I Am Bored

Loads of viral videos, games, memes, lists and social networking for when you're bored. Updated every day, so visit often.
LatestPopularMost BookmarkedMost EmailedTop RatedMy FavoritesRandomChat
AllGamesFunnyEntertainmentQuizzesWeirdTechLifestyle, Arts & Lit.News & PoliticsScienceSportsMisc
Submit Content  





rss

friendsmore friends | add your site
Asylum

Holy Taco

Funny Videos

BuzzFeed

NothingToxic

Oddee

Mousebreaker

Online Games

Eat Liver

Online Games

Gorilla Mask

Full Downloads

Norway Games

Damn Cool Pics

Kontraband

Extreme Humor

X Hollywood

I Dont Like You

123 Games

Hollywoodtuna

Funny Games

Cool Stuff

Viva La Games

X - Vids

Smit Happens

Funny Videos

Funny Stuff

ebaumsworld



Back to Listing

Climate-Gate Scientists Largely Vindicated

Hits: 16033 | Rating: (2.8) | Category: Science | Added by: goaliejerry
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next >   Jump to: Bottom    Last Post
davymid
Male, 30-39, Europe
 12078 Posts
Wednesday, April 21, 2010 10:36:21 PM
I won't bother going into his lack of geological understanding of volcanogenic feedback systems in "snowball earth" conditions in geological past, or the phenomenal rate of climate change since the industrial revolution which is unprecidented in earth's geological history. I'll even brush over his pointing to the AREAL EXTENT of the north polar ice-cap as being relatively constant over the last few years, while completely ignoring the THICKNESS and therefore overall volume of ice at the pole, which is decreasing precipititously.

Anyways, this thread is dead. See you guys in the next debate.

davymid
Male, 30-39, Europe
 12078 Posts
Wednesday, April 21, 2010 10:30:17 PM
I’m not just saying that, either. The Associated Press just finished conducting an interesting test in which they gave global temperature trend data to four different statisticians. In order to remove the possibility of biased judging, the AP didn’t tell the statisticians it was temperature data; they removed temperature unit labels, just leaving the numbers themselves in a trend over time. The results of this “blind” analysis?

"Statisticians who analyzed the data found a distinct decades-long upward trend in the numbers, but could not find a significant drop in the past 10 years in either data set. The ups and downs during the last decade repeat random variability in data as far back as 1880... If you look at the data and cherry pick a micro-trend within a bigger trend, that technique is particularly suspect", said John Grego, Professor of Statistics at the U of South Carolina. "It is deceptive to say there is Global Cooling".

davymid
Male, 30-39, Europe
 12078 Posts
Wednesday, April 21, 2010 10:23:48 PM
Monckton states that Global Warming is false as there has been a "global cooling" trend over the last 10 years. That's actually true, if you pick your data carefully enough. From NASA's Goddard Institute (sorry for repost, but clearly this isn't getting through)



See the little green line? Global Cooling! How carefully do you have to pick your dots to make “global cooling” appear? Very carefully indeed. This line connects 1998 and 2008. But if you connect 1998 and 2007, you’ll get a flat line. And if you go back to 1997, you get global warming all over again. 1998 is a very important year for global warming denial, since it is an outlier and therefore allows all sorts of line drawing that wouldn’t otherwise be possible. But no matter how many little green lines you draw, you just can’t counter the larger trend of global warming.

davymid
Male, 30-39, Europe
 12078 Posts
Wednesday, April 21, 2010 10:21:49 PM
*Sigh*

"Denying factual evidence without refuting the evidence itself but rather by attempting to discredit the person presenting that evidence doesn't carry any sway with me. If that's the best you have to offer, this argument is over."

Alright. I'll pick up on ONE of his claims. Bear in mind that he doesn't have any different data than the rest of the scientific community, he's not privy to some secret hidden knowledge, it's all about how one INTERPRETS those data. Which is where scientific training, as much as you would like to believe otherwise, is entirely relevant.

So on to pick one point in particular:

Genocyde
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 711 Posts
Wednesday, April 21, 2010 9:39:42 PM
That video was pretty good, BTW. I'm going to have a look at some of the others later on when I get a moment.

Genocyde
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 711 Posts
Wednesday, April 21, 2010 9:38:39 PM
Well, like I said before, 5C, I'm all about different technologies that make us less parasitic. Combine solar power, Geothermic and even wind depending on the area in which you live with LED lights to replace the incandescents we're currently using and you've solved the energy "crisis" in part.

For that matter, start brewing ethyl alcohol and you have a good feul source that will stretch the hell out of our current oil supply.

I'm pretty sure that if the climate change is our fault, that would be a good start towards reversing the damage IF it can even be reversed but we first must establish without question or controversy that it's our fault. Even if it isn't, I'm all for the technology just for the cost efficiency alone.

But in order to be taxed, nah. Not without the proof.

5Cats
Male, 50-59, Canada
 25750 Posts
Wednesday, April 21, 2010 8:30:14 PM
vv @Genocyde Exactly! Your 2 posts make more sense than all the AGW non-sense IAB has ever seen :)
I wrote madest (and several others, StarDagger!) off as mindless trolls a while back. Sad eh?
I'll re-link CrakrJak's terrific finding of a non-AGW arguement: Here it is!
And I await Davymid's explaination of how the Midevil Warming Period was caused by human CO2...
And I guess the little ice age was when the midevil greenies reduced their CO2 output by 80% eh??
Also Excellent: Sunspot Cam!
Hint: black spots = hot, notice the COMPLETE LACK of them?

Genocyde
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 711 Posts
Wednesday, April 21, 2010 8:13:52 PM
I can concede that climate change is occurring as I have before. I also support new technologies that will conserve our resources and improve our quality of life while making us less parasitic in nature but I refuse to pay out of pocket to some organization if I have no guarantee that the change will be stopped.

All I'm asking is simply this. If it's humankind's fault that the climate is changing, simply prove it. Prove that the climb in temperature is the end result of our industrialization to the exclusion of all other causes/cycles and do the one thing The Scientific Method prides itself on...reproduce it. Quit trying to woo me with the environmental equivalent of Pascal's Wager.

Genocyde
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 711 Posts
Wednesday, April 21, 2010 8:08:03 PM
Well 5Cats, here's the problem. I'm not going to call him names at all. I won't stoop to personal attacks. Attacks on his behavior and his points are fair game.

See, here's what I find problematic. In fewer words, he's dictating to me that I should not, for any reason whatsoever doubt nor should I question alleged "manmade" Climate change. He also lists himself as an atheist. By and large, most atheists pride themselves on being able to prove their claims via scientific method but he's actually asking me to take "manmade" climate change on faith and pay a tax accordingly. Isn't this what atheism takes a stance against when it comes to organized religion?

The difference here is that when I go to Church, they do ask for money but it's up to me to give it. With this "manmade" climate change, I'm not being asked, it's mandatory.

5Cats
Male, 50-59, Canada
 25750 Posts
Wednesday, April 21, 2010 7:47:59 PM
@Genocyde:
Pot, meet kettle?

Laugh My BUM Off!
I just used that phrase on madest on another thread!!!
At least he's consistant... -ly stupid eh?

5Cats
Male, 50-59, Canada
 25750 Posts
Wednesday, April 21, 2010 7:42:53 PM
Davymid:
...globally-respected scientific peer-reviewed journals.
You're right though, I didn't have any profs, nor do I have any colleagues, that are climate change skeptics... what does that tell you?


#1 You're published in peer-reviewed journals? Good on ya mate! Better than the IPCC (I submitted content on how fully 1/3 of their "proof" was not peer-reviewed at all)
#2 It tells me that you recieved a one-sided biased "education" and no wonder you swallow the kool-aid!
Gee Mom! All my friends believe in AGW!

OldOllie
Male, 60-69, Midwest US
 14411 Posts
Wednesday, April 21, 2010 3:41:41 PM
If I espoused that I had discovered a cure for AIDS, or cold fusion, or everlasting life, with no background in science whatsoever, then I'd be debunked as a snake-oil salesman at best, or at worst, a complete kook.


If you had data to back up your claim, I wouldn't give a rat's ass about your credentials. Facts speak for themselves.

You are guilty of a rhetorical fallacy that would get you kicked out of a high school debate tournament, the appeal to authority. "My sources have better credentials than yours; therefore, they are more credible. I don't need to offer evidence to support my position, nor do I need to even consider yours."

Denying factual evidence without refuting the evidence itself but rather by attempting to discredit the person presenting that evidence doesn't carry any sway with me. If that's the best you have to offer, this argument is over.

davymid
Male, 30-39, Europe
 12078 Posts
Wednesday, April 21, 2010 12:00:48 PM
[quote">Davy, you disappoint me. What difference does it make what his qualifications are? [/quote">
It makes a great deal of difference what his qualifications are. If I espoused that I had discovered a cure for AIDS, or cold fusion, or everlasting life, with no background in science whatsoever, then I'd be debunked as a snake-oil salesman at best, or at worst, a complete kook.

Ironically enough, Monckton has been spouting recently that he HAS DISCOVERED A CURE FOR AIDS, and also multiple sclerosis, the flu, and even the common cold. I mean really, you couldn't make this stuff up.

So, forgive me if I call into question his credibility as a scientist. If you interpret that as a cheap personal insult to him, then that's your prerogative.

