An Inconvienent Truth
- Thread starter mouth_my_nuts
- Start date
ThaG you could not be possibly more wrong. It really amazes me. Do you understand that the computer models are a form of science? And the so called data they get (like sea level rising so many feet in so many years) is available to them from the computer models? The data comes from the process of science. And their computer models are unverified by any test as yet, and many climate scientists doubt the result. There is no clear cut scientific consensus. Many climate scientists think the alarmists are using bad science to get bad data.
WTF?
Computer models don't generate any data, they predict what we can expect to observe.
There is a very clear scientific consensus as evident from the IPCC report and the statement of the National Academies of Sciences. If you're looking for scientific consensus, that's as far as as you can go, there will always be a small percentage that believe in things like cold fusion, deny that HIV cause AIDS or that man is not responsible for global warming.
Moreover, scientists are people too, they can be bribed, don't forget that.
If you don't like the conclusions of the overwhelming majority of climatologists, you can become a climatologists yourself and make your own...
Computer models don't generate any data, they predict what we can expect to observe.
There is a very clear scientific consensus as evident from the IPCC report and the statement of the National Academies of Sciences. If you're looking for scientific consensus, that's as far as as you can go, there will always be a small percentage that believe in things like cold fusion, deny that HIV cause AIDS or that man is not responsible for global warming.
Moreover, scientists are people too, they can be bribed, don't forget that.
If you don't like the conclusions of the overwhelming majority of climatologists, you can become a climatologists yourself and make your own...
I would say this (your post) is revealing intellectual inferiority but anyway...
There is no "theory of macroevolution" (it's one word BTW) and I've told you many times that when you speak on things you have zero expertise in, there is a great chance you'll become a laughing stock (which is the case here)
There is no "theory of macroevolution" (it's one word BTW) and I've told you many times that when you speak on things you have zero expertise in, there is a great chance you'll become a laughing stock (which is the case here)
While we're nit picking over spaces and grammar, maybe you should figure out how and where to place your commas as it should of been placed directly succeeding the word "inferiority", and preceding "but anyways", but anyways. Maybe you need to figure out also how intellectualism applies to such gross mistakes that should be natural instinct for any 3rd grade English student, but moving on..
There is no "theory of macroevolution"
^Untrue, the theory of evolution is the theory of Macroevolution(one word), as Macroevolution is not an observable phenomenon. Conclusions are made by inference of available data. Again, this is intellectually dishonest with most of your comments being propagandized and showing no hint of enlightening thought, only robotic repetition and ironically snide comments, lacking wit. You've been exposed long ago as a troll with no answers and it's kind of depressing that you don't realize that the only "laughing stock" is YOU.
There is no "theory of macroevolution"
^Untrue, the theory of evolution is the theory of Macroevolution(one word), as Macroevolution is not an observable phenomenon. Conclusions are made by inference of available data. Again, this is intellectually dishonest with most of your comments being propagandized and showing no hint of enlightening thought, only robotic repetition and ironically snide comments, lacking wit. You've been exposed long ago as a troll with no answers and it's kind of depressing that you don't realize that the only "laughing stock" is YOU.
As a matter of relevant fact concerning intellect and frauds, isn't this the same G who so desperately relies on the fallible Bell Curve that he had the gumption and naivete to make a claim such as this?
^Haha, I mean after all, you claim to be enlightened, however, this is the most ignorant and uninformed statement that I've probably ever read on this forum(besides some stupid shit about slave breeding). I couldn't imagine anyone as smart as a Chimpanzee who would suggest such a correlation between IQ scores and innate human intelligence, that runs on a variety of factors. This would suggest that the "average" person is "evolutionarily" intermediate between a Chimp and a College professor(as far as brain development), even though "existing" members of the Homo Genus share 99.8% of the same genetic material, with an overlap of 85% within any given population inside that .2 percent. Where has the potential gone? LOL... This is sig material.. Like I've stated more than once, you've been exposed long ago as a fraud who doesn't know what he's talking about and merely ingeminate Richard Dawkins..:dead:
^Haha, I mean after all, you claim to be enlightened, however, this is the most ignorant and uninformed statement that I've probably ever read on this forum(besides some stupid shit about slave breeding). I couldn't imagine anyone as smart as a Chimpanzee who would suggest such a correlation between IQ scores and innate human intelligence, that runs on a variety of factors. This would suggest that the "average" person is "evolutionarily" intermediate between a Chimp and a College professor(as far as brain development), even though "existing" members of the Homo Genus share 99.8% of the same genetic material, with an overlap of 85% within any given population inside that .2 percent. Where has the potential gone? LOL... This is sig material.. Like I've stated more than once, you've been exposed long ago as a fraud who doesn't know what he's talking about and merely ingeminate Richard Dawkins..:dead:
ParkBoyz said:
While we're nit picking over spaces and grammar, maybe you should figure out how and where to place your commas as it should of been placed directly succeeding the word "inferiority", and preceding "but anyways", but anyways. Maybe you need to figure out also how intellectualism applies to such gross mistakes that should be natural instinct for any 3rd grade English student, but moving on..
There is no "theory of macroevolution"
^Untrue, the theory of evolution is the theory of Macroevolution(one word), as Macroevolution is not an observable phenomenon. Conclusions are made by inference of available data. Again, this is intellectually dishonest with most of your comments being propagandized and showing no hint of enlightening thought, only robotic repetition and ironically snide comments, lacking wit. You've been exposed long ago as a troll with no answers and it's kind of depressing that you don't realize that the only "laughing stock" is YOU.
There is no "theory of macroevolution"
^Untrue, the theory of evolution is the theory of Macroevolution(one word), as Macroevolution is not an observable phenomenon. Conclusions are made by inference of available data. Again, this is intellectually dishonest with most of your comments being propagandized and showing no hint of enlightening thought, only robotic repetition and ironically snide comments, lacking wit. You've been exposed long ago as a troll with no answers and it's kind of depressing that you don't realize that the only "laughing stock" is YOU.
There is no theory of macroevolution, it is all theory of evolution and it is all observable (in certain time frame). You are not the person to define what evolution is because you lack even a school-level understanding and knowledge of biology
quote:
LOL
What is microevolution then???
Macroevolution is evolution on above-species level. While the mechanisms and forces acting might differ to a certain extent, it is by no means a fundamentally different process from microevolution
Do not try to make up a new biology, please!
What do you mean when you say "the same genetic material"
Sequence similarity doesn't have much meaning besides establishing evolutionary relationships. Most of the genome is junk in case you don't know. There are species where the sequence variation between individuals exceed 2-3% but I'm sure you knew that....
My point was that the average person today is as intellectually inferior to the educated one as the chimpanzee is to the average person. This is by no means a good thing, but it's a fact no matter whether the average person agrees or not.
I would also say that the way the average person treats chimps because he thinks he's so superior to them is the way the educated person could treat the average one
Sequence similarity doesn't have much meaning besides establishing evolutionary relationships. Most of the genome is junk in case you don't know. There are species where the sequence variation between individuals exceed 2-3% but I'm sure you knew that....
My point was that the average person today is as intellectually inferior to the educated one as the chimpanzee is to the average person. This is by no means a good thing, but it's a fact no matter whether the average person agrees or not.
I would also say that the way the average person treats chimps because he thinks he's so superior to them is the way the educated person could treat the average one
They predict numbers. I am calling it data. The computer programs do not just say, "You can expect to observe more rain and warmer ocean temperatures here, here, and here,"... they give specific numbers for various things. Then you take the output from the computer and analyze it. It is pretty much raw data that you have to give some meaning to. What you want to call it is not really important.
I agree that there is scientific consensus that right now we are seeing a warming trend. What I dont agree with is that there is a scientific consensus on it being caused by man. There are several predictions made by the greenhouse gas/CO2 theory that these climatoligists in the book go over that are not happening. The theory does not mesh with reality. And besides, the sea level has been rising for the last 5,000 years...Is a few more feet in 100 years (historically it has been 7 inches per 100 years) really anything to spend billions and billions of dollars on? Just following the predictions of these computer models?.... The fact is nobody knows how good these computer models are, and even if it is as bad as the worst prediction made yet, we will adapt and everything will be comparable or better to how the world is today. I will bet you $1,000 dollars that in your lifetime or mine, the pprimary reason humankind suffers is because of the shit we do to each other, not the weather changing.
I agree that there is scientific consensus that right now we are seeing a warming trend. What I dont agree with is that there is a scientific consensus on it being caused by man. There are several predictions made by the greenhouse gas/CO2 theory that these climatoligists in the book go over that are not happening. The theory does not mesh with reality. And besides, the sea level has been rising for the last 5,000 years...Is a few more feet in 100 years (historically it has been 7 inches per 100 years) really anything to spend billions and billions of dollars on? Just following the predictions of these computer models?.... The fact is nobody knows how good these computer models are, and even if it is as bad as the worst prediction made yet, we will adapt and everything will be comparable or better to how the world is today. I will bet you $1,000 dollars that in your lifetime or mine, the pprimary reason humankind suffers is because of the shit we do to each other, not the weather changing.
It is important because dumb fucks can and do distort the meaning of words.
