Global warming.

[IncendiaryGunner]

You have been provided with data, yet completely fail to provide any that disproves the global war theory of climate change. Why is that?

Has it come down to character assassination of specific people in order to "disprove" a scientific theory? If I, as an individual, were to lie or misrepresent something, does it actually change the technical truth?

Sorry to burst your bubble, but that is not how science works...

I have provided evidence that disproves the global war theory... the fact that it does not correlate with temperature fluctuations.

The theory itself does not work, and is proven wrong by the data that I have already provided.

Your refusal to acknowledge your incorrect assumption does not make it a truth. We see quite a bit of this in the scientific world, which is why many people that have a very minor grasp of the scientific method, and those that study the data the least, make up the bulk of non-believers.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

You still can't answer the question posed?!

I'm beginning to suspect that you suspect that if you answer the question truthfully you will have to admit to yourself that your premise has flaws
and might be incorrect. As a scientist isn't your goal and duty to find the truth no matter how it might impact you personally? Is it that hard to admit
that there is ulterior motives at play here? Or do you think everyone involved is as pure as that driven snow if Antarctica?

You equate the possibility of the ulterior motives of one person with disproving an entire theory. This highlights your lack of understanding of the scientific method, and how the scientific community functions.

In science, we use empirical evidence to suggest things about our world. When people misrepresent the facts, other people are able to disprove their findings. This is how science progresses....

This is the mechanic the system is based on allowing science to march forward even if suspected individuals misrepresent data. Even when people don't misrepresent data, and are wrong - in time we slowly correct their errors and come closer to the truth. When people misrepresent data, the same thing happens - because scientific analysis is not done only once before the book is closed - it is repeated by multiple people attempting to pick out more external variables that were not accounted for as time marches forward.

If you cannot understand the simple basics of the scientific method and scientific progression, how many people do you think will respect your opinion on a topic as complex as climate change?

So you see, the flaws in the assertion your question makes have been specifically addressed, highlighting why said assertion is incorrect.... which is exactly why your question is flawed, and is a red herring...

 

[level.eleven]

WHY WAS MICHAEL MANN MANIPULATING DATA TO HIDE THE DECLINE?!?!

.

You are mixing up two different conspiracy theories. Hockey stick vs. Tree rings.

Will you read this?

Clearing up misconceptions regarding 'hide the decline'

Continue with your frantic google search. Again, read first. It is always the first step.

 

[Liberty1911]

I have provided evidence that disproves the global war theory... the fact that it does not correlate with temperature fluctuations.

The theory itself does not work, and is proven wrong by the data that I have already provided.

Your refusal to acknowledge your incorrect assumption does not make it a truth. We see quite a bit of this in the scientific world, which is why many people that have a very minor grasp of the scientific method, and those that study the data the least, make up the bulk of non-believers.

Yes, because by providing empirical evidence that supports my claim, I am dodging the topic.

But by refusing to provide any data that supports your claim, and holding up specific individuals in the past, you are right on the mark.

He has figured us out, the gig is up.

 

[printcraft]

You equate the possibility of the ulterior motives of one person with disproving an entire theory. This highlights your lack of understanding of the scientific method, and how the scientific community functions.

In science, we use empirical evidence to suggest things about our world. When people misrepresent the facts, other people are able to disprove their findings. This is how science progresses....

This is the fail safe in the system that allows science to march forward even if suspected individuals misrepresent data.

If you cannot understand the simple basics of the scientific method and scientific progression, how many people do you think will respect your opinion on a topic as complex as climate change?

Well, the other "scientists" were using the data provided by Mann and others to make up their own theories...... flawed from the get go.

Why again did they misrepresent the data..... what was to be gained from doing that?

It wasn't a mistake, it wasn't an oversight.... it was a purposeful manipulation.

How is anyone supposed to respect your opinion on a topic as complex as climate change if you won't admit that purposeful manipulation was taking place?

Maybe I'm asking the wrong question???
Do you believe it is sound scientific method to manipulate data to get the result you want?

......Again, read first......

Reading is hard.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

Yes, because by providing empirical evidence that supports my claim, I am dodging the topic.

But by refusing to provide any data that supports your claim, and holding up specific individuals in the past, you are right on the mark.

He has figured us out, the gig is up.

ROFL

But your assumption does not correlate with the actual time frame in global temperature rise.... Actually, your theory does not even specifically address a correlation with temperature rise, because you do not even attempt to quantify "war" with the actual increase, or create a basis for which we can validate your belief - you just claim it exists.

