Top scientist resigns admitting gobal warming is a big scam!

bishop

Banned
Nov 26, 2002
1,800
0
36
The weather is a bit more like fluid dynamics, very hard to predict molecules behaviour like its very difficult to predict where a cold front will go.
The climate is a bit more like the whole pot, we know that if we add more CO2 it will create more heat, and that is what the IPCC predicts.
Yes if you reduce a problem to childish logic it does look like anything is possible. You should submit your ideas to seasame street, they will forward it Mr.Mann.

If you plot the price of the Sony Ps3 since launch, you will find that by 2020, Sony will be paying you $100 to take a PS3. That is about the same level of logic as your statement.

You are doing the exact same shit as I predicted in my post, and I have already given you an explanation as to why we can make predictions about fluids and not about climate even before you made the statement above.

Now, I have no idea why you would ask a this question that has such an obvious answer, my guess is that you are waiting for me to say "yes" and then you will say water is intrinsically a chaotic system so if we can predict the boiling point of water then we can predict stuff about the weather in much the same way. If that is indeed what you are after, then I will point you back to my post because I have addressed why we can make predictions about water and not make predictions about weather.
 

Moviefan-2

Court Jester
Oct 17, 2011
10,489
171
63
Yes or no:
Are these not the findings of the survey
I already answered this question.

The answer is no, that's just the bullshit spin. The finding was that 66% of respondents supported AGW.

Now, it's your turn.

Yes or no: Do you think 66% support is the same thing as a "97% consensus"?
 

Moviefan-2

Court Jester
Oct 17, 2011
10,489
171
63
Then why are you quoting from a survey that you think is 'bullshit'?
I have responded to you numerous times with clear and easy-to-understand answers.

It's your turn. Yes or no: Do you think 66% support is the same thing as a "97% consensus"?

The fact that you repeatedly evade the question confirms that you know I'm right.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
91,861
22,255
113
Yes if you reduce a problem to childish logic it does look like anything is possible. You should submit your ideas to seasame street, they will forward it Mr.Mann.
.
There is no satisfying you.

If I give you a detailed answer you complain its too complex, if I give you a simple answer you complain its too simple.
Maybe you just can't learn anything that doesn't support your own prejudices.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
91,861
22,255
113
I have responded to you numerous times with clear and easy-to-understand answers.
You said:
False.

The survey is correct.
And the survey found:
The results presented in the PBL-study are consistent with similar studies, which all find high levels of consensus among scientists, especially among scientists who publish more often in the peer-reviewed climate literature.
http://www.pbl.nl/en/faq-for-the-article-scientists-views-about-attribution-of-global-warming


You admitted the survey was correct.
Those are its findings.
 

bishop

Banned
Nov 26, 2002
1,800
0
36
There is no satisfying you.

If I give you a detailed answer you complain its too complex, if I give you a simple answer you complain its too simple.
Maybe you just can't learn anything that doesn't support your own prejudices.

How come in medical science we do not just run computer models to find new drugs?
Why is it that we have to do a trial and error type of approach for finding new drugs?
Why is it that when new drugs are found that scientists can not just run a computer model to qualify the drug, Why are animals trials and then human trials needed?

If we can predict when water boils then why can we can we not predict new drugs and all their interactions?
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
80,011
7
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
Some days I think I am overpaid, I wonder how is it that I am paid so much more than the average person. Did I just get lucky? Was it the privilege of growing up in a modestly well off family? Am I really more capable then others?

Then I come and read one of these conspiracy theory threads and I feel better.
 

Titalian

No Regrets
Nov 27, 2012
8,500
9
0
Everywhere
Some days I think I am overpaid, I wonder how is it that I am paid so much more than the average person. Did I just get lucky? Was it the privilege of growing up in a modestly well off family? Am I really more capable then others?

Then I come and read one of these conspiracy theory threads and I feel better.
I would suggest the rest of you take from this what you want. As for me, He does live in the basement. As someone else suggested a long while ago.
 

Moviefan-2

Court Jester
Oct 17, 2011
10,489
171
63
You said:


And the survey found:

http://www.pbl.nl/en/faq-for-the-article-scientists-views-about-attribution-of-global-warming


You admitted the survey was correct.
Those are its findings.
This is a tremendous example of why people are rightly skeptical of anthropogenic global warming. It's like something out of Nineteen Eighty-Four.

The Netherlands survey showed 66% of respondents supported the hypothesis of AGW.

Frankfooter has been asked numerous times whether 66% is the same thing as a "97% consensus." He repeatedly evades a direct response and instead quotes some zealot who insists the results are "consistent" with a 97% consensus.

It's ridiculous. We all know the answer to the question.

I would suggest we see the same thing whenever AGW supporters are asked to explain why the predictions of tremendous warming in the 21st century have been so spectacularly wrong. Using appeals to authority to evade basic truths reveals the fundamental problem with AGW.

2+2 does not equal 5. I don't care what O'Brien says.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
91,861
22,255
113
How come in medical science we do not just run computer models to find new drugs?
Why is it that we have to do a trial and error type of approach for finding new drugs?
Why is it that when new drugs are found that scientists can not just run a computer model to qualify the drug, Why are animals trials and then human trials needed?

If we can predict when water boils then why can we can we not predict new drugs and all their interactions?
As soon as you can supply some duplicate planet earths to do some tests on you are free to do tests on real planets.
Medical research still uses animals for tests, if you can tell us what other choices we have for figuring out what the greenhouse effect and climate change might do the to the planet I'm sure that the IPCC would love to hear them.