Any piece of information is data in informatics terms, not in scientific.
Simulations do not give you data, they predict it, even if a lot of data comes from computers, because they are used to get and analyze the readings of the various devices scientists use
I'll give some examples to make it clear:
Computers connected to sequencers give you DNA sequence. This is data although it comes from the computer
Proteomics and mass spectrometry gives you data about the phosphorylation status of proteins in the cell.
You build models of protein networks based on your knowledge of their topology and compare the predicitons of your models with the observed data. Then you refine your models and so on
This is exactly what climatologists do, they build models of global climate and compare their predictions with what is observed. The connection between CO2 (=man) and global warming is proven no matter what you think.
Which are these predicitons? Be more specific, then we might have a serious discussion
really?
Is a few more feet in 100 years (historically it has been 7 inches per 100 years) really anything to spend billions and billions of dollars on? [/quote]
1. If you don't understand the difference between a rise of "several feet" (>14 meters to be exact) in a century and 10 to 20 centimeters, you have a serious problem with your head
2. we need to make these changes anyway because fossil fuels will be over sooner than you think
Just following the ice melting right now in front of our eyes (well, the eyes of those few who realize the world is bigger than their air-conditioned home and 9-to-5 job)
actually it is worse, all models predicted (because of certain approximations used) it will take centuries for the ice to melt while the real-life observations in Greenland and West Antarctica show it on the way of melting in mere decades
LMAO @ "We will adapt"
That's like the person falling from a skyscraper saying "I'll be able to fly by the time I reach the ground"
[/quote]
I bet you that in my lifetime we will be doing much more terrible shit to each other than what we're doing now because of the changing weather
Any piece of information is data in informatics terms, not in scientific.
Simulations do not give you data, they predict it, even if a lot of data comes from computers, because they are used to get and analyze the readings of the various devices scientists use
I'll give some examples to make it clear:
Computers connected to sequencers give you DNA sequence. This is data although it comes from the computer
Proteomics and mass spectrometry gives you data about the phosphorylation status of proteins in the cell.
You build models of protein networks based on your knowledge of their topology and compare the predicitons of your models with the observed data. Then you refine your models and so on
This is exactly what climatologists do, they build models of global climate and compare their predictions with what is observed. The connection between CO2 (=man) and global warming is proven no matter what you think.
Which are these predicitons? Be more specific, then we might have a serious discussion
really?
Is a few more feet in 100 years (historically it has been 7 inches per 100 years) really anything to spend billions and billions of dollars on? [/quote]
1. If you don't understand the difference between a rise of "several feet" (>14 meters to be exact) in a century and 10 to 20 centimeters, you have a serious problem with your head
2. we need to make these changes anyway because fossil fuels will be over sooner than you think
Just following the ice melting right now in front of our eyes (well, the eyes of those few who realize the world is bigger than their air-conditioned home and 9-to-5 job)
actually it is worse, all models predicted (because of certain approximations used) it will take centuries for the ice to melt while the real-life observations in Greenland and West Antarctica show it on the way of melting in mere decades
LMAO @ "We will adapt"
That's like the person falling from a skyscraper saying "I'll be able to fly by the time I reach the ground"
[/quote]
I bet you that in my lifetime we will be doing much more terrible shit to each other than what we're doing now because of the changing weather
The correlation between C02 and warming is not proven!!! Where have you read that its proven? The greenhouse gas model says the CO2 traps the heat in the lower atmosphere (up to 30,000 feet) that normally would have gone out into space. That heat will then supposedly radiate to the Earth's surface. This is not happening. The surface temperatures are rising in many places but the temperatures in the atmosphere are not. The theory does not mesh with reality.
There is a correlation between CO2 and global temperatures. Is is not what you are thinking though. CO2 is a lagging indicator of climate change. Colder oceans can hold more of it, and as they warm up, the CO2 is released. Global warming causes more CO2, not the other way around. CO2 levels have lagged about 800 years behind temperature changes for at least the past 240,000 years.
My source for this is a book written by climate scientists.
There is a correlation between CO2 and global temperatures. Is is not what you are thinking though. CO2 is a lagging indicator of climate change. Colder oceans can hold more of it, and as they warm up, the CO2 is released. Global warming causes more CO2, not the other way around. CO2 levels have lagged about 800 years behind temperature changes for at least the past 240,000 years.
My source for this is a book written by climate scientists.
Ok and as for some of the false predictions made by the greenhouse gas theory....
"If the Greenhouse theory were valid, temperatures in the Arctic and the Antarctic would have risen several degrees Celsius since 1940 due to the huge emissions of man-made CO2. The icy bad news for the CO2 alarmists is that the temperatures at and near the North and South poles are lower now than they were in 1930."
