TH3 Posted February 21, 2014 Posted February 21, 2014 (edited) Weather is not climate. You are right...its cold out. Edited February 21, 2014 by baskin
3rdnlng Posted February 21, 2014 Posted February 21, 2014 Your right...its cold out. The content of your posts prove you an idiot. Why confirm it with your grammar?
TH3 Posted February 21, 2014 Posted February 21, 2014 Link? You are right (happy?)....you have caught up with me...I did not want to include the link because the thermometers reporting this information are apparently are not only part of a large left wing conspiracy but they are also inflating their numbers....if they weren't reporting higher and higher numbers the science community would think there is nothing to see and unplug them. The content of your posts prove you an idiot. Why confirm it with your grammar? Your aim on shooting the messenger is excellent!
TH3 Posted February 21, 2014 Posted February 21, 2014 Weather is not climate. The more I think about your statistical view you are spot on....its like baseball....I think the BBWA are completely misguided not to include Barry Bonds in the Hall of Fame...after all he says he never did steroids and looking at a single HR, game or parts of a season - or maybe even a whole season...one could not point to those specific results as the direct result of steroid use...after all he was always a good hitter....and the evidence of losing his hair (he is getting older), changing his physical shape (dude kills it in the gym), bulging brow (hey - he is a late bloomer) are anectdotal!
Joe Miner Posted February 21, 2014 Posted February 21, 2014 The more I think about your statistical view you are spot on....its like baseball....I think the BBWA are completely misguided not to include Barry Bonds in the Hall of Fame...after all he says he never did steroids and looking at a single HR, game or parts of a season - or maybe even a whole season...one could not point to those specific results as the direct result of steroid use...after all he was always a good hitter....and the evidence of losing his hair (he is getting older), changing his physical shape (dude kills it in the gym), bulging brow (hey - he is a late bloomer) are anectdotal! So apparently we're adding analogies to the list of things you don't understand.
3rdnlng Posted February 21, 2014 Posted February 21, 2014 Why is it that the libtards all refuse to provide their (supposed) sources?
TH3 Posted February 21, 2014 Posted February 21, 2014 (edited) Why is it that the libtards all refuse to provide their (supposed) sources? In the spirit of this board....Are you too stupid to even read the thread? Don't you understand that people post things and then UNDERNEATH that post there are others that may include links and other valuable comments information etc?!?! Here I will do it for you!! http://www.climate.g...ing-past-decade So apparently we're adding analogies to the list of things you don't understand. Zing!! So burned and put in my place Edited February 21, 2014 by baskin
TakeYouToTasker Posted February 21, 2014 Posted February 21, 2014 The more I think about your statistical view you are spot on....its like baseball....I think the BBWA are completely misguided not to include Barry Bonds in the Hall of Fame...after all he says he never did steroids and looking at a single HR, game or parts of a season - or maybe even a whole season...one could not point to those specific results as the direct result of steroid use...after all he was always a good hitter....and the evidence of losing his hair (he is getting older), changing his physical shape (dude kills it in the gym), bulging brow (hey - he is a late bloomer) are anectdotal! ... What the !@#$ is this ****?
DC Tom Posted February 21, 2014 Posted February 21, 2014 The more I think about your statistical view you are spot on....its like baseball....I think the BBWA are completely misguided not to include Barry Bonds in the Hall of Fame...after all he says he never did steroids and looking at a single HR, game or parts of a season - or maybe even a whole season...one could not point to those specific results as the direct result of steroid use...after all he was always a good hitter....and the evidence of losing his hair (he is getting older), changing his physical shape (dude kills it in the gym), bulging brow (hey - he is a late bloomer) are anectdotal! Barry Bonds is not climate, either. Seriously, what the !@#$? You though that made sense? What's in your head?
B-Man Posted February 21, 2014 Posted February 21, 2014 The Myth of ‘Settled Science’ :Computer models of climate change have been dead wrong, yet alarmists aim to quell debate. by Charles Krauthammer I repeat: I’m not a global-warming believer. I’m not a global-warming denier. I’ve long believed that it cannot be good for humanity to be spewing tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. I also believe that those scientists who pretend to know exactly what this will cause in 20, 30, or 50 years are white-coated propagandists. “The debate is settled,” asserted propagandist-in-chief Barack Obama in his latest State of the Union address. “Climate change is a fact.” Really? There is nothing more anti-scientific than the very idea that science is settled, static, impervious to challenge. Take a non-climate example. It was long assumed that mammograms help reduce breast cancer deaths. This fact was so settled that Obamacare requires every insurance plan to offer mammograms (for free, no less). Now we learn from a massive randomized study — 90,000 women followed for 25 years — that mammograms may have no effect on breast-cancer deaths. Indeed, one out of five of those diagnosed by mammogram receives unnecessary radiation, chemo, or surgery. So much for settledness. And climate is less well understood than breast cancer. If climate science is settled, why do its predictions keep changing? And how is it that the great physicist Freeman Dyson, who did some climate research in the late 1970s, thinks today’s climate-change Cassandras are hopelessly mistaken? More at the link:
DC Tom Posted February 21, 2014 Posted February 21, 2014 More at the link: The myth of settled science is: there is no such thing as settled science. ALL science is open to question or debate. If it's not...it's not science.
