• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

[W:320]Bandwagon Of Doom Washed Away By Tidal wave of data.

Tim the plumber said:

Which is the exact opposite of the scientific process.

This area of debate is science heavy zone. You will be lost in it if all you are going to do is evalulate the gravitas of the source.
Click to expand...

From what I see, you don't know enough to be able to evaluate the scientific process. The scientific process is a method, and the first part is 'determine the reliability of the data'.

When it comes to this, that is 'vetting sources'. An climate denial source that does not have actual climate scientists involved is unreliable data.
 
RAMOSS said:
From what I see, you don't know enough to be able to evaluate the scientific process. The scientific process is a method, and the first part is 'determine the reliability of the data'.

When it comes to this, that is 'vetting sources'. An climate denial source that does not have actual climate scientists involved is unreliable data.
Click to expand...

No. The first thing to do is to evaluate if it is data or opinion.

If I present the data on Greenland's snowfall, the data on its' surface area and the data on the outflow from it, which can be reasonably checked by you and locals there, have I presented an opinion, an argument, or just data?

If I compared that to the data that NASA says about Greenland which cannot be checked by you anybody else which is correct?
 
Tim the plumber said:
No. The first thing to do is to evaluate if it is data or opinion.

If I present the data on Greenland's snowfall, the data on its' surface area and the data on the outflow from it, which can be reasonably checked by you and locals there, have I presented an opinion, an argument, or just data?

If I compared that to the data that NASA says about Greenland which cannot be checked by you anybody else which is correct?
Click to expand...

What is the source of the data? It is Ken Ham, or is it Nasa.gov?
 
RAMOSS said:
What is the source of the data? It is Ken Ham, or is it Nasa.gov?
Click to expand...

The data is from the Danish metorological institute or whatever it is called and the area is from Google, where ever that is from, the river flow data is from various scientific studies published in various journals and the size of those rivers on the map.

The NASA data is from the diviation of the paths of satelites as they pass over Greenland. I cannot check this data at all. Neither can anybody else.
 
ecofarm said:
Everything is a hoax.
Click to expand...

i hope the people who have lost (and will lose) loved ones/friends read what these downplayers say/said during this event.

if you guys know anyone (or are affected yourself), give it some time and then ever so slowly educate those people as to what really happened regarding the Trump Administration (how his response made this worse) and his fanboys support (which allowed him to make it worse). do it logically and be human about it. people must eventually face the truth.
 
CaughtInThe said:
i hope the people who have lost (and will lose) loved ones/friends read what these downplayers say/said during this event.

if you guys know anyone (or are affected yourself), give it some time and then ever so slowly educate those people as to what really happened regarding the Trump Administration (how his response made this worse) and his fanboys support (which allowed him to make it worse). do it logically and be human about it. people must eventually face the truth.
Click to expand...
Are you talking about AGW, or Covid-19?
 
longview said:
Are you talking about AGW, or Covid-19?
Click to expand...

that's a really good way to divert away from the people currently dying.

it's not Christian or anything, but still a good way.
 
CaughtInThe said:
that's a really good way to divert away from the people currently dying.

it's not Christian or anything, but still a good way.
Click to expand...
It was a simple question! was your comment about AGW or Covid-19?
 
Artymoon said:
I'm curious too. In the meantime, let me introduce you to Rock and Hard Space.
Click to expand...

All I'm gonna do is play the same game he's playing. I'm just going to divert away until the end of this thread.

Goose and gander.
 
Tim the plumber said:
The data is from the Danish metorological institute or whatever it is called and the area is from Google, where ever that is from, the river flow data is from various scientific studies published in various journals and the size of those rivers on the map.

The NASA data is from the diviation of the paths of satelites as they pass over Greenland. I cannot check this data at all. Neither can anybody else.
Click to expand...

Is it? The website you pointed to is a conspriacy theory anti-global warming website that don't have any climatologists , but rather are political scientists, anthropologists and politicians.
 
CaughtInThe said:
All I'm gonna do is play the same game he's playing. I'm just going to divert away until the end of this thread.

Goose and gander.
Click to expand...

Gotcha. Here I was thinking you were going to expound on your point. :slapme:
 
RAMOSS said:
Is it? The website you pointed to is a conspriacy theory anti-global warming website that don't have any climatologists , but rather are political scientists, anthropologists and politicians.
Click to expand...

I was not talking about that particular web site.

I was talking about the basic approach to looking at the data and resulting argument. The scientific process.

Not taking anybody's word for it.
 
Tim the plumber said:
I was not talking about that particular web site.

I was talking about the basic approach to looking at the data and resulting argument. The scientific process.

Not taking anybody's word for it.
Click to expand...

The basic approach would be '1) What is the source of the claim about the Data'. Government's , universities, and peer reviewed scientific journals are the ones that are most reliable. 2) Then review the actual data, and found out if the published methodology is reasonable. What do other people in the field say? Are there criticisms? 3) Check out what the implications of the data are. Does the interpretation given by a specific group run counter to general interpretation. , and if so, do they have the proper credential, and back ground, and how does their model match up with the actual data. If it challenges the standard model, does it meet the standard of extraordinary evidence or not? How does their model stand up to scrutiny? How was the data collected? That is another issue.
 
Tim the plumber said:
Why don't you deal with the ideas rather than attacking the source of the ideas?

Why do you blindly follow the propaganda?

Why are yuou incapable of thinking for yourself?

Why do you avoid doing anything that would look like thinking for your self?
Click to expand...

You guys attack climate scientists all the time.
 
CaughtInThe said:
All I'm gonna do is play the same game he's playing. I'm just going to divert away until the end of this thread.

Goose and gander.
Click to expand...
It really was a simple question!
Was your comment about AGW or Covid-19?
 
RAMOSS said:
The basic approach would be '1) What is the source of the claim about the Data'. Government's , universities, and peer reviewed scientific journals are the ones that are most reliable. 2) Then review the actual data, and found out if the published methodology is reasonable. What do other people in the field say? Are there criticisms? 3) Check out what the implications of the data are. Does the interpretation given by a specific group run counter to general interpretation. , and if so, do they have the proper credential, and back ground, and how does their model match up with the actual data. If it challenges the standard model, does it meet the standard of extraordinary evidence or not? How does their model stand up to scrutiny? How was the data collected? That is another issue.
Click to expand...

Well, even better than that, is the data reasonable given the understanding of the rest of the world?

For example; Does the figure of 540mm average precipitation for Greenland sound out of order? Given what we know of it, it snows a lot, there are a lot of storms that pass over it and it is so high it only snows not rains, that the ice core research base thing at the top of the place has to keep moving to avoid being burried by snow etc, then we can be OK with that figure.

Does the outflow of the biggerst river in Greenland, 8Gt/yr, the Watson, look out of expectation compared to similar sized rivers around the world? Well given that it does it in 2 months of summer, it looks a bit high but it will do.

Is the area of 2.2 million square kilometers OK? Yes looks OK when you look at a map.

So does the figure of 1100 to 1200 Gt/yr precipitation total that these figures produce and the total high estimate of 200Gt/yr outflow mean that Greenland must be gaining ice mass?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom