Clinical trials, experiments all cost a **** load of money so data can be easily manipulated by whoever is backing them.
I remember way back when scientist said coconut oil is good for you so all the theaters put it in there popcorn....then later down the road scientist said it is bad for you so all the theaters stop using coconut oil....in todays time once again coconut oil is deemed good for you so go figure its easily manipulated.
I remember way back when scientist said coconut oil is good for you so all the theaters put it in there popcorn....then later down the road scientist said it is bad for you so all the theaters stop using coconut oil....in todays time once again coconut oil is deemed good for you so go figure its easily manipulated.
^ That's not necessarily manipulation and happens all the time as science self-corrects. I bet if we read the rather dry, boring academic papers some new aspect of XYZ is healthy/unhealthy. Then you get the media response of "ZOMG THE BEST" followed by "THIS WILL KILL YOU" then ultimately "SUPER HEALTH MEGA FOOD"
Refinement of models is obviously happening. Follow trends. Funny thing with climate models is that they haven't flip-flopped in the past 30-someodd years. Details, of course, but the big parts haven't flipped.
It's way less interesting when described in this way, but science is ultimately self correcting.
Refinement of models is obviously happening. Follow trends. Funny thing with climate models is that they haven't flip-flopped in the past 30-someodd years. Details, of course, but the big parts haven't flipped.
It's way less interesting when described in this way, but science is ultimately self correcting.
not to argue, but 'science' (as opposed to say, engineering) is often interpretational, and correctively, often occurs through further interpretation. Now, 2 plus 2 still equals 4, it's just that they rarely eat their own and exist simply in whatever 'state of the art' is most fitting at a recent time. Ergo, there's always a new theory, often picked up by various media (parochial or mainstream), to the annoyance of many. "oh.. so now what!" We're denied the hardness of 2+2 equaling 4, in any conclusive fashion. That alone should speak to the tenuous human-factor occurring. So even if global warming exists, the seawalls are still acting as seawalls. I guess what I find humorous is that 97% of a certain group of people hold a thesis advocating that we, as a people, must change our living habits (oh, they don't?), when ONE GUY identified that the mass of a body is capable of bending time, without ever having collected a single sample. I lived, this was my time.
Last edited:
Next time at the bar with a science "skeptic" ask..
"If the earth were this basketball..."
...hand's spread about 9 to 10 inches...
"...how thick is the layer of atmosphere that supports life? The layer that allows us to breathe? The layer where 99 percent of weather conditions take place?"
A depressing number of people have no idea. Whatsoever. An inch? Two? Three?
"1/8 of an inch." ... you tell them. They look bemused. Blinking idiocy. A relative whisker of space surrounding this basketball we live on. At 1/16 inch we run out of 75 percent of breathable air. That's about six miles up. That's a bicycle ride just for the hell of it!
On a short hop from Detroit's Metro to Chicago's O'hare, once you reach altitude you can make out the western coastline of Lake Michigan almost 300 miles away. You can clearly see the curvature of the earth. Picture this little planet, and the great lakes, from your seat! It's 2018. We're modern man. We have the unprecedented luxury of easily conceptualizing the globe in our mind's eye. How can that still be a choice not to?
Hell, I'm 57 years old. I remember this flight when Gary, Indiana was in full gaseous bloom. At six miles up. Near the end of our life sustaining layer of space. Gary was almost opaque! A gloomy green/brown penumbra about it.
This little planet. The hubris it takes to ignore our imprint.
A child ignores it in innocence. An adult ought to ignore it in shame.
"If the earth were this basketball..."
...hand's spread about 9 to 10 inches...
"...how thick is the layer of atmosphere that supports life? The layer that allows us to breathe? The layer where 99 percent of weather conditions take place?"
A depressing number of people have no idea. Whatsoever. An inch? Two? Three?
"1/8 of an inch." ... you tell them. They look bemused. Blinking idiocy. A relative whisker of space surrounding this basketball we live on. At 1/16 inch we run out of 75 percent of breathable air. That's about six miles up. That's a bicycle ride just for the hell of it!
