Means you ignore the finding of the vast majority of scientists who all agree with each other on the basic point that human produced CO2 is a significant factor in current climactic changes.Nope
Again the vast majority means...
Means you ignore the finding of the vast majority of scientists who all agree with each other on the basic point that human produced CO2 is a significant factor in current climactic changes.Nope
Again the vast majority means...
Your position is not neutral.The "all-knowing" moron Frankfooter is telling me what my position is ??
I do not think so
I get to decide what my position is.
What an obnoxious ass
I did not say I reject the science, nor did I say I accept the science. I am neutral
I also did not take a hard position on the conclusion either. Incremental errors in judgement are inherent in arriving at the conclusion based upon the experiments results
I did say I am skeptical of the timeline and even more skeptical of zealot nut-jobs claiming their position is absolute and mistaking scientific consensus for the scientific method
I also question the judgement / ethics of those attempting to use consensus to manufacture a false climate of authority
Your position is not absolute
that is a fact you should consider accepting
Again showing more scientific illiteracy, where you appear to think that climatologists only study the period that includes recorded data.My position has been that It would be the biggest sin mankind ever committed if we cause our own extinction
However, the planet and its climate have been evolving for 4.5 B years & the amount of recorded data relative to that historicity is insignificant, so the complete understanding of man's impact upon climate is not iron clad and not absolute
You are really struggling with the concept of scientific consensus vs scientific methodMeans you ignore the finding of the vast majority of scientists who all agree with each other on the basic point that human produced CO2 is a significant factor in current climactic changes.
That is a consensus !!!the vast majority of scientists who all agree with each other
Do not tell me what my position is you arrogant / ignorant assYour position is not neutral.
Again you tell me what my position is and now you are telling what it is based upon??Your position is based on your personal views of my opinion, it appears from this post, not from the science or the evidence.
Expanding the data beyond recorded data requires extrapolation and estimation.Again showing more scientific illiteracy, where you appear to think that climatologists only study the period that includes recorded data.
No stupid, it shows I do not accept your conclusion as absolute and that there is room for skepticism.This statement shows that you do not accept the science.
That's not neutral.
Your position is not neutral and is based on a total misunderstanding of the science.Do not tell me what my position is you arrogant / ignorant ass
Again you tell me what my position is and now you are telling what it is based upon??
Tell us Kresgin, what did I just mutter to myself about your mother?
You do this all the time and you get it wrong all the time, SO STOP IT
Expanding the data beyond recorded data requires extrapolation and estimation.
Extrapolating a couple of hundred years of data across billions of years ?
The goal is to isolate mans impact, starting with data only available during mans stay on the planet with additional complications from knowing the planet & climate have been changing throughout its history ?
And then extrapolation expected changes into the future?
Did they get that right? Maybe, Maybe not?
lots of room for skepticism there
Yet you say the conclusion is absolute?
I do not think so.
No stupid, it shows I do not accept your conclusion as absolute and that there is room for skepticism.
Now I am going t type real slowly so you can follow along
If I say my position is neutral, then my position is neutral
One of us a POS lair who has been caught making false, exaggerated, and misleading statements and has misrepresented himself and that POS liar is not me
If you had the first clue about science you would know a true scientist is focused on the results, and does not care too much about what others think.
But then you are not a scientist, but rather a propaganda spewing bullshit artist who would be a danger to others in a laboratory.
How is that gasoline calculation coming along?
That is high school level stuff, so anyone who has such a strong opinion about science as you do should have no problem showing their work
You also have yet to quantify and clarify exactly what "shoddy work" is.
Despicable POS
I'm not surprised you don't understand the basics, the question is whether this is willful ignorance based on your confirmation bias or whether or not you are smart enough to learn those basics.Expanding the data beyond recorded data requires extrapolation and estimation.
Extrapolating a couple of hundred years of data across billions of years ?
All of which require extrapolation & estimation if you are attempting to tie climate change to mans activities[Your position is not neutral and is based on a total misunderstanding of the science.
Climate change records are based on numerous methods, from carbon dating, to polar ice cores, to tree rings and geology.
They point out how your position is not absolute and that i am quite justified being skeptical & neutralYour lack of understanding of those basics is shown in your own words.
says the moron who can not calculate a weighted average?I'm not surprised you don't understand the basics, the question is whether this is willful ignorance based on your confirmation bias or whether or not you are smart enough to learn those basics.
You are really struggling with everything except word games. How about something simple for you. Why don't you tell me which specific scientific papers you support that argue human produced CO2 isn't playing a significant role in current climactic changes and why they should be listened to over the thousands of other papers that have contrary conclusions?You are really struggling with the concept of scientific consensus vs scientific method
That is a consensus !!!
And that is not proving or disproving a hypothesis based upon the experimental results
At one point the scientific consensus was that the world was flat and that aliments can be cured by bleeding the patient
Thankfully someone challenged these consensus and proved them incorrect
Will that happen with Climate change? Time will tell. However there are issues with the current theory and some scientist do not support the consensus
Any scientist worth his salt will tell you consensus has no place in scientific methodology
Are you saying that those thousands of papers weren't doing exactly that? The 'consensus' is simply because repeated experiments have lead to similar conclusions. If 95% of scientists predict the next couple months are going to be warmer than the past are you going to ignore them too?...
And that is not proving or disproving a hypothesis based upon the experimental results...
The Danish climatologist Bo Christiansen examined nine Mann “hockey sticks” and says it is “almost impossible to conclude” from any of them that “the present period is warmer than any period in the reconstructed period”. Professor David Legates writes that “one can have no confidence in the claim that the 1990s are the warmest decade of the last two millennia” (by then Mann had extended his flexi-shaft back another millennium.) Almost every other serious reconstruction shows much greater natural climate variability, and the 1990s within the bounds of that. And, as Professors McShane and Wyner point out, most of these reconstructions look nothing like hockey sticks. Indeed, it remains an open question whether what his oeuvre purports to divine a “global temperature” is in a scientific sense “supportable”. In the absence of reliable tropical data, says Dr David Rind, “we have no way of knowing how cold (or warm) the globe actually got”. So unsupported claims: yes.You are really struggling with everything except word games. How about something simple for you. Why don't you tell me which specific scientific papers you support that argue human produced CO2 isn't playing a significant role in current climactic changes and why they should be listened to over the thousands of other papers that have contrary conclusions?
I would love to engage in a discussion of the science behind those conclusions rather than listening to you blow hot air. There is no neutral in science other than pleading ignorance. Either you accept the conclusions of the great many scientific papers or you don't. And there is nothing wrong with admitting you are ignorant of the specifics of climactic sciences.
I know you just cut and paste but besides criticizing another person's work, what in there proves the hypothesis that human CO2 is not playing a significant role in current climactic change?The Danish climatologist Bo Christiansen examined nine Mann “hockey sticks” ....
I know you just cut and paste but besides criticizing another person's work, what in there proves the hypothesis that human CO2 is not playing a significant role in current climactic change?
Hundreds and hundreds of papers by hundreds and hundreds of scientists have been published concluding that AGW as a real thing. Why should we ignore them just because one scientist isn't happy with Mann's analysis?
You really don't understand the science, do you?All of which require extrapolation & estimation if you are attempting to tie climate change to mans activities
Extrapolation & estimation are sources of error, making your absolute position not so absolute.
You do not get itYou are really struggling with everything except word games. How about something simple for you. Why don't you tell me which specific scientific papers you support that argue human produced CO2 isn't playing a significant role in current climactic changes and why they should be listened to over the thousands of other papers that have contrary conclusions?
Hot air?I would love to engage in a discussion of the science behind those conclusions rather than listening to you blow hot air.
Really ????There is no neutral in science other than pleading ignorance.
Sounds like Albert found middle , neutral ground.It seems as though we must use sometimes the one theory and sometimes the other, while at times we may use either. We are faced with a new kind of difficulty. We have two contradictory pictures of reality; separately neither of them fully explains the phenomena of light, but together they do.
Consensus’ is neither part of the scientific method nor a goal in science. It is a tool used by non-scientists searching for trends in the thinking among scientists. When used as a tool for understanding, it can be harmless. But when it's used to manufacture a false climate of authority, it can be very harmful indeed.Either you accept the conclusions of the great many scientific papers or you don't.
There is a whole lot wrong with you insisting that others opinions absolutely must be in agreement with you & your position is the only acceptable positionAnd there is nothing wrong with admitting you are ignorant of the specifics of climactic sciences.
No I understand science much better than you doYou really don't understand the science, do you?
I suggest you read this chapter from the IPCC.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter05_FINAL.pdf
This will clear up your misconceptions about 'extrapolation'.
Who said I am ignoring anyone ?Are you saying that those thousands of papers weren't doing exactly that? The 'consensus' is simply because repeated experiments have lead to similar conclusions. If 95% of scientists predict the next couple months are going to be warmer than the past are you going to ignore them too?