/dev/null Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...id=aIe9swvOqwIY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 This and reusing the September data as October data, makes you think how many other errors are accepted as fact in Manbearpig's religion. I have been jousting with creationists on a political board and the global warmers sound a lot like like the creationists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted February 21, 2009 Author Share Posted February 21, 2009 This and reusing the September data as October data, makes you think how many other errors are accepted as fact in Manbearpig's religion. But but but it's it's it's it's, a uhm, like a scientific consensus or something. The debate is over, right? I have been jousting with creationists on a political board and the global warmers sound a lot like like the creationists. Creationsists are no different than Global Warmers, they just follow whatever the leader of the cult decrees his sheeple should do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slothrop Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 How about reading the entire article: The extent of Arctic sea ice is seen as a key measure of how rising temperatures are affecting the Earth. The cap retreated in 2007 to its lowest extent ever and last year posted its second- lowest annual minimum at the end of the yearly melt season. The recent error doesn’t change findings that Arctic ice is retreating, the NSIDC said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfish Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 How about reading the entire article: Give him a break, he was too busy coming up with a "clever" thread title to actually read the article that he linked to! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 How about reading the entire article: How about because they're absolutely no different than the people on the "Pro-Global Warming" side of the argument in how they prove their points? No get back to pretending the "Hockey Stick Graph" wasn't a total farce like the good little believer you are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 The extent of Arctic sea ice is seen as a key measure of how rising temperatures are affecting the Earth. The cap retreated in 2007 to its lowest extent ever and last year posted its second- lowest annual minimum at the end of the yearly melt season. The recent error doesn’t change findings that Arctic ice is retreating, the NSIDC said. The center said real-time data on sea ice is always less reliable than archived numbers because full checks haven’t yet been carried out. Historical data is checked across other sources, it said. The NSIDC uses Department of Defense satellites to obtain its Arctic sea ice data rather than more accurate National Aeronautics and Space Administration equipment. That’s because the defense satellites have a longer period of historical data, enabling scientists to draw conclusions about long-term ice melt, the center said. In other words, this false real-time data has no bearing on the data (satellite images) used to draw long-term conclusions. Nor does it have ANY affect on the average temperature of the Earth, which scientists say is increasing (see Global Warming). “There is a balance between being as accurate as possible at any given moment and being as consistent as possible through long time-periods,” NSIDC said. “Our main scientific focus is on the long-term changes in Arctic sea ice.” Translated: the best thing about science is that it is completely objective. Data is analyzed and conclusions and theories are adjusted as a result. Scientists, unlike TBD posters, are happy when proven wrong. Such is the scientific method. Scientists are flip-floppers. Opinion based outside of the latest scientific data and understanding smacks much more of religion than acceptance of Global Warming Theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 Who is this manbearpig I have been reading about and does he know about lions, tigers and Ditka? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 Who is this manbearpig I have been reading about and does he know about lions, tigers and Ditka? It was a South Park episode equating Global Warming to a creature (ManBearPig) dreamed up by Al Gore. Half man, half bear, half...well you get the idea. It's now a rallying cry for anyone on PPP who happens to think Global Warming or at least Man-Made Global Warming (DC Tom) is a vast conspiracy perpetrated by the Liberals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 Once again South Park being right on target. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 Once again South Park being right on target. South Park is great and usually right on target, but probably not in this case. At the time it was appropriate as everyone was jumping on the wagon for no good reason. Since then, there has been a scientific consensus and nearly all serious climate scientists agree that man-made global warming is real. I can see why anti-motherment anti-hippy conservatives want to fight against the idea. Sometimes reality doesn't line up with what you want to believe. The best argument I've seen is the 'assume that it's real' argument. All of the things we would do to combat ManBearPig are good for our country anyway. We reduce our dependence on foreign oil, put less crap into the air we breath, clean up the environment, etc... I guess you can disagree with the scientists for whatever reason you want, but IMHO we should be doing these things anyway. I happen to