Philosophy Now Forum

thedoc wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: I don't have 'heroes'. The rest is too silly to respond to.

Perhaps this will help the silliness? Even sillier, you might learn something.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_cycle

This doesn't sound too good. 2nd to the last section in the article you cite.

The hydrodynamic wind within the upper portion of a planet's atmosphere allows light chemical elements such as Hydrogen to move up to the exobase, the lower limit of the exosphere, where the gases can then reach escape velocity, entering outer space without impacting other particles of gas. This type of gas loss from a planet into space is known as planetary wind.[25] Planets with hot lower atmospheres could result in humid upper atmospheres that accelerate the loss of hydrogen

From the article

"These large-scale patterns are present in nearly all of the climate model simulations conducted at several international research centers as part of the 4th Assessment of the IPCC."

Give a good statistician the raw data, and he can prove anything you want. The results are governed by the goals. Simulations are much like statistics, what you get out depends on what you put in, and that depends on what you want to prove. If you want to prove that things are going to get bad, you adjust the input to get a bad result.

Gary Childress wrote:

thedoc wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: I don't have 'heroes'. The rest is too silly to respond to.

Perhaps this will help the silliness? Even sillier, you might learn something.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_cycle

This doesn't sound too good. 2nd to the last section in the article you cite.

The hydrodynamic wind within the upper portion of a planet's atmosphere allows light chemical elements such as Hydrogen to move up to the exobase, the lower limit of the exosphere, where the gases can then reach escape velocity, entering outer space without impacting other particles of gas. This type of gas loss from a planet into space is known as planetary wind.[25] Planets with hot lower atmospheres could result in humid upper atmospheres that accelerate the loss of hydrogen

I noticed that it didn't give any amounts and it didn't state how much hydrogen the Earth was receiving from outer space, is there a net loss or gain? Not stated by the fear-mongers.

thedoc wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

thedoc wrote: BTW, is Al Gore your hero?

I don't have 'heroes'.

Odd, your fear-mongering sounds just like his.

http://www.gracelinks.org/2380/the-impa ... -resources

Give a good statistician the raw data, and he can prove anything you want.

Not to the satisfaction of her peers, she can't. Do you have any evidence that the statistics are being falsified? Because without good grounds, your attack on the integrity of these climate scientists is dishonest wishful-thinking, thedoc.

mickthinks wrote:Give a good statistician the raw data, and he can prove anything you want.

Not to the satisfaction of her peers, she can't. Do you have any evidence that the statistics are being falsified? Because without good grounds, your attack on the integrity of these climate scientists is dishonest wishful-thinking, thedoc.

'Climate science' is an oxymoron, and all 'climate scientists' are frauds.

mickthinks wrote:Give a good statistician the raw data, and he can prove anything you want.

Not to the satisfaction of her peers, she can't. Do you have any evidence that the statistics are being falsified? Because without good grounds, your attack on the integrity of these climate scientists is dishonest wishful-thinking, thedoc.

The archeology that I have seen has reported that ancient climates are usually 'warm and wet' or 'cold and dry', to propose, as the models do, a future of 'warm and dry' contradicts history and probably reality.

Melchior wrote:

mickthinks wrote:Give a good statistician the raw data, and he can prove anything you want.

Not to the satisfaction of her peers, she can't. Do you have any evidence that the statistics are being falsified? Because without good grounds, your attack on the integrity of these climate scientists is dishonest wishful-thinking, thedoc.

'Climate science' is an oxymoron, and all 'climate scientists' are frauds.

Given that non sequitur we can only assume we can take the O2 out of the equation leaving just what you are.

Come on please, we can all just state an opinion, back it up or the nigga get's it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjPBp6DOwgU

Climate deniers are cool, they show us just how science doesn't work, by watching Fox using one liners to say nothing at all, what they need is a good old Nigga work song. I wouldn't go so far as to say they are wrong, but they clearly are not even wrong.


I personally think climate science is in it's infancy, but what it has show is worth listening to. I personally believe 99.9% of climate deniers are just running with the infancy thing. Vivre le .01% who are doing science though and actually deny AGW by knowing what the hell they are talking about.

mickthinks wrote:Give a good statistician the raw data, and he can prove anything you want.

Not to the satisfaction of her peers, she can't. Do you have any evidence that the statistics are being falsified? Because without good grounds, your attack on the integrity of these climate scientists is dishonest wishful-thinking, thedoc.

It's more like, to the satisfaction of those who write her paycheck. The data that the statistics are based on are probably not being falsified, it's just that the data is being selected to yield the desired results. That is standard procedure in any statistical process. If you don't understand that, you don't understand how statistics are generated in the first place. FYI, I am not attacking climate scientists, I am attacking the politicians who use these manipulated results in their fear-mongering on the general, uninformed public.

TWIMC, I do not deny that the climate is getting warmer. I do not deny that human activity may be a factor in that warming, how much of a factor is debatable. What I disagree with is the claims that global warming will be the disaster that some are claiming. I, for one, would welcome warmer winters with little or no snow on the roads.

thedoc wrote:TWIMC, I do not deny that the climate is getting warmer. I do not deny that human activity may be a factor in that warming, how much of a factor is debatable. What I disagree with is the claims that global warming will be the disaster that some are claiming. I, for one, would welcome warmer winters with little or no snow on the roads.

OMG.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

thedoc wrote:TWIMC, I do not deny that the climate is getting warmer. I do not deny that human activity may be a factor in that warming, how much of a factor is debatable. What I disagree with is the claims that global warming will be the disaster that some are claiming. I, for one, would welcome warmer winters with little or no snow on the roads.

OMG.

Are you trying to imply that there is something wrong with "Warmer and Wetter" and more of everything? The published climate models are for the politicians to use to scare the general public into reelecting them so they can continue to do nothing. Then when the global climate turns out not to be a disaster, they will take credit for that too.