TH3 Posted February 21, 2014 Posted February 21, 2014 ... What the !@#$ is this ****? I am simply drawing up comparison for my feeble IQ to understand and compare to the intellectual and grammatical giants on this thread. DC Tom was positing that one month (Jan 2014) being the fourth warmest since 1880 was too small a sample to call climate - rather than weather. Now in spite of this month being at the end of - say - 500 months of continued warming - I had to dig deeper to understand his statistical humongousness. So to looked at a more easy to grasp - for me - example of sample size equating to statistical significance - and I found - after looking at baseball - he is probably quite right in this and all other things.
DC Tom Posted February 21, 2014 Posted February 21, 2014 I am simply drawing up comparison for my feeble IQ to understand and compare to the intellectual and grammatical giants on this thread. DC Tom was positing that one month (Jan 2014) being the fourth warmest since 1880 was too small a sample to call climate - rather than weather. Now in spite of this month being at the end of - say - 500 months of continued warming - I had to dig deeper to understand his statistical humongousness. So to looked at a more easy to grasp - for me - example of sample size equating to statistical significance - and I found - after looking at baseball - he is probably quite right in this and all other things. You're an idiot.
TH3 Posted February 21, 2014 Posted February 21, 2014 The myth of settled science is: there is no such thing as settled science. ALL science is open to question or debate. If it's not...it's not science. TOTALLY agree...because there is no such thing as settled science....I am still tracking such heated scientific debates such as whether the planets circle the sun or whether cigarettes cause cancer - they just don't show up on PPP - I can give you the links to those threads if you want to add your infallible intellectualness to those debates You're an idiot. I know....but then again...compared to you...who isn't? I am just one of the statistically insignificant....
3rdnlng Posted February 21, 2014 Posted February 21, 2014 In the spirit of this board....Are you too stupid to even read the thread? Don't you understand that people post things and then UNDERNEATH that post there are others that may include links and other valuable comments information etc?!?! Here I will do it for you!! http://www.climate.g...ing-past-decade Zing!! So burned and put in my place So, you can't provide a link to your original statement re January 2014 being the 4th hottest on record, but you call me stupid for not using someone else's link that doesn't back your contention up? You are out of your league here. Expect that to be pointed out to you..................often.
TakeYouToTasker Posted February 21, 2014 Posted February 21, 2014 I am simply drawing up comparison for my feeble IQ to understand and compare to the intellectual and grammatical giants on this thread. DC Tom was positing that one month (Jan 2014) being the fourth warmest since 1880 was too small a sample to call climate - rather than weather. Now in spite of this month being at the end of - say - 500 months of continued warming - I had to dig deeper to understand his statistical humongousness. So to looked at a more easy to grasp - for me - example of sample size equating to statistical significance - and I found - after looking at baseball - he is probably quite right in this and all other things. This is no better. Say what you're trying to say.
TH3 Posted February 21, 2014 Posted February 21, 2014 So, you can't provide a link to your original statement re January 2014 being the 4th hottest on record, but you call me stupid for not using someone else's link that doesn't back your contention up? You are out of your league here. Expect that to be pointed out to you..................often. I know I am SOOOOOOOO out of my league - seriously you need a link to believe my contention that Jan 2014 was the #4 ranked (just missed the bronze!)? http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/02/20/january-was-4th-warmest-5th-driest-on-record-noaa-finds So - Here you go - but beware US NEWS is a left wing rag known to spew slanted facts as part of a massive left wing conspiracy that is using a combination of iffy anecdotal evidence coupled with researchers trying to get funded multiplied by the crazy coincidence of man made green house gasses rising at the same time as global temperatures resulting in a historical transfer of wealth.
B-Man Posted February 21, 2014 Posted February 21, 2014 one more bit from Dr. Krauthammer's column posted earlier. after discussing how severe weather events have actually gone down in the past 30 years, not up as predicted. None of this is dispositive............................... It doesn’t settle the issue. But that’s the point. It mocks the very notion of settled science, which is nothing but a crude attempt to silence critics and delegitimize debate. As does the term “denier” — an echo of Holocaust denial, contemptibly suggesting the malevolent rejection of an established historical truth. Climate-change proponents have made their cause a matter of fealty and faith. For folks who pretend to be brave carriers of the scientific ethic, there’s more than a tinge of religion in their jeremiads. Enviros Target Children in “War on Humans” From my column: There should be no disagreement that children should not be taught to hate humanity in the cause of preventing a feared climate catastrophe. But that is precisely the anti-human message too often communicated to the young by global warming warriors.
TH3 Posted February 21, 2014 Posted February 21, 2014 This is no better. Say what you're trying to say. I am saying - Gosh - you guys are SOOOO smart here...I can't believe the world has not stumbled on to PPP and handed the keys to global management to you, DCTOM, 3rdning, Joe Miner and B-Man..... one more bit from Dr. Krauthammer's column posted earlier. after discussing how severe weather events have actually gone down in the past 30 years, not up as predicted. Enviros Target Children in “War on Humans” From my column: There should be no disagreement that children should not be taught to hate humanity in the cause of preventing a feared climate catastrophe. But that is precisely the anti-human message too often communicated to the young by global warming warriors. Yes - because Krauthammer and the National Review don't come with an agenda
TakeYouToTasker Posted February 21, 2014 Posted February 21, 2014 I am saying - Gosh - you guys are SOOOO smart here...I can't believe the world has not stumbled on to PPP and handed the keys to global management to you, DCTOM, 3rdning, Joe Miner and B-Man..... So, what you're saying is that you have nothing at all to say? Is that accurate, or are you quite done being obtuse?
Recommended Posts