Global Warming?

[DarkBlack]

I think he meant 2 rocks plus 2 more rocks always equals four rocks, at least in this reality- be it put to human text as "4" base 10, or "100" base 2, or whatever.

 

[Egon]

FYI..The Earth was proven to be round hundreds (if not thousands) of years (if you believed in the experts of the day) before Columbus...(back to school (wikipedia) for you) :laughing:

Uh--The world is not Round!

Oblate Spheroid ?:thumbsup:

 

[IslandTractor]

Bwahahaha and yet you oh wise one can not dispute my pacts and yet I can dispute YOUR facts. So who is the one that is profoundly ignorant.

Oh I love your Liberal talking point, this one made me spit my coffee out my nose. "science moves forward" again another profoundly ignorant statement. Science MAY "move forward" BUT DATA STANDS STILL.

I'll typele slowly so you can understand it this time, let me know if you want me to print it in crayons. NO ONE CAN TAKE TWO EXACT SAME NUMBERS AND GET TWO POLAR OPPOSITE CONCLUSIONS. And all the liberal talking points or name calling won't win your argument. Even a a Moron like me knows 2+2 will always be 4, but Liberal math means 2+2 equals whatever they want, and will defend false numbers with name calling. YA, how's that workin out for ya.

OH wait it must be Bush's fault, or I'm a racist...there I just stole all your liberal talking points, now your out of any rebuttal ammunition.

Sorry, one more, When Liberals flip flop they are EVOLVING, Bwhahahahahhaha, you Koolaid drinkers are fun thanks for all the laughs.

You are embarrassing yourself here. Your question is really "how can the same data set be interpreted differently by different scientists?". Your false 2+2 paper tiger question just shows how little you understand about data sets in science. Data sets are almost always grouped, categorized or refined in some way during analysis and different approaches can indeed give different results. If I want to determine something as simple as how often it rains, I need to collect data on raining. I need to decide whether 0.01 inch is going to be counted as rain or not. Maybe I say 0.02" is rain but another guy only counts 0.05" per hour. Different data interpretation will result. I need to define whether I am going to count a day as rainy (or categorize it a drizzly, very rainy etc) if it rains for only one minute or only if it rains for 5 minutes or an hour at a certain rate. I need to decide how to group the data (minute,hour,week,month) and those decisions will have an impact on my analysis and possible on the interpretation and conclusions. Same data set, different reasonable interpretations. That is part of the methodological/analytic challenge in planning a scientific experiment. One doesn't cherry pick data and ideally one sets the parameters for how it will be managed and analyzed well before the data is actually collected or examined just to prevent bias from creeping in to analysis. And, data doesn't always stand still either. New instruments, new techniques might well be brought to bear on examining the same "data" or location etc with differing results. The Sun was always 93 million miles from earth when I was in school but that figure has recently been modified with improved measuring devices. Pluto was always defined as a planet until new findings and interpretations indicated otherwise. Was an astronomer in 1960 who thought it was a planet in error or did we later simple change definitions to come up with a different number of planets in the solar system. I don't think you understand that science is not as easy as 2+2 because if it was then even right wingnuts could do it (at least in base 10). Yes, that is a gratuitous jab but you had it coming. The integer 2 added to the integer 2 in base 10 always equals 4. We can agree on that. But we are not talking about numerals on a piece of paper. Numerals are representations of data, they are not data themselves. Nobody is challenging your long held belief that two apples plus two apples equals four apples. However in climate science we are talking about the interpretation of complex data sets. They aren't simply counting apples. Get that through your thick coffee spewing skull. Once you've got that straight then consider modern physics which is teaching us that 2 electrons plus 2 electrons doesn't always equal 4 electrons (if I understand that question myself, and I really don't claim to understand quantum mechanics at all, the answer could be anywhere from negative 4 to positive 4 and anywhere in between when discussing electrons). As an aside, quantum mechanics may help explain Romney who can have multiple opinions all at the same time. Two Romney's plus two Romney's can equal four teaparties or two teaparties and two centrists or four centrists.

"Science moves forward" is an ignorant statement??? Are you a member of the flat earth society? Me thinks you are just anti intellectual because you feel "elitists" are all lefties (wrong). Have you ever taken any class in science that required more thought than how to dissect a frog? Where do you get your ideas about science and the scientific process? I think your problem is that you are not considering what the scientific and experimental process really involves and are focusing, incorrectly, on believing that if two scientists disagree then one is cheating or lying. Not so. I referred you to Thomas Kuhn's book which I think you and others (both evil liberals and cuddly wingnuts) would really enjoy. It was written about forty years ago, well before the current climate debate, and has nothing specifically to do with climate science, it just discusses the scientific process and how theories are developed, experimentally tested and rejected over time as (wait for it....) science moves forward.

 

[Egon]

You believe in predestination? I always found that fascinating, my uncle was a Holiness preacher and had that belief.

Golly, my Great Grandfather was a Minister and he even built a church!:thumbsup:

 

[Egon]

AGW believers, and everyone else, please take a minute and read this article and tell me it isn't exactly what you hear today only cooling vs warming. The graph even "proves" the world was cooling, in the same period the graphs now show the world was warming. Dueling graphs but the same politics of control.

