to explain why yesterday's prediction was wrong. 1+1=2 every time.
Originally Posted By: surfstar
But, buster, they have something way more powerful than science: belief. They "believe" that the scientists are wrong, because it doesn't match up with their _____ (fill in the blank). Belief cannot be trumped by facts.
Neil deGrasse Tyson — 'The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.'
One of the best quotes ever illustrating the nonsense currently being put out. Almost all commonly accepted at one time "science" has been debunked. The flat earth guys were saying the exact quote back in the day. Whenever "the debate is over" it means the science can't stand on it's own. Solid science would welcome any debaters and simply mow them down with facts. With global warming they can't get one model or prediction right. Settled science doesn't need constant revisions and new theories to explain why yesterday's prediction was wrong. 1+1=2 every time.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: hatt
Solid science would welcome any debaters and simply mow them down with facts. With global warming they can't get one model or prediction right. Settled science doesn't need constant revisions and new theories to explain why yesterday's prediction was wrong. 1+1=2 every time.
They have been mowed down. Scientists are constantly improving and refining the model.
This may come as a shock to you but Quantum Mechanics that is accurate to 1 part in 10,000,000,000,000,000 and theorists are still refining it, improving it and in some cases discarding precepts. You would call that explaining missteps. BTW Quantum Mechanics is being used in determining the exact contribution of infrared and ultraviolet scattering of polar gasses like methane and CO2 to refine the GW results. You might know that this is the mechanism that causes man-made GW.
Solid science would welcome any debaters and simply mow them down with facts. With global warming they can't get one model or prediction right. Settled science doesn't need constant revisions and new theories to explain why yesterday's prediction was wrong. 1+1=2 every time.
They have been mowed down. Scientists are constantly improving and refining the model.
This may come as a shock to you but Quantum Mechanics that is accurate to 1 part in 10,000,000,000,000,000 and theorists are still refining it, improving it and in some cases discarding precepts. You would call that explaining missteps. BTW Quantum Mechanics is being used in determining the exact contribution of infrared and ultraviolet scattering of polar gasses like methane and CO2 to refine the GW results. You might know that this is the mechanism that causes man-made GW.
Last edited:
Yeah right they're being mowed down. We were suppose to have 25 hurricanes a year after the nuts jumped on the 04 season. That didn't happen. "Oh yeah we meant fewer hurricanes but STRONG when they do happen." Nope. "Oh yeah, normal hurricane seasons is a clear indicator of CC."
Then we have the "oh temps going to be shooting up!" Didn't happen. "Oh yeah but what had happened was all da heat being pushed down deep in da oceans where we can't see it soon to be unleashed." Go on with that nonsense.
Go ahead and explain why the modern temperature reading have to be adjusted upwards. We have sophisticated sats and instruments that can't give accurate reading? Oddly the data from 100 years ago need no adjustment.
And lastly if they're still refining QM I doubt everyone in that field run around saying QM is settled.
Then we have the "oh temps going to be shooting up!" Didn't happen. "Oh yeah but what had happened was all da heat being pushed down deep in da oceans where we can't see it soon to be unleashed." Go on with that nonsense.
Go ahead and explain why the modern temperature reading have to be adjusted upwards. We have sophisticated sats and instruments that can't give accurate reading? Oddly the data from 100 years ago need no adjustment.
And lastly if they're still refining QM I doubt everyone in that field run around saying QM is settled.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: hatt
The flat earth guys were saying the exact quote back in the day.
Who ever demonstrated by the scientific method that the world is flat? Additionally, be careful about what you call settled science, and where and why revisions occur.
Classical mechanics are perfectly valid for all kinds of day to day things, including getting man to the moon. Relativity, quantum mechanics, and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle are not needed to accomplish such things. When you get to really tiny or really large scales, classical mechanics has some issues.
Note that you can use the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle on macroscopic objects, like a train. However, the calculated uncertainty will be significantly smaller than the measurement error, rendering it useless in the first place.
Despite the failings of things like classical mechanics in certain arenas, as I said, they work just fine almost all of the time. And, the beauty is that any mathematician, engineer, or physicist on the board can calculate the motion of a falling object independently, and all will come up with the same result. And, those who go to the lab can verify that result experimentally.
Of course, I always give meteorologists a hard time. If you give the same set of data to two astrologists, you get different predictions. Hence, it's not a science. You give two meteorologists the same data, they come up with different predictions. Hence, it's not a science, either.
The flat earth guys were saying the exact quote back in the day.
Who ever demonstrated by the scientific method that the world is flat? Additionally, be careful about what you call settled science, and where and why revisions occur.
Classical mechanics are perfectly valid for all kinds of day to day things, including getting man to the moon. Relativity, quantum mechanics, and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle are not needed to accomplish such things. When you get to really tiny or really large scales, classical mechanics has some issues.
Note that you can use the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle on macroscopic objects, like a train. However, the calculated uncertainty will be significantly smaller than the measurement error, rendering it useless in the first place.
Despite the failings of things like classical mechanics in certain arenas, as I said, they work just fine almost all of the time. And, the beauty is that any mathematician, engineer, or physicist on the board can calculate the motion of a falling object independently, and all will come up with the same result. And, those who go to the lab can verify that result experimentally.
Of course, I always give meteorologists a hard time. If you give the same set of data to two astrologists, you get different predictions. Hence, it's not a science. You give two meteorologists the same data, they come up with different predictions. Hence, it's not a science, either.
Originally Posted By: hatt
Go ahead and explain why the modern temperature reading have to be adjusted upwards. We have sophisticated sats and instruments that can't give accurate reading?
There are always issues of "weighting" temperatures. I doubt you would understand that. When you look at 10's of millions of temp data points there are always going to be issues to get the accuracy to maybe the 3rd decimal point. But the facts are clear..the 15 hottest global years have occurred since 1997. No one is arguing that..or are you??
Deniers do what good defence lawyers do..inject doubt into credible conclusions..."If it doesn't fit (glove) you must aquit..
Quote:
Oddly the data from 100 years ago need no adjustment.
No reason to bother.
Quote:
And lastly if they're still refining QM I doubt everyone in that field run around saying QM is settled.
Nothing in complex science is totally settled. 99% of it is correct. The main conclusions (just as in GW0 are correct.
Go ahead and explain why the modern temperature reading have to be adjusted upwards. We have sophisticated sats and instruments that can't give accurate reading?
There are always issues of "weighting" temperatures. I doubt you would understand that. When you look at 10's of millions of temp data points there are always going to be issues to get the accuracy to maybe the 3rd decimal point. But the facts are clear..the 15 hottest global years have occurred since 1997. No one is arguing that..or are you??
Deniers do what good defence lawyers do..inject doubt into credible conclusions..."If it doesn't fit (glove) you must aquit..
Quote:
Oddly the data from 100 years ago need no adjustment.
No reason to bother.
Quote:
And lastly if they're still refining QM I doubt everyone in that field run around saying QM is settled.
Nothing in complex science is totally settled. 99% of it is correct. The main conclusions (just as in GW0 are correct.
Last edited:
- Status