agree that the Earth is warming and we are causing it and poking fun of it or finding silly arguments against it will never change what is really happening - just make you feel falsely superior to the eggheads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC-Bills Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 Translated: the best thing about science is that it is completely objective. Data is analyzed and conclusions and theories are adjusted as a result. Scientists, unlike TBD posters, are happy when proven wrong. Such is the scientific method. Scientists are flip-floppers. You really have no clue as to what you are talking about with this statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 You really have no clue as to what you are talking about with this statement. Well, now that you put it that way I have no choice but to completely agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 Scientists, unlike TBD posters, are happy when proven wrong. Such is the scientific method. Scientists are flip-floppers. Wow. You really have no clue. I've known a HELL of a lot of researchers, and I promise you...none of them are happy to be proven wrong. Jobs - and more importantly, research funding - are lost for being wrong, and that's secondary to the egos most of them have. You have never seen vitriol like two researchers fighting, each insisting the other has his head up his ass. It can actually get kind of funny, in the "I can't believe you guys are arguing about whether a graph curves up or down" sense. Science is shockingly ego-driven. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 Wow. You really have no clue. I've known a HELL of a lot of researchers, and I promise you...none of them are happy to be proven wrong. Jobs - and more importantly, research funding - are lost for being wrong, and that's secondary to the egos most of them have. You have never seen vitriol like two researchers fighting, each insisting the other has his head up his ass. It can actually get kind of funny, in the "I can't believe you guys are arguing about whether a graph curves up or down" sense. Science is shockingly ego-driven. Maybe happy is too strong a word. Do they skew their data and findings to meet with what they want it to say? If so, they're not doing good science. Even if they do, it's not reproducible and they'll eventually be found out and marginalized. The point is, in the end, science and the scientific method lie in a system that is almost guaranteed to be completely objective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 Maybe happy is too strong a word. Do they skew their data and findings to meet with what they want it to say? If so, they're not doing good science. Even if they do, it's not reproducible and they'll eventually be found out and marginalized. The point is, in the end, science and the scientific method lie in a system that is almost guaranteed to be completely objective. Yes, actually, they do. The data is objective, but often ambiguous, and the interpretation is not. The scientific method, over the long-term (i.e. longer than a lifetime), works pretty well. In the short term, science is as ego-driven as anything else. Even organizations that are supposed to force scientific objectivity typically do exactly the opposite - do you think the IPCC has any interest at all in inviting honest questions and research against global warming, or do they have a vested interest in continuing to prove it exists? Do you trust the FDA to honestly evaluate drug research and trials, or do people at the FDA have a direct personal interest in the successes of the drug companies? Science is a massively unobjective process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 Yes, actually, they do. The data is objective, but often ambiguous, and the interpretation is not. The scientific method, over the long-term (i.e. longer than a lifetime), works pretty well. In the short term, science is as ego-driven as anything else. Even organizations that are supposed to force scientific objectivity typically do exactly the opposite - do you think the IPCC has any interest at all in inviting honest questions and research against global warming, or do they have a vested interest in continuing to prove it exists? Do you trust the FDA to honestly evaluate drug research and trials, or do people at the FDA have a direct personal interest in the successes of the drug companies? Science is a massively unobjective process. Translation for you, Gene: You don't know what the hell you're talking about so do everyone a favor and STFU. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 Gee, would a corporate exec ever cover up the real #s to prop up his stock price? Naah. Gee, would a governor actually try to auction off a vacant Senate seat? Naah. Gee, would the best player in baseball use steroids to try to be even better? Naah. Why do people think scientists are some kind of special, robots-like beings rather than humans with all the trapping and failings and motivations that the rest of us have? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 Scientists are willing to accept they are wrong? :thumbsup: Go home and tell your wife she's wrong, and you'll get the same response as telling any scientist that he/she is wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 Translation for you, Gene: You don't know what the hell you're talking about so do everyone a favor and STFU. Thanks for that gem, tough guy! You are one hell of a moderator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts