Death knell for AGW

Zzarchov

House Member
Aug 28, 2006
4,600
100
63
Alright, I'm tired of this.

I have no desire to get into an ad hominem debate.

When your prepared to act like an adult let me know.


He pointed out at least one undeniable flaw proving you don't know what your reading. Im no physcist, but I can do elementary school math.

+/- 100 IS a range of 200C, and you claim its not.

If the temperature is 300C +/- 100C

The range is between 200C and 400C. A range of 200C, as stated.


You don't even understand elementary school number usage.


On your part this can only be described thus:
 

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
70
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
hehehe. I quit taking the posts he's made about science seriously long ago when I noticed he seems to have a problem understanding the difference between "theory" and "hypothesis". So then I began taking the posts in good humor. :)
There's a positive side to everything. hehehe
 

Dixie Cup

Senate Member
Sep 16, 2006
6,073
3,850
113
Edmonton
I don't believe in Global Warming period. It's based on crappy science (no matter what the believers say) and it's a way of social engineering unlike anything we've ever seen before. if allowed to continue, it will decrease the standard of living for the average North American family, while creating a new "currency" called "carbon credits" of which said average North American will pay dearly. It will make many, many people (Al Gore/Suzuki come to mind) very wealthy.

Don't even speak about "saving" the environment and/or planet because this isn't what it's about at all and I'm ashamed to think that people who have bought into this believe that.

JMO
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
Of course it's not about saving the planet or environment. They'll exist long after the last human breath. It's about preserving conditions which are favourable to us and the ecological systems we depend on.

I'll ask you the same thing I ask everyone who makes the claim "crappy science" to expand on that. What specifically is your beef?
 

Scott Free

House Member
May 9, 2007
3,893
46
48
BC
Don't fall for it Dixie Cup, Tonington can't argue his way out of a wet paper bag. He has no concept of reason but clings to wish thinking, rhetoric and opinion. He just repeats himself over and over again no matter how terrible his arguments are. He just doesn't get it. He doesn't know when he's beat.

IMO you'd be better off arguing with a carrot or piece of broccolis.
 

Scott Free

House Member
May 9, 2007
3,893
46
48
BC
He pointed out at least one undeniable flaw proving you don't know what your reading. Im no physcist, but I can do elementary school math.

+/- 100 IS a range of 200C, and you claim its not.

If the temperature is 300C +/- 100C

The range is between 200C and 400C. A range of 200C, as stated.

So what your saying is that the models based on the theory you and Tonington hold so near and dear are, by your own admission, far worse than I stated? Yet you still cling to this terrible science?

LMAO!!!!!

This belongs to you Zzarchov: :lol:



 
Last edited:

Zzarchov

House Member
Aug 28, 2006
4,600
100
63
What I'm saying is, whether or not the models or correct or incorrect:


You don't understand what they say. You don't know what your talking about. You could be preaching the truth of ages,

But you'd just be parroting it without any understanding of WHAT your saying. Your a mouthpiece.


And you've proven it, even now you ask me about if what you are saying is better or worse.


Enjoy your fail shipment. Its some truly epic fail as I understand it. Though I applaud you for waiting till you could start a new page to reply to it ;)

Nothing says classy in failure like that ;)
 

Zzarchov

House Member
Aug 28, 2006
4,600
100
63
I find it humorous that people talk to me, Im just..sooo alone, I apparently have a learning disability and a big ego, I can't ever admit I don't know what Im talking about. Please someone help me, I just want someone to love me...


I can play that way too, this game is far more fun, since Im pretty sure you understand how this one operates (its a shame you don't have anything to add to the global warming debate)

Cheers :D
 

Scott Free

House Member
May 9, 2007
3,893
46
48
BC
(its a shame you don't have anything to add to the global warming debate)

Nothing to add except that it is a false theory because it can't make predictions! ;-)

A theory must be able to make predictions if it is true. If it can't make predictions then it is false. Just imagine if Relativity used this GW pseudo science?
 

Zzarchov

House Member
Aug 28, 2006
4,600
100
63
uh...no, thats not how theories work. Theories allow you to predict the outcomes when you control the variables.

Your logic falls down because even established theories can't predict how 2 dice will fall without being able to control all of the variables. If outside forces keep slapping the dice as they roll around, it can't be predicted.
 

Scott Free

House Member
May 9, 2007
3,893
46
48
BC
uh...no, thats not how theories work. Theories allow you to predict the outcomes when you control the variables.

That is the purpose of modelling the environment. So you control the variables and the theory can make a prediction.

Your logic falls down because even established theories can't predict how 2 dice will fall without being able to control all of the variables. If outside forces keep slapping the dice as they roll around, it can't be predicted.

There is no problem predicting the most to least likely outcomes of your dice roll. Over time a very accurate bell curve can be made of likely rolls. You could even make a theory like: seven will be the most common result. A simple little test will prove the theory right.