"The data from twenty-one Antarctic surface stations show an average continental decline of 0.008 degrees Celsius from 1978 to 1998, and the infrared data from satellites operating since 1979 show a decline of 0.42 degrees Celsius per decade. David W.J. Thompson of Colorado State University and Susan Solomon of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration also report a cooling trend in the Antarctic interior.
The sea ice surrounding the Antarctic continent also confirms cooling. Australia's A.B. Watkins and Ian Simmonds report increases in Southern Ocean ice parameters from 1978 to 1996 and an increase in the length of the sea-ice season in the 1990s." (Unstoppable Global Warming, Singer and Avery)
So no warming in the poles, even though that is the place warming is to be first noticed according to some proponents of the theory.
"If the Greenhouse theory were valid, temperatures in the Arctic and the Antarctic would have risen several degrees Celsius since 1940 due to the huge emissions of man-made CO2. The icy bad news for the CO2 alarmists is that the temperatures at and near the North and South poles are lower now than they were in 1930."
"The data from twenty-one Antarctic surface stations show an average continental decline of 0.008 degrees Celsius from 1978 to 1998, and the infrared data from satellites operating since 1979 show a decline of 0.42 degrees Celsius per decade. David W.J. Thompson of Colorado State University and Susan Solomon of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration also report a cooling trend in the Antarctic interior.
The sea ice surrounding the Antarctic continent also confirms cooling. Australia's A.B. Watkins and Ian Simmonds report increases in Southern Ocean ice parameters from 1978 to 1996 and an increase in the length of the sea-ice season in the 1990s." (Unstoppable Global Warming, Singer and Avery)
So no warming in the poles, even though that is the place warming is to be first noticed according to some proponents of the theory.
Thats all you have for a comeback? Funding is a factor in both sides.
Atmospheric scientist Reid Bryson said in a June, 2007 interview that "There is a lot of money to be made in this... If you want to be an eminent scientist you have to have a lot of grad students and a lot of grants. You can't get grants unless you say, 'Oh global warming, yes, yes, carbon dioxide.'"[13]
NASA's Roy Spencer says that climate scientists need for there to be problems to get more funding. Climatologist and IPCC contributor John Christy says of climate scientists, “We have a vested interest in creating panic because money will then flow to climate scientists.” University of London biogeographer Philip Stott says that “If the global warming virago collapses, there will be an awful lot of people out of jobs.”
French climatologist and author Marcel Leroux makes a claim similar to that of Lindzen's: "In the end, global warming is more and more taking on an aspect of manipulation, which really looks like a "scientific" deception, and of which the first victims are the climatologists who receive funding only when their work goes along with the IPCC." (translated from French) [97]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming_controversy
Look, I am not some anti-environment guy in favor of big polluting companies. I really think we need to be cleaner and greener. I simply think that the global warming issue is being exaggerated and scare tactics are being used. I think we need cleaner cars and energy so we have less carcinogens in the air, not to avert some predicted crisis that is based on possibly flawed computer models. The Earth has naturally warmed and cooled as far back as we can go with the temperature data. There was a Roman warming, a Medieval warming, and the current warming we are in now. It has happened before and everything still turned out ok.
Atmospheric scientist Reid Bryson said in a June, 2007 interview that "There is a lot of money to be made in this... If you want to be an eminent scientist you have to have a lot of grad students and a lot of grants. You can't get grants unless you say, 'Oh global warming, yes, yes, carbon dioxide.'"[13]
NASA's Roy Spencer says that climate scientists need for there to be problems to get more funding. Climatologist and IPCC contributor John Christy says of climate scientists, “We have a vested interest in creating panic because money will then flow to climate scientists.” University of London biogeographer Philip Stott says that “If the global warming virago collapses, there will be an awful lot of people out of jobs.”
French climatologist and author Marcel Leroux makes a claim similar to that of Lindzen's: "In the end, global warming is more and more taking on an aspect of manipulation, which really looks like a "scientific" deception, and of which the first victims are the climatologists who receive funding only when their work goes along with the IPCC." (translated from French) [97]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming_controversy
Look, I am not some anti-environment guy in favor of big polluting companies. I really think we need to be cleaner and greener. I simply think that the global warming issue is being exaggerated and scare tactics are being used. I think we need cleaner cars and energy so we have less carcinogens in the air, not to avert some predicted crisis that is based on possibly flawed computer models. The Earth has naturally warmed and cooled as far back as we can go with the temperature data. There was a Roman warming, a Medieval warming, and the current warming we are in now. It has happened before and everything still turned out ok.