In 1988 it wasn't settled science.
But yes, often in complex systems there is a need to produce probability charts of what will happen.
This is especially useful in quantum mechanics which is almost entirely probabilities.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Jon Stewart Catches Glenn Beck Digging for Gold
- Thread starter Gabfly1
- Start date
In 1988 it wasn't settled science.
But yes, often in complex systems there is a need to produce probability charts of what will happen.
This is especially useful in quantum mechanics which is almost entirely probabilities.
Quote from bigdavediode:
You don't have any explanation for your dishonesty?
You were the one who said this email:
"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."
contained no tricks and their was no decline to hide.
Now, I am the one who is dishonest? Common sense, says otherwise.
Quote from drjekyllus:
You were the one who said this email:
"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."
contained no tricks and their was no decline to hid.
Now, I am the one who is dishonest? Common sense, says otherwise.
No, you've been caught and are desperately thrashing about.
Now you're reduced to making up strawmen to try and wriggle away.
Quote from bigdavediode:
In 1988 it wasn't settled science.
But yes, often in complex systems there is a need to produce probability charts of what will happen.
This is especially useful in quantum mechanics which is almost entirely probabilities.
Really, how many faulty predictions did Newton's laws give? How many faulty predictions did the Theory of Relativity yield? How about Quantum Mechanics?
The answer to all three is ZERO.
Quote from bigdavediode:
No, you've been caught and are desperately thrashing about.
Now you're reduced to making up strawmen to try and wriggle away.
Strawman? You said it Dave, not me. You tried to explain it away. A reasonable response would be "That guy is an idiot but it doesn't disprove anything." If you gave a response like that I might buy it. But claiming there was no trick or no decline, is beyond dishonest.
Quote from bigdavediode:
He was studying Venus in the 1970's, and worked on the Pioneer Venus probe. By comparison, what were you doing in the 1970's?
Oh so your excuse for for him is he did a madoff, using his fame to peddle nonsense to the public.
In the 70's I was being productive in grade & middle school learning how to spot then ignore bullshit con jobs.
Quote from Index piker:
Oh so your excuse for for him is he did a madoff, using his fame to peddle nonsense to the public.
In the 70's I was being productive in grade & middle school learning how to spot then ignore bullshit con jobs.
Exactly, like what I was doing in '70s has anything to do with the debate. Then he has the balls to call me a "strawman". Part of being a liberal means trying to force everyone to live by rules that you dont have to abide by. BigDaveDouchebag, the lib, does not let us down.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal.pdf
This is what bigdavediode is talking about. Page 5 of the pdf.
This is what bigdavediode is talking about. Page 5 of the pdf.
The Climate Model Scandal
"In 1998 NASA's James Hansen updated his 1988 graph. The temperature measurements are in red. Hansen's predictions were very accurate. The growth rate of greenhouse gases in the period 1988-1998 has been relatively linear, very similar to scenarios B and C (which are nearly the same until year 2000).1 However, when Pat Michaels testified in front of Congress he erased scenarios B and C of Hansen's graph. Climate blogger Coby Beck claims Pat Michaels "lied by omission". Professor Tim Lambert prefers to use stronger words "fraud, pure and simple" on his blog. Nobody can know with absolute certainty what is going on in anyone's mind. However, the facts are that Pat Michaels not only erased what Hansen stated would be the most likely scenario, but he had also erased the two most accurate scenarios. This is where the controversy of Hansen's "inaccurate" models started."
http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptic_arguments/models-dont-work.html
"In 1998 NASA's James Hansen updated his 1988 graph. The temperature measurements are in red. Hansen's predictions were very accurate. The growth rate of greenhouse gases in the period 1988-1998 has been relatively linear, very similar to scenarios B and C (which are nearly the same until year 2000).1 However, when Pat Michaels testified in front of Congress he erased scenarios B and C of Hansen's graph. Climate blogger Coby Beck claims Pat Michaels "lied by omission". Professor Tim Lambert prefers to use stronger words "fraud, pure and simple" on his blog. Nobody can know with absolute certainty what is going on in anyone's mind. However, the facts are that Pat Michaels not only erased what Hansen stated would be the most likely scenario, but he had also erased the two most accurate scenarios. This is where the controversy of Hansen's "inaccurate" models started."
http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptic_arguments/models-dont-work.html
Quote from drjekyllus:
Exactly, like what I was doing in '70s has anything to do with the debate. Then he has the balls to call me a "strawman". Part of being a liberal means trying to force everyone to live by rules that you dont have to abide by. BigDaveDouchebag, the lib, does not let us down.
More lying from our conservatard resident...you werent even a fetus in the 70s...you were the result of a 1 night stand in a trailer park,rubbing alcohol and youre moms date with a farm animal.