Climate Change

gwb-trading said:
Tell us how that worked out for all the Alchemy advocates who kept refining their hypotheses about turning base metals into gold.

If the original science is a fantasy (like AGW) - new data and re-thinking simply leads to more junk science.
More...


I'll say it again. If you think that AGW is a fantasy you are an idiot. A moron. An ignorant deluded dolt. Period.
 
futurecurrents said:
I'll say it again. If you think that AGW is a fantasy you are an idiot. A moron. An ignorant deluded dolt. Period.
More...
I'll say it again. You're a dick sucking ignorant dumb ass heat & air installer who knows noting about climate change.
 
dbphoenix said:
That would be characteristic of the right-wing anti-science mindset.

To suggest that scientific thought cannot change over a 40-year timespan betrays a misunderstanding of the nature of scientific enquiry.
More...

I make a living analyzing large scientific data sets to drive decisioning & other analytics for banks and other organizations. I am probably the only person in this forum who has dug through the raw temperature data from HadCRUT and other sources. The bottom line - the global temperature is not rising over the past two decades and it has no correlation to CO2 level. I will also note that many processed temperature sets completely fail basic fraud analysis.

The bottom line is that politically-driven "science" that starts as a fraud - still remains a fraud no matter how much additional government funded "scientific thought" is added to it over a 40 year timespan.
 
gwb-trading said:
I make a living analyzing large scientific data sets to drive decisioning & other analytics for banks and other organizations. I am probably the only person in this forum who has dug through the raw temperature data from HadCRUT and other sources. The bottom line - the global temperature is not rising over the past two decades and it has no correlation to CO2 level. I will also note that many processed temperature sets completely fail basic fraud analysis.

The bottom line is that politically-driven "science" that starts as a fraud - still remains a fraud no matter how much additional government funded "scientific thought" is added to it over a 40 year timespan.
More...


Game Set Match!
 
gwb-trading said:
I make a living analyzing large scientific data sets to drive decisioning & other analytics for banks and other organizations. I am probably the only person in this forum who has dug through the raw temperature data from HadCRUT and other sources. The bottom line - the global temperature is not rising over the past two decades and it has no correlation to CO2 level. I will also note that many processed temperature sets completely fail basic fraud analysis.

The bottom line is that politically-driven "science" that starts as a fraud - still remains a fraud no matter how much additional government funded "scientific thought" is added to it over a 40 year timespan.
More...

And so many disagree with you. That too is the nature of scientific debate and enquiry. If you make a living analyzing large scientific data sets, I hope that you have more than an adolescent mindset when doing so.
 
dbphoenix said:
And so many disagree with you. That too is the nature of scientific debate and enquiry. If you make a living analyzing large scientific data sets, I hope that you have more than an adolescent mindset when doing so.
More...

I go where the data leads... not where the politics tell me to go.

I suppose next FC is going to pop up with some absurd comment about 97% disagreeing with me - which is just an absurd example of politics over realistic science. There is no "97%" scientific consensus regarding AGW.
 
gwb-trading said:
I go where the data leads... not where the politics tell me to go.

I suppose next FC is going to pop up with some absurd comment about 97% disagreeing with me - which is just an absurd example of politics over realistic science. There is no "97%" scientific consensus regarding AGW.
More...

Given the language you use to describe your enquiry, it would appear instead that you approach the data with substantial prejudice.

Whether you do or not, though, has no effect on the outcome.
 
dbphoenix said:
Given the language you use to describe your enquiry, it would appear instead that you approach the data with substantial prejudice.

Whether you do or not, though, has no effect on the outcome.
More...

You mean the outcome that the earth has not warmed for over 18 years defying all the fear inducing models.

Yes, the AGW reality is not standing up to the politically-driven fear mongering.

Let's walk through the AGW name changes over time as the reality of no warming and no wholesale climate change hit home.
Global Warming -> Climate Change -> Climate Disruption

The movement is now reduced to trying to blame every storm and tornado on "Climate Disruption".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top