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

Temp Refusing To Follow AGW Predictions [Pic+]

Hits: 7193 | Rating: (1.8) | Category: Science | Added by: 5Cats
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 810 11 12 Next >   Jump to: Bottom    Last Post
Squrlz4Sale
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 5968 Posts
Saturday, March 23, 2013 12:22:00 PM
@An-egg: Please forgive me for hurting your feelings. Would you like a tissue?

Again, for the third time: Which models are proven flawed? What scenario? And how, exactly, did they prove that AGW is, in your words, "junk science"?

An-egg
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 788 Posts
Saturday, March 23, 2013 12:20:19 PM
There you go again with the personal attacks. Proving again that anyone who challenges the cult is fair game.

Squrlz4Sale
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 5968 Posts
Saturday, March 23, 2013 12:13:00 PM
@An-egg: You're a physicist? Who believed there was one AGW model out there that has been proven "flawed," and which has thus thrown AGW theory in disarray?

You're a physicist? Who doesn't understand that AGW, and indeed all prominent scientific theories, are challenged as a matter of course? And that such challenges are welcomed as part of the scientific process?

Well, if you're a physicist, my friend, you're not a very good one.

But nice job trying to deflect my questions with manufactured indignation. So again: Which models are proven flawed? What scenario? And how, exactly, did they prove that AGW is, in your words, "junk science"?

An-egg
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 788 Posts
Saturday, March 23, 2013 12:09:46 PM
Here let me remind you of the kind of stuff people try to pass off as science these days.

inconvenient

An-egg
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 788 Posts
Saturday, March 23, 2013 12:05:09 PM
As for inaccurate predictions with great publicity, did you see Al Gore's movie?

No, I'm making that up too.

An-egg
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 788 Posts
Saturday, March 23, 2013 12:03:21 PM
Again, calling me eccentric merely means that I don't agree with the dogma.

Your suggestion that I don't know about science is offensive to everyone who is not a scientist. Do you realize how patronizing that is?

Calling me a conspiracy theorist merely strengthens the argument that your religion cannot be challenged by the non-believer.

An-egg
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 788 Posts
Saturday, March 23, 2013 12:01:33 PM
And as for knowledge of the scientific method, I am a physicist which is why I find made-up junk science so distasteful.

Predictions were made that have turned out to be wrong. Political decisions based on those flawed predictions have altered the way people live their lives and are potentially set to do even more damage.

People who supported the flawed models which gave inaccurate predictions have made a lot of money out of it and so will not listen to rational argument as it is not in their interest.

Great publicity has been given to the most fear-mongering theories and predictions as a political tool to manipulate the people into accepting carbon taxes, limits on the amount of CO2 they produce and green technology initiatives that failed.


Squrlz4Sale
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 5968 Posts
Saturday, March 23, 2013 11:58:51 AM
@An-egg:

*fshewwww!*

Hear that? That's the sound of my last two posts going over your head. I'd suggest reading them again, really slowly. You can move your lips, it's OK. =^.^=

An-egg
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 788 Posts
Saturday, March 23, 2013 11:49:47 AM
OK, models.

Squrlz4Sale
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 5968 Posts
Saturday, March 23, 2013 11:22:50 AM
@An-egg:

"The model that has been presented made predictions that were inaccurate. It is therefore flawed. You need a better/different model."

I love this one (above) because it has "Fox & Friends" written all over it. To what model are you referring? Are you aware that there are currently several hundred different computer models of AGW being tested internationally? And that virtually every one of those models has a Worst Case scenario, Best Case scenario, and Most Likely scenario?

So again: Which model are you talking about? Which scenario? What were the inaccurate predictions? Your belief that there is one model out there, that was found to be inaccurate, and which has therefore thrown the entire field of climatology up in the air is--here's that word again--eccentric.

Squrlz4Sale
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 5968 Posts
Saturday, March 23, 2013 11:11:29 AM
@An-egg: Allow me to explain how science works because it's pretty clear you don't have a good grasp of the scientific method. A scientist makes a hypothesis, tests it, analyzes the data, and after a process of peer review, publishes a conclusion. That conclusion is immediately challenged and tested by other scientists. The more prominent the scientist, or the more significant the finding, the more attention is directed toward it and the more challenges are made by other scientists and scientific bodies.

