Death knell for AGW

Tonington
#961
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

It doesn't have to be one single base line, but there MUST be base formula, equation, etc that applies equally across all circumstances.

Ummm, no. There must not be. There's no single mathematical formula or equation, that applies to all cases of illness, but we can identify cause and effect. I can inject a pathogen into a fish at work, and place that fish into a tank with other fish, and reliably tell you, within a day or so when the sham-vaccine controls will start to die. But there isn't a mathematical formula for it. I can replicate many times and get different numbers. Eventually, we get close to the truth.

If I use a different cell culture to grow my pathogen, I can get a different answer. If I use a different disease isolate ( same virus, slightly different surface proteins), then I can get a different answer.

I find it hard to believe that you are now saying that there must be a model that applies to everything. Do you know any science history at all? The search for grand unifying theories?
 
petros
#962
Those social engineers have really sold you on the fools gold of geo-engineering haven't they?

I'll gladly review whatever you want to post that has been verified.

I've seen many a fortune come and go due to hit and miss of sample based chemical mapping on parcels of just a couple hundred hectares but hey what the f*ck do I know?
 
Tonington
#963
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

I've seen many a fortune come and go due to hit and miss of sample based chemical mapping on parcels of just a couple hundred hectares but hey what the f*ck do I know?

About climate science? Not much apparently, but I'll stipulate to your vast experience in failed ventures.
 
captain morgan
#964
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

Ummm, no. There must not be. There's no single mathematical formula or equation, that applies to all cases of illness, but we can identify cause and effect. .... I find it hard to believe that you are now saying that there must be a model that applies to everything. Do you know any science history at all? The search for grand unifying theories?

I should have invoked more applicable words as I know that you make your arguments on splitting hairs... There is no cohesive, underlying set of assumptions - supported by any calculable methodology - that provides a general basis or theory.

Hell, your movement has no real understanding of the overall system, let alone the driving and dynamic relationships of the components. It is no surprise that you have no base line (or whatever word you need to split the hairs on) that could possibly support your contentions.

But again, that is an aside. If that basis existed, you would have mentioned something.
 
petros
#965
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

About climate science? Not much apparently, but I'll stipulate to your vast experience in failed ventures.

Failed ventures like being a "climate scientist" (you are one by simply contributing as you claimed previously) and turning in cores or having grad student squids tag along rummaging through the muck?

What's your contribution?
Last edited by petros; Jan 28th, 2011 at 11:49 PM..
 
Tonington
#966
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Failed ventures like being a "climate scientist" (you are one by simply contributing as you claimed previously)

No I didn't. I said a scientist is one who uses the scientific method to investigate the nature of the world around us, and contribute to our understanding. I've never claimed to do any of that in the field of climate science. I work in fish health and pharmaceuticals.

Lies, lies, lies.
 
petros
#967
You sure did bubba louis.

A dope pusher How novel?

No-one is sending anyone out to collect samples. They use what they can get IF it meets panel approval by government and select specialists. It also needs no second sample or second analysis to be included in "Climate Reports" just group discuss on whether to include the findings or not. A researcher can create an outcome and not have to worry about verification.

Does that sound like the "scientific process" you know?

The different levels of endorsement for the different classes of IPCC material are as follows:
A. In general, IPCC Reports are accepted by the appropriate Working Group. Reports prepared by the Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories are accepted by the Panel. Summaries for Policymakers are approved by the appropriate Working Groups. (Section 4.2) and subsequently accepted by the Panel (Section 4.3). Overview chapters of Methodology Reports are adopted, section by section, by the appropriate Working Group or in case of reports prepared by the Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories by the Panel. In the case of the Synthesis Report the Panel adopts the underlying Report, section by section, and approves the Summary for Policymakers. The definition of the terms "acceptance
", "adoption" and "approval" will be included in the IPCC published Reports (Section 4.4).
B. Technical Papers are not accepted, approved or adopted by the Working Groups or the Panel but are finalized in consultation with the Bureau (Section 5).
C. Supporting Materials are not accepted, approved or adopted (Section 6).
 
captain morgan
#968
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

No-one is sending anyone out to collect samples. They use what they can get IF it meets panel approval by government and select specialists. It also needs no second sample or second analysis to be included in "Climate Reports" just group discuss on whether to include the findings or not. A researcher can create an outcome and not have to worry about verification.


Wow... I guess that these discussions qualify as peer reviewed.... Man, this whole science-thingy is no where near as hard as I thought.
 
petros
#969
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

Wow... I guess that these discussions qualify as peer reviewed.... Man, this whole science-thingy is no where near as hard as I thought.

I want to know WTF "expert/government review" is.

Read more about their bastardized version of "scientfic process" here: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principl...appendix-a.pdf
 
Tonington
#970
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

You sure did bubba louis.

Prove it.
 
petros
#971
It was when you outlined what a "climate scientist" was. You don't remember what you post in fits of anger or what?



What does government approval and group discussions have to do with verification of science?

It sounds like working at Auschwitz where you need approval of the SS to publish your findings.
 
Tonington
#972
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

It was when you outlined what a "climate scientist" was. You don't remember what you post in fits of anger or what?

Of course I remember explaining what a climate scientist is. But I never said I was a climate scientist. Post it already or admit to your lie.
 
Walter
#973
Another one sees the light.
Breaking*Global Warming*Taboos: 'I Feel Duped on Climate Change' - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International
 
Colpy
+1
#974
I laughed my butt off at this:

Obama

Yep. Obama the man!
 
EagleSmack
+2
#975
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

I laughed my butt off at this:

Obama

Yep. Obama the man!

Perhaps Al Gore printed out a carbon credit for him which miraculously makes him carbon neutral. Al Gore's printing shop... errr... Carbon Credit Company makes all carbon emissions go away, freeing the energy gulping hogs to use as much as they wish without guilt while telling others to conserve.
 
Walter
#976
The tolling continues.
Polar Bear population "NOT in crisis" - Local News - Cleveland, OH - msnbc.com
 
L Gilbert
#977
Melting ice means polars have to spend more time on land. That means more competition with other bears for food.
What kind of condition were all these polar bears in that the 2 to 3000 polars are in? Are they healthy? Numbers of bears don't tell very much, but myopic people don't think of stuff like that.
 
Walter
#978
Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

Melting ice means polars have to spend more time on land. That means more competition with other bears for food.
What kind of condition were all these polar bears in that the 2 to 3000 polars are in? Are they healthy? Numbers of bears don't tell very much, but myopic people don't think of stuff like that.

Animals multiply when times are good.
 
L Gilbert
#979
Quote: Originally Posted by WalterView Post

Animals multiply when times are good.

The article said the population was stable, not multiplying.
 
crapballs
+3
#980
Science + Walter = science.
 
L Gilbert
#981
lol.
 
Walter
#982
Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

The article said the population was stable, not multiplying.

For a population to be stable it must multiply. Stability only happens in good times.
 
petros
#983
Let the good times roll.
 
Tonington
+2
#984
Quote: Originally Posted by WalterView Post

For a population to be stable it must multiply. Stability only happens in good times.

Math problems? For a population to be stable, the rate of death will roughly equal the birth rate. It doesn't say anything about good times. A population could be stable at 1,000,000 then undergo changes that result in a new stability at 1,000. Just because it's stable does not mean that times are good. It simply means the population isn't changing much. There are far more factors involved with assessing the health of a population.

That's not only math problems, but problems understanding biology.
 
petros
#985
So the population isn't stable?
 
Tonington
+2
#986
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

So the population isn't stable?

I never said that. Seriously do you even bother to try to understand what someone says?

The news article talks about total bear population, then in the next paragraph they have a survey of one of the 19 sub-populations. And the news article conveniently leaves out this disclaimer from the survey authors, when comparing the estimates from the two different methodologies:
Quote:

Whereas mark−recapture data provide direct estimates of population growth, aerial survey data yield information population on trend only via a time series of population estimates; accordingly, reliance on such data may require more conservative harvest management.

How about people RTFP. Not surprised that the usual suspects would grab the news headline and run with it without actually reading the source document, which is hyperlinked in the text of the article. Can't even blame people for being too lazy to search for it.
 
mentalfloss
#987
Yea, mark and capture is much more accurate than aerial snapshots. I went on a google hunt about this a few days after the original story broke out, and as usual - the media comes out with the denier crap first, and then you find out the sensationalistic Walter-media is more muted than it was originally perceived.

That death knell must have gone the opposite direction, rofl
 
EagleSmack
#988
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post


That death knell must have gone the opposite direction, rofl

No... it really hasn't.
 
petros
#989
Somebody is mad polar bears aren't dieing off. What's her problem anyway?
 
captain morgan
+1
#990
PMS and probably ran out of Midol
 

Similar Threads

0
Another Death of the Novel ???
by jimmoyer | Oct 12th, 2006
50
What Happens After Death?
by I think not | Jun 26th, 2005
no new posts