Genocyde
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 711 Posts
Wednesday, April 21, 2010 10:59:09 AM
v Without qualifications he's just an OldOllie spittin misinformation to bolster his uneducated position. v

Pot, meet kettle?

Genocyde
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 711 Posts
Wednesday, April 21, 2010 10:58:29 AM
Ollie, I have to agree with one point that Davy made. Monckton doesn't specifically have any types of degrees in the realm of science but, rest assured, the insults won't stop because they feel that they're being crushed under the burden of proof.

madest
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 6458 Posts
Wednesday, April 21, 2010 8:23:31 AM
v Without qualifications he's just an OldOllie spittin misinformation to bolster his uneducated position. v

OldOllie
Male, 60-69, Midwest US
 14411 Posts
Tuesday, April 20, 2010 10:22:07 PM
Davy, you disappoint me. What difference does it make what his qualifications are? He isn't espousing any theory; he's presenting facts and data. Apparently you can't refute them, so like a typical liberal, you attack him personally. Pretty sad...

davymid
Male, 30-39, Europe
 12078 Posts
Tuesday, April 20, 2010 7:29:19 PM
you might check out this lecture by Lord Christopher Monckton.

As a professional scientist, it's generally good practice to ascertain the scientific credentials of one espousing a theory, especially if that theory flies in the face of the vast amount of mainstream science. If that person's scientific credentials are sound, then maybe they're worth listening to, which can makea fundamental step-change in the way we think of science. This is how science works.

Monckton's qualifications? A BA in Classics, and an MA in Journalism. Now, you'll forgive me if I take the word of thousands of PhD Climatologists over a media hack with absolutely zero education in science. Must try harder, Ollie, if you want people to take you seriously.

Angilion
Male, 40-49, Europe
 11513 Posts
Tuesday, April 20, 2010 3:29:56 PM
You know what I meant and twisted it, Par for the course sir.


I replied to someone else, not you. I even named them in my reply.

In your desperation to insult me, you have succeeded only in making yourself look bad.

Genocyde
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 711 Posts
Tuesday, April 20, 2010 2:38:27 PM
::How about this smart guy.You prove that human activities have no impact on our atmosphere.::

Prove first that I said the words human activity has no impact on our atmosphere.

::The proof that we do has been peer reviewed and accepted.::

Then you'll have no problem producing such peer reviewed and accepted "proof"

::What do you got?::

No new taxes to impose. You?

madest
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 6458 Posts
Tuesday, April 20, 2010 1:50:33 PM
How about this smart guy. You prove that human activities have no impact on our atmosphere. The proof that we do has been peer reviewed and accepted. What do you got?

Genocyde
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 711 Posts
Tuesday, April 20, 2010 1:37:51 PM
Besides, madest, if it's so scientific, I simply won't be asked to go on blind faith. You can be angry about it all you want but I'm not giving anything out of my pocket without a full account. If you'd like to, be my guest and you have my complete support but I'm not going to do it until I see it. You'll deal with it, I'm sure.

Genocyde
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 711 Posts
Tuesday, April 20, 2010 1:33:15 PM
::Why does someone who will never believe the evidence need proof? You're being cynical by merely asking for proof. The proof is there you just refuse to read it or believe it.::

Because the claim is made that this is humankind's fault and we will pay for it in taxes. I have a right to see how my money will offset the effects of this climate change but those making the claim must prove it. Simple as that. You make the claim, you bear burden of proof. If the burden is too much, don't make the claim.

madest
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 6458 Posts
Tuesday, April 20, 2010 12:32:32 PM
v Why does someone who will never believe the evidence need proof? You're being cynical by merely asking for proof. The proof is there you just refuse to read it or believe it. v

Genocyde
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 711 Posts
Tuesday, April 20, 2010 12:22:26 PM
::Yet, even among all the armchair PhDs in this thread (as I said before, I have an actual one, in earth science) surely it doesn't take a scientist to spot the trend of the graph. Surely.::

Okay, but here's the thing...you still haven't shown that this is caused by us and you also haven't shown that this "Warming And Cooling At The Same Time" trend is exclusive of nature in a cycle.

The point is that the whole basis for the argument is to get us to pay taxes over our "carbon footprint" without first proving that we're the cause to the exclusion of all else and expecting that we'll just go along with it.

Would you pay money to a church because the clergy there claimed that their deity needed it more than you?

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next > 

You Must be Signed in to Add a Comment

If you've already got an I-Am-Bored.com account,
click here to sign in.

If you don't have an account yet,
Click Here to Create a Free Account
 

Back to Listing ^top


Bored | Suggest a Link | Advertise | Contact I Am Bored | About I Am Bored | Link to I Am Bored | Live Submission | Privacy | TOS | Ad Choices | Copyright Policy |
© 2014 Demand Media, Inc. All rights reserved.