Your conspiracy theory, where all the world's climatologists and scientific bodies have signed a secret pact to not challenge the findings of anthropogenic global warming is--how shall I say this without offending you?--a little eccentric. It's also at variance with reality: Challenges to AGW are routinely made, foremost at AGW conferences. Not one of those challenges has overturned the basic assertions of AGW theory.

An-egg
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 788 Posts
Saturday, March 23, 2013 10:49:32 AM
Well they certainly don't have the data, cohesive computer models, or mathematical theorems to come anywhere near proving it.

Go on call me names when you don't have any better argument. There is big money in this for these groups who go along with it, and almost nothing for groups outside their club.

Here we go. The model that has been presented made predictions that were inaccurate. It is therefore flawed. You need a better/different model. To think otherwise is dogma, not science.

Whoever said the best was to get rich was to found a religion appears to have been right.


Squrlz4Sale
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 5968 Posts
Saturday, March 23, 2013 8:33:03 AM
Because if they did, they'd get kicked out of the club.


Uhhh, no. Because they don't have the data to refute it. Herpaderp, buddy. Herpaderp.

An-egg
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 788 Posts
Saturday, March 23, 2013 8:26:12 AM
"There are no national or major scientific institutions anywhere in the world that dispute the theory of anthropogenic climate change."

Because if they did, they'd get kicked out of the club.

Squrlz4Sale
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 5968 Posts
Saturday, March 23, 2013 7:54:17 AM
@5Cats: 5Cats, you or any scientist could refute all of anthropogenic global warming theory OVERNIGHT if you could demonstrate that planet Earth has been cooling over the past 100 years or that the rapid warming the Earth has been experiencing is due to a natural cause.

In fact, any scientist who could deliver such data would be assured lasting fame in the scientific community and financially set for life.

Alas, such data do not exist. As I've said repeatedly: There are no national or major scientific institutions anywhere in the world today that dispute the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Not one.

Since the refutation of AGW cannot be accomplished honestly, what we have instead are dishonest articles, like this one by David Rose, that misinterpret data and misinterpret the work of climatologists.

5Cats
Male, 50-59, Canada
 21790 Posts
Saturday, March 23, 2013 7:20:57 AM
@davymid: I appreciate your being polite
(smilies make everything better!)

When I channel my "inner caveman" his name is Trogg... his friends are Thunk and Wilfred...

I'll have a go:
Long ago, the Earth was perfect and the weather never changed. All the animals got together and sang "Circle of Life" every day! Just like a Disney movie! It was never too hot, never too cold, never too dry or too wet. Life was good!
THEN a thing called "humans" happened, In no time at all they killed 80% of the animals, cut down 80% of the forest and dug up 80% of the land, Oh My!
Suddenly, entirely because of humans, the temperature of the WHOLE PLANET began to change! Unprecedented!
Here's 100% proof: If the temp is warmer next year? PROOF of AGW! If it's colder? PROOF! If it stays the same? That's proof too!
Teh science = irrefutable!

davymid
Male, 30-39, Europe
 11783 Posts
Friday, March 22, 2013 11:59:13 PM
Then, one day, 50,000 years ago (about a minute before midnight on New Year's Eve, in geological terms), Ugg the Caveman and his wife Uggette evolved and moved into the cave. Ugg lit a fire in the cave. Uggette said "Ugg, it's getting hot in here. I know this cave was colder than this in the Ordovician, and it was hotter than this in the Cretaceous, but is there any chance you could put that f*cking fire out? I'm sweating like a bastard, and now I'm going to have to take my mammoth-skin off. And it's not even suppertime yet."

Is any of this sinking in? About rate of change? Acceleration versus velocity? Orders of mathematical derivatives? Evidential scientific proof? Anything? Thought not.

p.s. anyone that thinks that "Climategate" was even a thing (it wasn't), is scientifically illiterate and has no idea of how the scientific process works. There. I said it.

davymid
Male, 30-39, Europe
 11783 Posts
Friday, March 22, 2013 11:45:25 PM
Let's say there's a cave. It's a cave, but a magical cave. It has a magical thermometer embedded into the roof. This cave has been there since time immemorial.