Until then, computer models are our best method.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
91,861
22,255
113
This is a tremendous example of why people are rightly skeptical of anthropogenic global warming. It's like something out of Nineteen Eighty-Four.

The Netherlands survey showed 66% of respondents supported the hypothesis of AGW.
No, you are wrong.

Your claims aren't born out by the survey, the results of the survey or other comparable surveys.
All you are doing is lying about the results of a survey and trying to 'split hairs' and claim that the authors of the survey lied about the results.

As you said:
The survey is correct.
This is the finding of the survey you like to lie about:

The results presented in the PBL-study are consistent with similar studies, which all find high levels of consensus among scientists, especially among scientists who publish more often in the peer-reviewed climate literature.
http://www.pbl.nl/en/faq-for-the-article-scientists-views-about-attribution-of-global-warming

Just like you admitted that the IPCC projections are accurate and then continue to lie about them and say they aren't.
The temperature anomalies fit within the range of the models.
You are worse then those Heartland lobbyists, you are outright lying about the results of a survey over and over again.
Just stop lying, accept that you said the survey is correct and admit you are wrong.
 

Gntlmn

Active member
Oct 27, 2002
877
105
43
If one scientist says math is not important to science does that make it so.

Consensus, consensus, consensus.
Peer review, peer review, peer review
Testing results, testing results, testing results.
 

bishop

Banned
Nov 26, 2002
1,800
0
36
As soon as you can supply some duplicate planet earths to do some tests on you are free to do tests on real planets.
Medical research still uses animals for tests, if you can tell us what other choices we have for figuring out what the greenhouse effect and climate change might do the to the planet I'm sure that the IPCC would love to hear them.

Until then, computer models are our best method.
Statistics + Controls is the current best technique for finding new drugs that is scientific.

Computer models are the current best technique for studying climate. When it becomes the best technique that is scientific then I will have no problems with AGW.
 

Moviefan-2

Court Jester
Oct 17, 2011
10,489
171
63
Testing results, testing results, testing results.
When it comes to comparisons of the predictions and the observed data, the data continue to show the predictions were:

Spectacularly wrong, spectacularly wrong, spectacularly wrong. :thumb:
 

Moviefan-2

Court Jester
Oct 17, 2011
10,489
171
63
You are worse then those Heartland lobbyists, you are outright lying about the results of a survey over and over again.
Just stop lying, accept that you said the survey is correct and admit you are wrong.
So you claim I'm "outright lying" when I say that 17.1 plus 32.2 plus 16.6 adds up to 66 (actually, 65.9).

Tell us, then ... what do you think those three numbers add up to?
 

Titalian

No Regrets
Nov 27, 2012
8,500
9
0
Everywhere
Statistics + Controls is the current best technique for finding new drugs that is scientific.

Computer models are the current best technique for studying climate. When it becomes the best technique that is scientific then I will have no problems with AGW.
I have to agree with this, it is a shot in the dark. But I do agree that alternative sources should be investigated and pursued.
There was one perfect example that was scraped by GM. I never understood this.

But its coming.

 

bishop

Banned
Nov 26, 2002
1,800
0
36
There is alot of research into new things that show alot of promise. Electric cars are of no real consequence, to me they are just window dressing, an electric car is all about the battery and how to efficiently store energy, it is not about efficiently generating power which is really the real problem/issue. An electric car is just an AC motor + battery, the AC motor when first invented by Tesla was probably 90% efficient already, now you can buy a cheap AC motor that can easily get maybe 95%+ efficiency, more expensive motors can get 99%+ efficiency. So ultimately an electric car is just about the battery or energy storage.

In the near future cold fusion has a good chance of transforming the world. For some reason in 2014 there was a whole slew of cold fusion announcements, NASA announced it had a working cold fusion reactor and a large military contractor (I forget the name but it was a huge name) announced that it had a working cold fusion reactor and is working on bringing it into commercial use. Since 2014, cold fusion went back into hiding, it is quite peculiar and perhaps is indicative of a conspiracy theory. What I remember is that a month of two after the military contractor made it's cold fusion announcement, oil started to tumble like a rock and never stopped falling.

In the long run the holy grail is to tap the energy of empty space, the big bang never stopped, all around us is a constant sea of energy and matter that bubbles up from the vacuum of space. It may sound like crazy science fiction, but our universe sprang up from the same principles and if we follow the scientific method we will arrive at a place where we can harness the very power of the universe.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
91,861
22,255
113
So you claim I'm "outright lying" when I say that 17.1 plus 32.2 plus 16.6 adds up to 66 (actually, 65.9).

Tell us, then ... what do you think those three numbers add up to?
You are outright lying by saying that survey doesn't support the consensus claim, which is what this discussion is about.
And you are trying to fudge the numbers by trying to put answers in different groups then they were put in to cheat the numbers.

Lets just remember what you said about the survey and what the author of the survey said about the results.
The survey is correct.
This is the finding of the survey you like to lie about:

The results presented in the PBL-study are consistent with similar studies, which all find high levels of consensus among scientists, especially among scientists who publish more often in the peer-reviewed climate literature.
http://www.pbl.nl/en/faq-for-the-article-scientists-views-about-attribution-of-global-warming

Just like you admitted that the IPCC projections are accurate and then continue to lie about them and say they aren't.
The temperature anomalies fit within the range of the models.
Listen to your own words and move on.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
91,861
22,255
113
In the near future cold fusion has a good chance of transforming the world.
That sums up your scientific 'expertise' quite eloquently.

1) you disagree with the vast majority of scientists about climate change
2) you believe that cold fusion is legit

Thanks.
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts