always knew global warming was a hoax
Quote: 24BingoI love this argument. "I know better than people who think CO2 has tripled, and I know better than that hippie who told me there was going to be an ice age in the 70s, so I know better than every scientist who's not on Exxon's payroll!"
One of the great things about getting older is that you no longer believe hype because you have heard it all before. This is a major reason why people over 50 face a harder time getting many jobs, they will simply not fall for the empty motivation their boss will dole out.
I have said it here before. I learned in about 9th grade science that you cannot have a good result if you have faulty or incomplete data. GW science has incomplete data in that they are projecting all of this with unbelievably limited temperature measurements. 150 years at most in developed countries, far less in most countries, and perhaps 35-40 for the majority of the planet that is covered by ocean.
So same as I am not believing the commercial for Ginsu Knives I see during "Hogan's Heroes" this week because I saw the same one in the 1970s, I am not believing those preaching their global warming religion because I have seen the same thing since the 1970s.
Quote: AZDuffmanOne of the great things about getting older is that you no longer believe hype because you have heard it all before. This is a major reason why people over 50 face a harder time getting many jobs, they will simply not fall for the empty motivation their boss will dole out.
...
So same as I am not believing the commercial for Ginsu Knives I see during "Hogan's Heroes" this week because I saw the same one in the 1970s, I am not believing those preaching their global warming religion because I have seen the same thing since the 1970s.
Funny. The last person to use this spiel on me was trying to convince me of the wisdom of homeopathy.
Quote: AZDuffmanI have said it here before. I learned in about 9th grade science that you cannot have a good result if you have faulty or incomplete data.
And I learned in 9th grade science that electrons look like tiny moons. When the overwhelming majority of scientists disagree with something taught in 9th grade science, I don't usually find the right answer to lie in 9th grade science.
Not that I believe for a second you were actually taught that. Oh, faulty data, sure. But "incomplete" data? Unless you're Laplace's demon, data is "incomplete" by its very nature. I'm trying to find a definition of "incomplete data" that would even make sense, but all I'm actually coming up with is in the context of corrupted files. So, naturally, having slipped an ill-defined rider into the GIGO principle, you proceed to talk about nothing but that rider for the rest of the paragraph.
Quote: AZDuffmanGW science has incomplete data in that they are projecting all of this with unbelievably limited temperature measurements. 150 years at most in developed countries, far less in most countries, and perhaps 35-40 for the majority of the planet that is covered by ocean.
So what? No, genuinely, so what? I was about to write a snarky comment on in what year the laws of nature were redrawn, but then you'd just shout "LISTEN TO THE SCIENTISTS!" again so let's not. You play scientist for a bit. By which I don't mean just don the labcoat and doff it after a single bon mot, but get up to that whiteboard and get from point A, we only have 150 years of direct observation, to point B, the greenhouse hypothesis is invalid. I'm sure the fact that we've only been watching a fortieth of the Earth's history in any detail sounds like a mic drop to you, but in those years have been indications of less ephemeral measures, and those measures all tell the same story, and the predictions made by that story have, in broad strokes, come true. Now, I have some idea what you're going to say to that, so go ahead, provided that, bearing in mind flukes are inevitable, your response covers a proportionate sample of climatologists' predictions, not just one study that was wrong, and certainly not something from some blowhard like... well, you know who.
Quote: 24BingoI love this argument. "I know better than people who think CO2 has tripled, and I know better than that hippie who told me there was going to be an ice age in the 70s, so I know better than every scientist who's not on Exxon's payroll!"
The American Geophysical Union Conference is sponsored in part by Exxonmobil, BP, and Chevron. Does that make them corrupt or unreliable? Or does that only apply to *some* scientists? What exactly do you mean by "on Exxon's payroll"? Does that mean anyone that's ever accepted money from them?
http://fallmeeting.agu.org/2013/general-information/thank-you-to-our-sponsors/
Quote: 24Bingo
So what? No, genuinely, so what? I was about to write a snarky comment on in what year the laws of nature were redrawn, but then you'd just shout "LISTEN TO THE SCIENTISTS!" again so let's not. You play scientist for a bit. By which I don't mean just don the labcoat and doff it after a single bon mot, but get up to that whiteboard and get from point A, we only have 150 years of direct observation, to point B, the greenhouse hypothesis is invalid. I'm sure the fact that we've only been watching a fortieth of the Earth's history in any detail sounds like a mic drop to you, but in those years have been indications of less ephemeral measures, and those measures all tell the same story, and the predictions made by that story have, in broad strokes, come true. Now, I have some idea what you're going to say to that, so go ahead, provided that, bearing in mind flukes are inevitable, your response covers a proportionate sample of climatologists' predictions, not just one study that was wrong, and certainly not something from some blowhard like... well, you know who.
Hmm, 1/40 of Earth's history is 113 million years, give or take a few million. Man has only been on earth for about 100,000 of those. In fact, man has only been here 0.002% of the life of the earth. If the entire history of the world was compressed into one year, humans would not show up until mid-day on New Years Eve. The time we have records for would maybe cover the period the ball drops in Times Square.
It is how I have been saying, the whole GW thing is as if you looked at a one-hour chart of GM and projected how the stock was going to do for the next year.
GW is a religion, the believers listen to the Al Gores and Prince Charles' of the movement who tell them we are facing disaster as they live in mansions, fly private jets, and let their SUVs idle during their speeches lest they be too hot to get into when they are finished. This is little different than the Bakers who lived a life of luxury from their Televangilist followers who sent them money to "do good." They tell beg politicians to raise their taxes and take away their freedoms in the name of the earth. They shout down those who try to point out all the logical faults with their "SHUT UP AND LISTEN TO THE SCIENTISTS" line as they have none of their own thought. They, as I keep saying, might as well be shouting "FOUR LEGS GOOD, TWO LEGS BAD!"
Quote: AZDuffmanHmm, 1/40 of Earth's history is 113 million years, give or take a few million. Man has only been on earth for about 100,000 of those. In fact, man has only been here 0.002% of the life of the earth. If the entire history of the world was compressed into one year, humans would not show up until mid-day on New Years Eve. The time we have records for would maybe cover the period the ball drops in Times Square.
[Kiwi] Were you there? [/Kiwi] No, really, were you? Or do you know someone who was? Or, rather, do you accept the age of the Earth based only on the observations done in this tiny window? Well, in that case, do you not see how ridiculous it is to say "this evidence is meaningless due to this fact we only know therefrom"?
Not that that matters much, since as usual your argument as to how this makes anything at all invalid begins and ends with "look, so tiny!"
Quote: AZDuffmanGW is a religion, the believers listen to the Al Gores and Prince Charles' of the movement who tell them we are facing disaster as they live in mansions, fly private jets, and let their SUVs idle during their speeches lest they be too hot to get into when they are finished. This is little different than the Bakers who lived a life of luxury from their Televangilist followers who sent them money to "do good."
That would only even work as an analogy if you thought shady televangelists were sufficient reason to utterly reject Christianity, even in the face of evidence. Not even I think that, and I know you don't. Even if the analogy made sense, though, it somehow seems to be, for all those supposedly blindly following him, that only your kind ever mention Al Gore. (And I don't know why the hell you've even brought up Prince Charles.)
Quote: AZDuffmanThey tell beg politicians to raise their taxes and take away their freedoms in the name of the earth. They shout down those who try to point out all the logical faults with their "SHUT UP AND LISTEN TO THE SCIENTISTS" line as they have none of their own thought.
Inventing thoughts unfettered by reality is not a virtue. Listen to the scientists and, if you think you have something to say, respond. So far, the closest thing to an argument you've expressed has been various forms of "look at this big number and this small one" and "look what you'd have won on the match just then," and even these are mostly buried under a thick sauce of "it's a religion" and "it's a conspiracy" (a fine blend of Marxist and money-grubbing), with a light sprinkle of "I know the state of science in the seventies better than journals do because hippies." If you have this low an opinion of science, why not take a nice trip to the moon?
Quote: 24Bingo
Not that that matters much, since as usual your argument as to how this makes anything at all invalid begins and ends with "look, so tiny!"
It is called "valid sample size." Look it up, it involves science! More math, actually.
Quote:Even if the analogy made sense, though, it somehow seems to be, for all those supposedly blindly following him, that only your kind ever mention Al Gore. (And I don't know why the hell you've even brought up Prince Charles.)
Google "Prince Charles and Global Warming." He is just as big a hack as Gore is on the matter.
If you have this low an opinion of science, why not take a nice trip to the moon?
Maybe if they need a first Recorder of Deeds and have a good poker room for my time off.
Quote: 24BingoI don't need to look it up to know that one of the first things I learned about valid sample size is that it doesn't in most circumstances depend on population size. 150 years would tell us scarcely less about a planet created by Ben Franklin than about a four-billion-year-old one. I'm amazed your ninth grade science teacher forgot to mention that.
So what you are saying then is that you can use a 1 hour chart of GM to perform a valid technical analysis for the last year? Because that is what you are saying.
EDIT: Or rather, what I should have said was that a one-hour sample wouldn't be any better with a ten-year-old company than with a hundred-year-old one - nor would a three-month sample.
