DC Tom Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 After further research, it appears the answer is not so clear on this. The periodic orbital explanation is, however, a part of some existing theories. Not the explanation you read. That explanation violated the laws of physics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 There is another trend, if the facts don't agree with your arguement ignore the question. My only argument is that localized cooling trends do not disprove man-made global warming. Not the explanation you read. That explanation violated the laws of physics. Fair enough - I should know better than to quote Yahoo Answers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 My only argument is that localized cooling trends do not disprove man-made global warming. ...and neither do localized warming trends prove man-made global warming. Even though such trends are used in precisely that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 There is another trend, if the facts don't agree with your arguement ignore the question. Like I said, I'm not your research student. Are all ya'll's your fingers broken or are you afraid of running out of 'it doesn't follow common sense' arguments? ...and neither do localized warming trends prove man-made global warming. Even though such trends are used in precisely that way. That would suck for me if I were trying to prove anthropogenic global warming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Fair enough - I should know better than to quote Yahoo Answers. For future reference, when something says "because the orbit changes", ask yourself very carefully: "Does this violate conservation of energy?" before quoting it. That was such a stupid answer. Thanks for sharing it...I got a big kick out of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Like I said, I'm not your research student. Are all ya'll's your fingers broken or are you afraid of running out of 'it doesn't follow common sense' arguments? Awwww Come on Gene, it was a simple question, a smart guy like you should know the answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 That would suck for me if I were trying to prove anthropogenic global warming. Like I keep saying...80% of the global warming science is crap. That's part of the reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Like I keep saying...80% of the global warming science is crap. That's part of the reason. I'd love to see your breakdown of what you consider legitimate, illegitimate and why. I only ask because you seem pretty definite on that 80% number. Awwww Come on Gene, it was a simple question, a smart guy like you should know the answer. The problem with you conservatives is that you just can't do for yourselves. Always looking for a handout. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 I'd love to see your breakdown of what you consider legitimate, illegitimate and why. I only ask because you seem pretty definite on that 80% number. Well, it's actually 79.4%, but who wants to quibble over tenths of a percentage point? It's Sturgeon's Law. Just a rule of thumb estimate. Could be 70, could be 90. It is a majority. And I didn't say "illegitimate". I said "crap". Crap can be legitimate. Most of it is - in any discipline, the majority of scientific papers amount to bottle-washing and button-sorting. Legitimate...still crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Well, it's actually 79.4%, but who wants to quibble over tenths of a percentage point? It's Sturgeon's Law. Just a rule of thumb estimate. Could be 70, could be 90. It is a majority. And I didn't say "illegitimate". I said "crap". Crap can be legitimate. Most of it is - in any discipline, the majority of scientific papers amount to bottle-washing and button-sorting. Legitimate...still crap. Sturgeon's Law applies to absolutely everything though, right? It's almost like saying nothing at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 I'd love to see your breakdown of what you consider legitimate, illegitimate and why. I only ask because you seem pretty definite on that 80% number. The problem with you conservatives is that you just can't do for yourselves. Always looking for a handout. No Gene, I know the answer I just want to see it in type from you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 What is the big deal if there is or isn't GW? Are we really that arrogant to think that things can be kept static forever? Isn't that a human-made situation of the worse kind? Change is envitable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 What is the big deal if there is or isn't GW? Are we really that arrogant to think that things can be kept static forever? Yes, we are. It's a whole secular Victorian "we can control nature" attitude that was supposed to have died out, but really hasn't. Change is envitable. Seriously, now. What the !@#$? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Seriously, now. What the !@#$? :oops: Hey... I am "keeping it real"... Real ignorant I suppose... Just the ingnorant way that I talk! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whateverdude Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 (edited) “Increasing carbon dioxide in most of the models does show a weak positive response, but that signal is quite small compared to natural ups and downs,” she says. “It would be premature to say that a winter with a strong positive NAO/NAM would be entirely attributable to greenhouse gases.” My lihttp://www2.ucar.edu/staffnotes/news/3742/cycles-dipoles-and-oscillationsnk My lihttp://www.startribune.com/blogs/113847264.html?elr=KArks7PYDiaK7DUdcOy_nc:DKUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUoD3aPc:_27EQUnk Edited February 3, 2011 by whateverdude Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 There is only one absolute in this world. A new global warming thread on PPP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 There is only one absolute in this world. A new global warming thread on PPP. Climate change dammit!! It's climate change!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Climate change dammit!! It's climate change!! Oops I am out of touch. Just got back from Mercury and a it's called "warming" there. Apparently they have concerns gold will no longer be a solid. Of course I advised them to dump their gas guzzling trucks and buy electric cars. Solar panels are all the rage there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 What is the big deal if there is or isn't GW? Spoken like a person who doesn't care if we tax and spend billions upon billions of dollars regulating something and forcing companies to comply with some things strictly because of something that may or may not exist. Because, y'know, what's the big deal if it does or doesn't exist, right? It's just like a massive milk spill. Sure there's never been one, but we must be prepared beccause when milk spills, people die. THEY DIE!!! Yet another amazing swimmer who defied the odds. God only knows what would have come of the ones you beat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Al Gore in this case - because his view coincides with the accepted science. In the video, it seems like a lot of people, including nervous people in industry, are falling victim to confirmation bias. You believe Al Gore, but... That would suck for me if I were trying to prove anthropogenic global warming. you aren't trying to prove anthropogenic global warming? Al is. Do you only believe him when he's not trying to prove man-made global warming? At what time in the day does that occur? You want to subscribe to Al's religious views, but only if they don't try to prove man-made global warming? And you are the one who comes down on the irrationality of religion? Logic flaw #1. To my original point, my lack of knowledge on the subject does not mean there is not a perfectly reasonable explanation for this. Your lack of knowledge does not mean there is a reasonable explanation. It also doesn't mean that the "global warming cult"'s data is accurate. Basically, you lack of knowledge means nothing, to anyone, and has 0 bearing on anything. So how is this an argument? Logic flaw #2. Moreover, we aren't the ones putting forward a causal relationship as a certainty(man -> Global Warming). Al Gore, the person you have stated you "believe", is. Therefore it is not for us to prove a f'ing negative = man-made Global Warming doesn't exist. Rather, it is for you to prove that it does exist. Logic flaw #3. 3 strikes, you're out, again, Gene. When you are inevitably questioned, because that's what real scientists expect, you don't get to suddenly claim that we must take your answers on faith. That's religion, and you are supposed to hate that, right? Oops I am out of touch. Just got back from Mercury and a it's called "warming" there. Apparently they have concerns gold will no longer be a solid. Of course I advised them to dump their gas guzzling trucks and buy electric cars. Solar panels are all the rage there. A lot of people missed this "uh...it's also getting warmer on other planets too, retards" story. I think it got lost in the shuffle with the Climagate thing taking precedence. It is by far the more important story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts