Philosophy Explorer wrote:
My point is that forecasting global climate trends is far more involved than doing local weather forecasts which the weather bureau does a lousy job at.
PhilX
WTF? I just explained it to you. AGAIN!!
Both involve water and air and clouds and temperature. Not so very different except their scale and sea ice with global warming.
Philosophy Explorer wrote:
My point is that forecasting global climate trends is far more involved than doing local weather forecasts which the weather bureau does a lousy job at.
PhilX
WTF? I just explained it to you. AGAIN!!
Both involve water and air and clouds and temperature. Not so very different except their scale and sea ice with global warming.
PhilX
You must be retarded. You 'learn' from conspiracy sites, yet you can't comprehend the simplest concept?
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
WTF? I just explained it to you. AGAIN!!
philosophy explorer wrote:
Both involve water and air and clouds and temperature. Not so very different except their scale and sea ice with global warming.
vegetarian taxidermy wrote:
You must be retarded. You 'learn' from conspiracy sites, yet you can't comprehend the simplest concept?
Then you must be an idiot. You're just being stubborn.
Philosophy Explorer wrote:
That's a secondary issue of minor importance.
PhilX
Why do YOU think that they use "Hussien"? And not Barach?
Couldn't care less. I'm concerned with what the Nobel prize-winning physicist said about global warming and another part of the article in relationship to that.
PhilX
You should care. What sort of a website is it that emphasises Obama in terms of an Islamic name (and one associated with a tyrant of Iraq) rather than use his given first name which is of Jewish origin.
Try and think it over,
The other thing you might want to try to be more discriminating with is linking web pages that just lift shit right out of Wiki, rather than as a result of genuine journalism.
hobbeschoice wrote:
You should care. What sort of a website is it that emphasises Obama in terms of an Islamic name (and one associated with a tyrant of Iraq) rather than use his given first name which is of Jewish origin.
Try and think it over,
philosophyexplorer wrote:
I've been called worse names over here. Are you disputing what the article says and can you prove that they are misquoting the physicist?
Philosophy Explorer wrote:
My point is that forecasting global climate trends is far more involved than doing local weather forecasts which the weather bureau does a lousy job at.
This statement is false as any kid with basic high school science could tell you.
Philosophy Explorer wrote:
My point is that forecasting global climate trends is far more involved than doing local weather forecasts which the weather bureau does a lousy job at.
This statement is false as any kid with basic high school science could tell you.
Forecasting the weather and making global climate projections are two entirely different sciences performed by people with completely different qualifications and skill sets. You're comparing apples and oranges. Furthermore valuing the opinion of a physicist in this debate over the opinions of those trained in the field is akin to consulting a gynaecologist for a toothache.
Obvious Leo wrote:Forecasting the weather and making global climate projections are two entirely different sciences performed by people with completely different qualifications and skill sets. You're comparing apples and oranges. Furthermore valuing the opinion of a physicist in this debate over the opinions of those trained in the field is akin to consulting a gynaecologist for a toothache.
Since you're saying it's based on opinion, then let me ask you this question. What would it take to get you to change your mind that:
1) There is global warming and
2) Assuming the global warming, that it'll lead to a rise in the sea level?
I also presume that you're relying on climatologists, the people who would have the qualifications and skill sets you mentioned for your opinion.
All scientific questions are a matter of opinion since all scientific data needs to be interpreted before it can be said to have any meaning. I value some opinions higher than others and this value judgement is made in proportion to the credentials of the scientist expressing the opinion and also in proportion to who's paying who. It's not rocket science, Phil. Anybody who denies the reality of climate science must be doing so for a reason other than a scientific one because such a consensus of opinion amongst experts being so close to unanimous is practically unheard of in science. On the other hand the fossil fuel industry spends hundreds of millions of dollars each year attempting to counter it but unsurprisingly they rely on people other than climate scientists to support their counter-arguments.
Obvious Leo wrote:All scientific questions are a matter of opinion since all scientific data needs to be interpreted before it can be said to have any meaning. I value some opinions higher than others and this value judgement is made in proportion to the credentials of the scientist expressing the opinion and also in proportion to who's paying who. It's not rocket science, Phil. Anybody who denies the reality of climate science must be doing so for a reason other than a scientific one because such a consensus of opinion amongst experts being so close to unanimous is practically unheard of in science. On the other hand the fossil fuel industry spends hundreds of millions of dollars each year attempting to counter it but unsurprisingly they rely on people other than climate scientists to support their counter-arguments.
Well said. The industry depends on conspiracytard nutters like PE to do its dirty work. I hope he lives somewhere near the coast.
Obvious Leo wrote:All scientific questions are a matter of opinion since all scientific data needs to be interpreted before it can be said to have any meaning. I value some opinions higher than others and this value judgement is made in proportion to the credentials of the scientist expressing the opinion and also in proportion to who's paying who. It's not rocket science, Phil. Anybody who denies the reality of climate science must be doing so for a reason other than a scientific one because such a consensus of opinion amongst experts being so close to unanimous is practically unheard of in science. On the other hand the fossil fuel industry spends hundreds of millions of dollars each year attempting to counter it but unsurprisingly they rely on people other than climate scientists to support their counter-arguments.
Well said. The industry depends on conspiracytard nutters like PE to do its dirty work. I hope he lives somewhere near the coast.
And we rely on tards like VT to raise stupid commentary. Where she lives (or does she?), she refuses to say.