Once upon a time, that cave was very, very cold. That time was called the Ordovician, 450 million years ago. It was the time of Snowball Earth, the planet was covered in ice to the Equator. We know this. Then, millions of years later, the cave got very warm. That time was called the Early Cretaceous, 130 million years ago. The whole planet had no ice, with tropical conditions from pole to pole. And all was good with the world.

davymid
Male, 30-39, Europe
 11783 Posts
Friday, March 22, 2013 11:44:47 PM
F*ck, I should be gone to bed by now, but I can't let this bullsh*t lie. As 5Cats himself would say, as would a text from my 8-year old niece, "I can't stand teh stupid. LOLZ!"

Dude, as you and others have pointed out, the planet was much hotter and much colder long before we humans came around. No argument. Valid point. It's the RATE of climate change that we're currently seeing that is unprecedented in the geological record. Let's not go into credentials. Let's assume I'm a random guy like you, who happens to like Catgirls.

Surely even you can understand this. Let me continue my attempt to empathise. Let's take this slowly. Here follows the Children's Fable of the Cave, which I'm making up as I go along (so bear with me):

markust123
Male, 40-49, Western US
 3784 Posts
Friday, March 22, 2013 11:29:36 PM
Squrlz4Sale you left out (d) Trolls

turdburglar
Male, 30-39, Western US
 3054 Posts
Friday, March 22, 2013 10:43:16 PM

An old Canadian and a squril arguing.

*squeek!Chirp!*
*Eh?!*
*Squeek!*
*hoser!*
*chirp! squeek!*
*Eh? Whataboot!*
*Hiss!*
*Liberal!!!*

Squrlz4Sale
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 5968 Posts
Friday, March 22, 2013 8:11:37 PM
(Cont'd)

As I have already stated in this thread, the only people who currently claim the science of anthropogenic climate change is "unsettled" are those who are (a) motivated primarily by an aversion to anything they perceive as "liberal"; (b) oil and coal industry executives; and (c) crackpots. I'll leave it to the readers of our debate here to determine to which category you belong.

Goodnight.

Squrlz4Sale
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 5968 Posts
Friday, March 22, 2013 8:10:18 PM
(Cont'd)

Since the early 20th century, when the greenhouse effect and the role of carbon dioxide in atmospheric heating were first understood, scientists have posited that this burning of fossil fuels could cause the planet to warm. Over the decades, the case in support of anthropogenic global warming has become stronger and stronger as more and more data were collected. By the 1990s, computer models and computational power had reached such a state that it was becoming clear that the only factor that could account for the rapid global warming that was being observed was man's burning of fossil fuels. By the year 2000, by any reasonable assessment, the consensus was in: global warming was real and was caused by man. Today, there are no national or major scientific institutions anywhere in the world that dispute the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Not one.

(Cont'd next post)

Squrlz4Sale
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 5968 Posts
Friday, March 22, 2013 8:08:22 PM
(Cont'd)

The Earth climate that we enjoy today is a comparatively recent development, geologically speaking--a state of rough equilibrium between carbon emissions and carbon uptake, and between solar heating and thermal radiation that has allowed for remarkable biological diversity and the emergence of human civilization.

Prior to this period of equilibrium, enormous amounts of carbon were sequestered beneath the surface of the Earth and removed from the atmosphere in the form of fossil fuel deposits. This sequestration took place over hundreds of millions of years. In the last 150 years, man's burning of fossil fuels has abruptly dumped much of that carbon back into the atmosphere in the blink of a geological eye.

(Cont'd next post)

Squrlz4Sale
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 5968 Posts
Friday, March 22, 2013 8:06:54 PM
5Cats, your posts consist of such a mishmash of scientific misunderstanding, manic rantings, and zombie falsehoods (myths that have been repeatedly proven false but keep coming back to life on climate "skeptic" blogs) that I hardly know where to begin.

How about we start with the basics? CO2 levels and temperatures on Earth have absolutely been higher in the distant past; you're correct about that. But I don't think any sane person wants to see us return to the condition of, say, the Devonian Era (the Age of Fishes), when crocodiles swam over Antarctica.

(Cont'd next post)

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 810 11 12 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.