ricksfolly
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2009
- Messages
- 2,236
- Reaction score
- 232
- Location
- Grand Junction, CO 81506
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Ok, all BS aside, all the G W scientists have going for them is a rising temperature trend, and, as those who have invested in the stock market have found out the hard way, trends change up and down and there's no way to predict what they it will do tomorrow, a year from now, or ten years from now.
Horses are also picked by past performance records, and as we all know, no matter how many scientific charts are made, and how much effort is put into figuring out all all 24 measurable variables, the odds-on favorite still only wins 1/3 of the time.
What it all comes down to is GW scientists expect us to bet our life style on only ONE measurable variable (rising temperature trend) that they might be right.
No thanks. If I bet on anything, it'll be the Yankees. If I lose, it's only ten bucks.
ricksfolly
Deuce;1058870480]Temperature is not the stock market.
Temperature is not horses.>>
No but it's still scientific gathering of measurable data in essentially the same way and drawing conclusions on what they find out the same way... These scientists are just as smart as as your GW ones, maybe even smarter because they examine five times as many usable data variables and measure them by conventional means.
There's a lot more data than temperature trends.>>
Maybe so but they're not measured by standard conventions, only theoretical ones.
ricksfolly
The temp has moved up and down since the start of time. Did man also create the ice age?
Answer my question and I'll answer yours.
No you won't you will spin as you do every GW thread. Just like you claim a panel that has a person from the departnent being investigated on it is independent. The panel was a sham and got the results the university paid them to get.
You always do this. Whenever you are asked to explain your argument you can't so you just make up a new one, proof that it's all just lies and speculation. You're just another skeptic with no facts and no information trying to spread lies.
Define "standard conventions" and explain to me how measuring wavelength absorption of CO2, the sun's output, and glacier melting rates don't fall under it, to name a few examples.
No matter what I write you'll find a way to rationalize it into your beliefs, but I'll try.
Conventional means commonly accepted measuring devices everyone uses and understands, as opposed to theoretical measurements only utilized by scientists and understood by scientists, somewhat like an exclusive club for scientists only.
ricksfolly
If scientists operated this way we wouldn't have commercially usable airplanes, nuclear power, computers, medical research of any kind, or space travel/satelites. >>
Scientists theorize and sometimes engineers can make it work, been there done that.
Sorry ricksfolly, the world does not work that way. Scientists are smarter than you and they're sometimes going to work with things you don't understand.>>
Not smarter, just on a different wavelength. I've made more things work by engineering than all their dreams put together.
As for your question, no, mankind did not cause ice ages in the past. That doesn't mean we can't affect temperature now. Your logic is faulty. Here, I'll give you an example of your own logic: >>
Huh! You lost me...
People got lung cancer before cigarettes were invented.
Therefore, tobacco doesn't cause lung cancer. >>
Lost me again...
See the problem?
There are sometimes multiple possible causes of a single outcome!>>
Doesn't work that way, specific causes always precede specific effects, at least that's the way it is in the real world of engineering.
ricksfolly
Doesn't work that way, specific causes always precede specific effects, at least that's the way it is in the real world of engineering.
ricksfolly
If scientists operated this way we wouldn't have commercially usable airplanes, nuclear power, computers, medical research of any kind, or space travel/satelites.
Sorry ricksfolly, the world does not work that way. Scientists are smarter than you and they're sometimes going to work with things you don't understand.
As for your question, no, mankind did not cause ice ages in the past. That doesn't mean we can't affect temperature now. Your logic is faulty. Here, I'll give you an example of your own logic:
People got lung cancer before cigarettes were invented.
Therefore, tobacco doesn't cause lung cancer.
See the problem?
There are sometimes multiple possible causes of a single outcome!
I agree 'smarter' was the wrong term - but 'more knowledgable about their subject than non-specialists' is definitely (even tautologically) accurate. I wouldn't agree with the other, though - the amount of work that goes into that 'just predicting' is immense, whereas getting the raw data is very dependant on the method - using a temp probe is easy; designing a spececraft to take thermal readings from low orbit is less so.I wouldn't call climatologists smarter. They are just predicting. You can do the same thing with an excel spread sheet or SPSS if you had the raw data and the time. It is kind of easy actually. Now getting the raw data, that is the hard part.
I suppose that depends upon what you'd classify as 'extreme'...Frankly, I put anyone trying to predict the future farther than a couple of months to be no better than the "scientist" of myth-busters or deadliest warrior. No one is psychic, not to that extent. The far extreme positions for CC is a money play, nothing more.
I agree 'smarter' was the wrong term - but 'more knowledgable about their subject than non-specialists' is definitely (even tautologically) accurate. I wouldn't agree with the other, though - the amount of work that goes into that 'just predicting' is immense, whereas getting the raw data is very dependant on the method - using a temp probe is easy; designing a spececraft to take thermal readings from low orbit is less so.
I suppose that depends upon what you'd classify as 'extreme'...
To a certain extent, you're right. But you miss out the other half of 'prediction' - making the climate models which match those statistics. That theoretical work has the potential to get incredibly in-depth, depending on how precise you want to be - and you have to be very precise in order to stay accurate, otherwise chaos theory throws you a wobbly.Prediction is not that hard with current technology and computer systems. it used to be much harder when we had to crunch the numbers by hand. Now, you just need to know statistics. I will agree though that they do get more time to become knowledgeable. However, I think anyone with a base mathematical/statistical background could see same trends with a couple of days/weeks of data review.
This is what I don't get. I hear people say all the time, "the temp has moved up and down since the start of time." They know that because climatologists told them. But when these same climatologists say the current trends are abnormal, suddenly the climatologists are not credible anymore.Tell me, Ptif, if you don't believe climate scientists, why do you believe them when they tell you there were ice ages at all? How do you know there was an ice age?
So if a generator has no fuel, and[/d] is switched off, which one is the 'cause'? You can have more than one cause per effect.Effect: Generator stopped working
Cause: Out of fuel
Cause: Broken fuel line
Cause: Clogged filter
Cause: Failed ignition system
Cause: Loss of oil pressure
Cause: Somebody turned it off
and so on... >>
Yes, all of those causes are possibilities, but one and only one made it happen.
So you don't think something is true if you don't fully understand it and you haven't experienced it for yourself?At one time I accepted all educated theories because everyone else did, and I wanted to be like them. But that all changed after I retired. Now, I don't accept anything I can't prove to myself by my own experience and my own logic.
Answer my question and I'll answer yours.
You didnt ask him a question.
To a certain extent, you're right. But you miss out the other half of 'prediction' - making the climate models which match those statistics. That theoretical work has the potential to get incredibly in-depth, depending on how precise you want to be - and you have to be very precise in order to stay accurate, otherwise chaos theory throws you a wobbly.
I disagree. Climatologists models are not complicated nor are they precise nor are they even remotely accurate. They may look complicated but the vast majority amount to not much more than a line of best fit with temperature over time. Frankly, I would give these scientist more credit if their models were more complicated. However, all models fail to encompass the main engine of CC which is human behavior. And human behavior can't be predicted to the extent that they need. Further, they try to slip past significant difference. Although statistically 3 degree is significant for some models and a cg map or graphic looks nice, the reality is that 3 degrees isn't a change at all to our current temperatures.
Mind you, I have no problem stopping polluting or creating better fuels than oil. The goal is fine; climatologists fear mongering on Red Scare levels is not.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?