Your GW theory can't even do that! :roll:
 

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,871
116
63
There is no evidence man-made CO2 causes climate change

Published: 4 Jul 08 - 0:00
During 2008, have we seen many stories in the newspapers about 2007 being particularly warm as a result of global warming? During 2006, the doomsters were predicting that 2007 would be the hottest year on record, so why have we seen no reports about this?
The answer is simple – 2007 turned out to be the coolest year for 30 years. It is also the case that there has been no global warming since 1998. In fact, since 1998, there has been steady cooling.
Even more dramatic is the fact that the most recent computer model predictions indicate that there will be no more global warming for the next ten years. But the doomsters say that, after this ten-year period, global warming will come back with a vengeance. Why?
Certainly, mankind's production of carbon dioxide (CO2) has continued to increase since 1998 and will continue to increase, particularly since countries such as China and India say that their economic growth comes first, so they do not intend worrying too much about CO2 production.
I have repeatedly pointed out that there is little or no link between CO2 production by mankind and a rise in global temperature. In fact, indications are that it is the opposite – an increased temperature causes more CO2 to be ejected into the atmosphere.
In the time of the Viking settlements on Greenland, about 1 000 years ago, there was a period of warming. That is why the Viking settlements flourished and they could grow grapes and maize, which puzzled the archaeologists.
Then it cooled, and the last Viking supply ship arrived at the settlements in 1410, after which it all froze up.
The world then experienced the Little Ice Age, during the time of Shakespeare and Jan van Riebeeck. The Thames froze over, and there was a period of economic decline, in comparison to the economic boom during the Medieval period of global warming.
There was also an earlier warming period, known as the Roman Warming, during the period of Roman economic prosperity.
All of this warming and cooling happened without any contribution from any man-made CO2. Indications in our modern times are that the warming observed up to the end of 2006 has been due to a natural cycle in the intensity of the sun.
This was, by all indications, the same source of warming of the Medieval and Roman Warming periods. But now South Africa wants to impose a carbon tax aimed at cutting South Africa's emission of greenhouse gases. I think this is wrong. The proposal is for a 2c/kWh tax to be imposed from September.
This is expected to generate R4-billion a year for the National Treasury. But the economics folks point out that this 2c tax translates into a 10% increase in the electricity cost.
One of the reasons why South Africa uses a large amount of electricity is that we have major exports whose production is energy intensive, such as gold, steel and aluminium. We do not export watches like the Swiss, or computer software like the Irish, so to quote our per capita production of CO2 is stupid.
The tax, I am told, is to incentivise the use of renewable sources of power, such as wind, solar and hydro. This is crazy too. I am all in favour of wind and solar, but only if such sources can stand on their own two feet in economic competition to our coal-fired power. To fake the economics is to do damage to our exports, and to the lifestyle of every citizen.
There is little or no indication that man-made CO2 is causing any climate change. There has been no global warming since 1998. The warming that did happen during the twentieth century happened mainly between 1920 and 1940. The year 2007 was the coolest year for 30 years.
For us to go with the flow, or dive into a panic mode, is crazy. Let us look after the health and welfare of our people first. This does not mean being irresponsible about any sources of pollution from industrial operations or any other activities. It means using genuine science, and not the scare tactics of world political manipulators, to come to really sensible conclusions.
 

Zzarchov

House Member
Aug 28, 2006
4,600
100
63
That is the purpose of modelling the environment. So you control the variables and the theory can make a prediction.



There is no problem predicting the most to least likely outcomes of your dice roll. Over time a very accurate bell curve can be made of likely rolls. You could even make a theory like: seven will be the most common result. A simple little test will prove the theory right.

Your GW theory can't even do that! :roll:


Actually your wrong. No predictive method can determine the likely outcome of 1 dice roll without controlling all the variables (size of dice, air pressure, temperature of surface) etc. You can't do that in real life to make the prediction come true.

And 7 is the most likely numerical value of adding 2 dice togethor. Its not the most likely way for the dice to fall.

Im just as likely to get boxcars as I am to get a 4 on the first die and a 3 on the second.
 

Scott Free

House Member
May 9, 2007
3,893
46
48
BC
Im just as likely to get boxcars as I am to get a 4 on the first die and a 3 on the second.

You've changed the subject. The probability of rolling any single number on one die is exactly the same as any other number: 1:6. You were originally talking about the sum of two die rolls which is what I responded to. You have now changed the subject to the probability of a single number on one die.

The global warming theory is about predicting trends, however, in your metaphor (of dice) you now want the subject to be about predicting specific values. If we looked for specific values in GW then it is an utter and disastrous failure. GW is not about specific values but about trends. My original point was also about trends. Your latest argument is irrelevant to this conversation and just a blatant attempt to confuse the conversation.

I expect such tactics from people who support GW because it seems they don't care much for reality and fact. To them, it would seem, what they desire and want is of paramount importance.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
No Scott, he said "predict how two dice will fall." That's not at all the same things as what the sum of the two dice will be. That's just how you interpreted it, which was incorrect.