Nothing wrong with cooling and heating at the same time is there. It's just that they should meet somewhere.

Seems all that ice from the last Ice Age had stuff from warmer climates in it!:thumbsup:

 

[toppop52]

Golly, my Great Grandfather was a Minister and he even built a church!:thumbsup:

That's great!

 

[RobertBrown]

"Science moves forward" is an ignorant statement???

I told myself I was not going to post in this thread again, but after reading this, I have to jump in.......and out.
This is well spoken, unfortunetly it comes at the expense of another member, maybe he had it comming......if you can't stand the heat........
Other than than the slight, very slight, political connotations........I wish I'd said that.
I wish I was smart enough to get that out.
It's a frustrating complicated topic, made exasperating when oversimplified and scoffed at.
Now I'm done

 

[Egon]

That's great!

Yup!:dance1:

 

[Hillman314]

(To paraphrase a cartoon) "What if the threat of climate change causes us to develop clean, alternative energy; improve effciencies, quit bringing up lakes of oil to burn into the environment, stopped funding terrorists with oil money (Saudis = 9/11); pull our troops out of the mid-east, become energy self-reliant, and it turned out this whole global warming thing was a hoax?" -Boy, would we look silly!! (all that effort would as been about as usefull as putting a man on the moon!)

 

[2LaneCruzer]

You are embarrassing yourself here. Your question is really "how can the same data set be interpreted differently by different scientists?". Your false 2+2 paper tiger question just shows how little you understand about data sets in science. Data sets are almost always grouped, categorized or refined in some way during analysis and different approaches can indeed give different results. If I want to determine something as simple as how often it rains, I need to collect data on raining. I need to decide whether 0.01 inch is going to be counted as rain or not. Maybe I say 0.02" is rain but another guy only counts 0.05" per hour. Different data interpretation will result. I need to define whether I am going to count a day as rainy (or categorize it a drizzly, very rainy etc) if it rains for only one minute or only if it rains for 5 minutes or an hour at a certain rate. I need to decide how to group the data (minute,hour,week,month) and those decisions will have an impact on my analysis and possible on the interpretation and conclusions. Same data set, different reasonable interpretations. That is part of the methodological/analytic challenge in planning a scientific experiment. One doesn't cherry pick data and ideally one sets the parameters for how it will be managed and analyzed well before the data is actually collected or examined just to prevent bias from creeping in to analysis. And, data doesn't always stand still either. New instruments, new techniques might well be brought to bear on examining the same "data" or location etc with differing results. The Sun was always 93 million miles from earth when I was in school but that figure has recently been modified with improved measuring devices. Pluto was always defined as a planet until new findings and interpretations indicated otherwise. Was an astronomer in 1960 who thought it was a planet in error or did we later simple change definitions to come up with a different number of planets in the solar system. I don't think you understand that science is not as easy as 2+2 because if it was then even right wingnuts could do it (at least in base 10). Yes, that is a gratuitous jab but you had it coming. The integer 2 added to the integer 2 in base 10 always equals 4. We can agree on that. But we are not talking about numerals on a piece of paper. Numerals are representations of data, they are not data themselves. Nobody is challenging your long held belief that two apples plus two apples equals four apples. However in climate science we are talking about the interpretation of complex data sets. They aren't simply counting apples. Get that through your thick coffee spewing skull. Once you've got that straight then consider modern physics which is teaching us that 2 electrons plus 2 electrons doesn't always equal 4 electrons (if I understand that question myself, and I really don't claim to understand quantum mechanics at all, the answer could be anywhere from negative 4 to positive 4 and anywhere in between when discussing electrons). As an aside, quantum mechanics may help explain Romney who can have multiple opinions all at the same time. Two Romney's plus two Romney's can equal four teaparties or two teaparties and two centrists or four centrists.

"Science moves forward" is an ignorant statement??? Are you a member of the flat earth society? Me thinks you are just anti intellectual because you feel "elitists" are all lefties (wrong). Have you ever taken any class in science that required more thought than how to dissect a frog? Where do you get your ideas about science and the scientific process? I think your problem is that you are not considering what the scientific and experimental process really involves and are focusing, incorrectly, on believing that if two scientists disagree then one is cheating or lying. Not so. I referred you to Thomas Kuhn's book which I think you and others (both evil liberals and cuddly wingnuts) would really enjoy. It was written about forty years ago, well before the current climate debate, and has nothing specifically to do with climate science, it just discusses the scientific process and how theories are developed, experimentally tested and rejected over time as (wait for it....) science moves forward.

Although you and I don't always agree, I think your discussion of data and data interpretation is worthy of mention. I encourage everyone...whether of liberal or conservative orientation...to read it and try to appreciate the significance of what you were saying. I would add a footnote; that sometimes the effect we are trying to measure is made more difficult, and open to criticism, when the effect is minute, and must be measured indirectly. Accuracy and precision of instruments, calibration techniques,
standards, etc. all are factors that must be seriously considered, particularly when any compounded errors approach the quantity of the effect you are trying to measure. Some of the articles I have read on MGW point to these factors as serious shortcomings in the GW data; particularly when the projections are arrived at through modeling.