On a short hop from Detroit's Metro to Chicago's O'hare, once you reach altitude you can make out the western coastline of Lake Michigan almost 300 miles away. You can clearly see the curvature of the earth. Picture this little planet, and the great lakes, from your seat! It's 2018. We're modern man. We have the unprecedented luxury of easily conceptualizing the globe in our mind's eye. How can that still be a choice not to?
Hell, I'm 57 years old. I remember this flight when Gary, Indiana was in full gaseous bloom. At six miles up. Near the end of our life sustaining layer of space. Gary was almost opaque! A gloomy green/brown penumbra about it.
This little planet. The hubris it takes to ignore our imprint.
A child ignores it in innocence. An adult ought to ignore it in shame.
The scientific method (google it) makes sure that the truth will be revealed in the long run.
Peer review and repetition are part of that process.
Cleaning up around here is not boring, it's annoying. Especially so because if the members bothered to read the rules before posting, I wouldn't be needed in this thread at all. Unfortunately that isn't the case.
But parts of it was looking slightly promising for a bit, and I allowed myself a tiny sliver of "hope".
Poor Cal, he came for the nice food thread, and got stuck with this.
It is very peculiar that some of the climate sceptics are actually quite clever, the problem is the sources they use for information are either not credible, or they rely on presenting the data in such a way you can perceive it has a different meaning.
I'm so disappointed in you Cal. Mugging people for a $20 donation. I reckon you could do much better. I'm sure you could get at least a few hundred dollars out of these people. Maybe a few thousand. I mean just look at all of the money that gets put into audio gear by these people and then look at them doing a disservice to the rules, there ought to be fines in place for these rule breakers.
Then lock them out until they pay a donation to the forum. Just imagine all that money being put towards resources like high speed server storage, uploading videos, gifs.
$100 - someone makes a thread which eventually veers into either religious topics or political topics.
$200 - someone makes a religious post.
$400 - someone makes a political statement.
$600 - someone makes a religious or political thread.
$1000 - someone makes an insulting post and/or threatens somebody else.
Just a suggestion. More of a joke really. Hope you are enjoying yourself Cal. Hope you helped out a lot of people.
I was not much of a skeptic beforehand but the bit of information that convinced me we were causing global warming is the Mauna Loa CO2 data set. You can clearly see the global economic downturns in the atmospheric CO2 levels. The link between human activity and greenhouse gas levels is established beyond any reasonable doubt.
As an aside, I heard one of the scientists who worked on the UN climate change report say that meat including transportation was only about 10% of the problem and (if I am recalling correctly) chicken was better for the environment than beef. Today I am going to do my part by killing a chicken and turning it into a delicious dumpling soup.
As an aside, I heard one of the scientists who worked on the UN climate change report say that meat including transportation was only about 10% of the problem and (if I am recalling correctly) chicken was better for the environment than beef. Today I am going to do my part by killing a chicken and turning it into a delicious dumpling soup.
You can argue about predictions all day until the day comes. As for the predictions made during the early days of global warming movement, that day has come. Time to look at the unaltered empirical data before arguing.
As mentioned by a forum member on another thread, "Printed history is important because it shows us the truth of the times and cannot be edited by wikipedia.", which is good point.
Here are some samples of printed history about the weather.
The Bulletin - Google News Archive Search
The Tuscaloosa News - Google News Archive Search
08 Jun 1935 - HEAT WAVE - Trove
28 Jan 1935 - IN GRIP OF DROUGHT - Trove
https://news.google.com/newspapers?...AAAAIBAJ&pg=6984,4041847&dq=china+flood&hl=en
https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/16978063
https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/35178367
The argument has been the rising level of CO2 and the global temperature. Graphs show that they don't match.
If that is the case, then you should have no problem coming up with peer reviewed studies in respectable scientific papers that CO2 is not a driving factor in climate change.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.