Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online
0 registered (), 193 Guests and 0 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Is there anybody out there?
by paul
12/07/19 03:58 AM
Top Posters (30 Days)
paul 1
True 1
Page 3 of 3 < 1 2 3
Topic Options
#16686 - 10/18/06 06:11 AM Re: Global warming nears ?dangerous? level
dehammer Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 1089
Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
dehammer wrote:
"see, this right here is the total problem.
glacers expand and contract all the time."

No it is not. Your argument is equivalent to saying some days are warmer than others. Well to quote Bart Simpson: Duh!

Climatologists are not so incompetent as to not understand and appreciate normal cycles. What is happening now is not normal.
so how are they taking into account that some years are colder than others and some are hotter than others, when they dont have the data for more than a small number of years.

appearantly it has happen several times in the past, so what is so unnormal about it.

what they are basically saying is that in the hottest year they have the data on, more of it melted than other years.

your arguement is the same as going out on a hot winter day and seeing that a lot of ice had melted off, then proclaiming that it was summer.
_________________________
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.

Top
.
#16687 - 10/18/06 05:37 PM Re: Global warming nears ?dangerous? level
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
quantity <> quality.

You guys are great on writing chapters where a single link, if it existed, would suffice.

JR: One glacier is an indication of nothing. Not even when it agrees with me.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#16688 - 10/19/06 12:25 AM Re: Global warming nears ?dangerous? level
dehammer Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 1089
we would be happy to discuss any link to REAL data that you can provide, but so far all of your links have either proven you wrong or have been nothing but news article stating opinions by people who believed in global warming without any proof of it.

so far the only links to data that you have provided
1) admitted that they had to adjust old data to "correct" them, yet you would not accept that they did.

2)had discrepancy in the data that global warming alarmist are willing to over look, but those who are not believers cant. GWA either ignore it when those discrepancy are shown or claim its part of the feed back, ignoring the fact that there had to be a starting point before the feedback began.

If your going to claim man is responsible, try answering some of the discrepancies first.

if your going to claim that we dont give links to disprove it, show us the answers to the discredits we give to the data you do supply.
_________________________
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.

Top
#16689 - 10/19/06 09:20 PM Re: Global warming nears ?dangerous? level
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
dehammer wrote:
"we would be happy to discuss any link to REAL data that you can provide"

Lets try it the other way. How about we discuss a REAL data from a link you provide?

If you had something you'd reference it instead of joining with JR and RS and writing large volumes of personal opinion.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#16690 - 10/20/06 07:01 AM Re: Global warming nears ?dangerous? level
dehammer Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 1089
This is the problem with global warming alarmist.

they believe they can make statements about the end of the world, give no data, then demand data from those who claim there is no danger. news articles are intended to sell subscription so alarmist aritcle sell well, but they dont give any thing but a slanted sensationalist view. This forum is not about sensationalism. If there is proof that things are changing show it. otherwise, everything is about the same as always.

Alarmist dont believe they have to prove their alarms are real.

Have you ever heard the story of the boy that cried woof.

Alarmist are crying wolf and have been for years, yet when the real danger occurs (polution, destructions of habatats, etc) no one will want to hear about because they believe its just more alarmist hype.

show us real unaltered data (weve already shown you where the data they claim was altered) and we will listen to your claims that the wolf is coming. Until then, stop spotlighting a non existant thread and worry about the wolf that is at your door.
_________________________
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.

Top
#16691 - 10/20/06 05:44 PM Re: Global warming nears ?dangerous? level
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
dehammer wrote:
"This is the problem with global warming alarmist."

How about the problem with those that are not alarmed? Their inability to point to a single scientific study that supports their delusion?
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#16692 - 10/20/06 08:27 PM Re: Global warming nears ?dangerous? level
Blacknad Offline
Superstar

Registered: 10/05/05
Posts: 901
Loc: Coventry, England
Dan,

You understand that this is like debating with religious fundamentalists or conspiracy theorists.

It'll be a warm day at the North Pole before they get it.

Blacknad.

Top
#16693 - 10/20/06 08:36 PM Re: Global warming nears ?dangerous? level
dehammer Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 1089
Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
dehammer wrote:
"This is the problem with global warming alarmist."

How about the problem with those that are not alarmed? Their inability to point to a single scientific study that supports their delusion?
we dont have to point to a study that supports out "delusion" all we have to do is point out the flaws in the studies that alarmist use as their bible.

you talk about how the peer review system works so well, but just look at what happen when one paper decided to publish an article pointing out the flaws in an accepted study.

three editors quit because the chief editor dared to publish something that questioned global warming. not the evidence, the fact that it was published against their demands that it be censored. several major science magazines immeadiately attacked that paper, not on merit of the article, but one the fact that they dared to publish something from someone who has a cousin that works as a gas pump operator. Several major scientist argued that their data could not be used in such a way, even though it had been used by others to show that global warming was a fact.

not a single person argued that the facts were not there, they argued that the paper could not publish it. even to the point of trying to get the paper shut down.

that is censorship and its all across the board. getting an article published that disproves global warming is like trying to get the vatican to publish a book on witchcraft spells.

on the other hand, the few actual times that someone has come up with actual data, the flaws were pointed out, just to be ignored as not relavant.
_________________________
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.

Top
#16694 - 10/20/06 08:39 PM Re: Global warming nears ?dangerous? level
dehammer Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 1089
Quote:
Originally posted by Blacknad:
Dan,

You understand that this is like debating with religious fundamentalists or conspiracy theorists.

It'll be a warm day at the North Pole before they get it.

Blacknad.
your right, but were the sceptics and you guys the r.f.'s or conspiracy theorist.

in both this case and the conspiracy theorist situation, the sceptic demand proof, but only get second hand opinions.

When it becomes warm at the north pole, we will be the ones pointing out how hot the solar activity is and once again, it will be people like you that say that it has nothing to do with the heat wave.

that is if we have not choked ourselfs to death with our polutions first. with all the money going to stop a global warming trend that either has no connection to co2 or very little and thus is something we cant control, there is no money going to clean up the mess were making of this planet. one of these days that is going to be too much and we will find that cant live on top of a garbage pile. Of course the alarmist will still be blaiming it on co2 emission.
_________________________
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.

Top
#16695 - 10/20/06 09:32 PM Re: Global warming nears ?dangerous? level
RicS Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 03/26/06
Posts: 310
Loc: Sydney, Australia
G'day all,

I have to disagree with you dehammer. The study to which you refer, actually did have some faults. Not necessarily any worse than those lauded pro global warming studies but faults just the same. Their definitions of what constituted a warm period was just too broad and while many of the periods they were discussing would be considered warm they simplified their reasoning by pointing to increased rainfall when the subject was about temperature. It might have made the process easier but it did leave them open to critisicm as to the scientific method adopted. Where they wrong? Actually not often, from the other data they had but less than perfect scientific method is less than perfect scientific method regardless of what it supports.

What happened after the publication is a rather different story and I tend to agree with you. What should have happened is a correction should have been published, omitting conclusions tha the scientific method's faults caused concern about, and reinforcing the main points where the definititions, even when tightened up to something reasonable still enabled the periods to be considered to be warm. That didn't happen of course and passions did run rather high.


Regards


Richard
_________________________
Sane=fits in. Unreasonable=world needs to fit to him. All Progress requires unreasonableness

Top
#16696 - 10/20/06 09:59 PM Re: Global warming nears ?dangerous? level
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
Blacknad wrote:
"It'll be a warm day at the North Pole before they get it."

I know: I'm not trying to convince them as they had their minds made up before they were old enough to read.

I am trying to make sure that lurkers, seeing their nonsense unchallenge, don't give it credence by virtue of the fact that it has been posted at a "science" site.

If the moderators saw as part of their job presenting science ... rather than just being the "nice" police I wouldn't feel compelled to point out the obvious over and over and over and over and over and over again.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#16697 - 10/20/06 10:08 PM Re: Global warming nears ?dangerous? level
dehammer Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 1089
Quote:
Originally posted by RicS:
G'day all,

I have to disagree with you dehammer. The study to which you refer, actually did have some faults. Not necessarily any worse than those lauded pro global warming studies but faults just the same. Their definitions of what constituted a warm period was just too broad and while many of the periods they were discussing would be considered warm they simplified their reasoning by pointing to increased rainfall when the subject was about temperature. It might have made the process easier but it did leave them open to critisicm as to the scientific method adopted. Where they wrong? Actually not often, from the other data they had but less than perfect scientific method is less than perfect scientific method regardless of what it supports.

What happened after the publication is a rather different story and I tend to agree with you. What should have happened is a correction should have been published, omitting conclusions tha the scientific method's faults caused concern about, and reinforcing the main points where the definititions, even when tightened up to something reasonable still enabled the periods to be considered to be warm. That didn't happen of course and passions did run rather high.


Regards


Richard
actually i was aware of the faults, but it pointed out the flaws in the original articles. but mostly it proved that there scientist that disagree. according to some on this forum (who pointed out many times) there are none that disaree.

the main point is that the rest of the "peer review" system attempted to destroy the article, even before reading it, simply because it disagreed with their statements.
_________________________
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.

Top
#16698 - 10/20/06 10:10 PM Re: Global warming nears ?dangerous? level
dehammer Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 1089
Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
Blacknad wrote:
"It'll be a warm day at the North Pole before they get it."

I know: I'm not trying to convince them as they had their minds made up before they were old enough to read.

I am trying to make sure that lurkers, seeing their nonsense unchallenge, don't give it credence by virtue of the fact that it has been posted at a "science" site.

If the moderators saw as part of their job presenting science ... rather than just being the "nice" police I wouldn't feel compelled to point out the obvious over and over and over and over and over and over again.
if it were part of their job to stop the nonsense of science, several of your stuff would not fit the definition. such as using an article to say something when a reading of it would show that it disagreed with your statement, esp when you refused to acknowledge the mistake.

the thing is that we dont have our mind made up, unlike you. we just want to see the data to prove it. so far the data has proven quite short of that mark.
_________________________
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.

Top
Page 3 of 3 < 1 2 3



Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.