Your belief that you actually provided empirical evidence to support your claim is the joke.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

Well, the other "scientists" were using the data provided by Mann and others to make up their own theories...... flawed from the get go.

Why again did they misrepresent the data..... what was to be gained from doing that?

It wasn't a mistake, it wasn't an oversight.... it was a purposeful manipulation.

How is anyone supposed to respect your opinion on a topic as complex as climate change if you won't admit that purposeful manipulation was taking place?

Maybe I'm asking the wrong question???
Do you believe it is sound scientific method to manipulate data to get the result you want?

It is pretty obvious at this point that you will stubbornly refuse to look to science for the answer if that is the argument you are still clinging to....

Collected data from other individuals has validated current claims... science is not based off of the first guy that recorded something... this is not a complex facet of science, it is simply the basis of natural science as a whole...

 

[level.eleven]

It is pretty obvious at this point that you will stubbornly refuse to look to science for the answer if that is the argument you are still clinging to....

Collected data from other individuals has validated current claims... science is not based off of the first guy that recorded something... this is not a complex facet of science, it is simply the basis of natural science as a whole...

He isn't making an attempt to understand. He is just trolling. He doesn't read any of the literature. He doesn't even understand his own argument. Take solace in the fact that his ignorance will remain isolated to internet message boards. Science isn't for everyone.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

He isn't making an attempt to understand. He is just trolling. He doesn't read any of the literature. He doesn't even understand his own argument. Take solace in the fact that his ignorance will remain isolated to internet message boards.

Ya, but his trolling is the best part...

It specifically highlights the lack of understanding widespread throughout the climate change denial community.

His trolling makes a case of it's own.

 

[Liberty1911]

ROFL

But your assumption does not correlate with the actual time frame in global temperature rise.... Actually, your theory does not even specifically address a correlation with temperature rise, because you do not even attempt to quantify "war" with the actual increase, or create a basis for which we can validate your belief - you just claim it exists.

Your belief that you actually provided empirical evidence to support your claim is the joke.

It is pretty obvious at this point that you will stubbornly refuse to look to science for the answer if that is the argument you are still clinging to....

Collected data from other individuals has validated current claims... science is not based off of the first guy that recorded something... this is not a complex facet of science, it is simply the basis of natural science as a whole...

 

[Tnichols00]

Global warming is real! It has 100% been proven!

The earths temp has changed over time both up and down, and right now it is in a warming period.

Here is the kicker though. We started our warming cycle after the Ice Age, since the start of our warming cycle the increase has not changed. With that being said global warming is a real but it has nothing to do with humans and our actions.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

It is pretty obvious at this point that you will stubbornly refuse to look to science for the answer if that is the argument you are still clinging to....

Collected data from other individuals has validated current claims... science is not based off of the first guy that recorded something... this is not a complex facet of science, it is simply the basis of natural science as a whole...

Seems legit.

That is why climatologists worldwide agree with me - they ignore science.

LOL

 

[printcraft]

MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL!!!!!!
​

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laxyoaHOP1c[/ame]

 

[printcraft]

He isn't making an attempt to understand. He is just trolling. He doesn't read any of the literature. He doesn't even understand his own argument. Take solace in the fact that his ignorance will remain isolated to internet message boards. Science isn't for everyone.

I have kids and I teach at a community college......... bwahahahahahahahaahahahhhhhahhhahhhahha!!!!!!!!!

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

Global warming is real! It has 100% been proven!

The earths temp has changed over time both up and down, and right now it is in a warming period.

Here is the kicker though. We started our warming cycle after the Ice Age, since the start of our warming cycle the increase has not changed. With that being said global warming is a real but it has nothing to do with humans and our actions.

Actually, the opposite has been demonstrated.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/bl...k-that-humans-are-causing-global-warming-now/

And yet another...

Human impact and climate changes—synchronous events and a
causal link?
Bj.orn E. Berglund

To believe that humans have no impact on the rising temperatures would either imply that:
A) Increased frequnecies of CO2 do not lead to an increase in temperature
or
B) Man does not contribute to rising levels of CO2

 

[level.eleven]

I have kids and I teach at a community college......... bwahahahahahahahaahahahhhhhahhhahhhahha!!!!!!!!!

That sounds about right. You can't escape the old adage, you get what you pay for.

Do you read your lessons before assigning them to your students? After all, you still haven't read your own links.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

Printcraft is starting to remind me of the Piers Morgan interview I just watched a few minutes ago....

Maybe soon he will start calling us stupid and spitting.

 

[printcraft]

MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL!!!!!!
​

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laxyoaHOP1c[/ame]

 

[Tnichols00]

Actually, the opposite has been demonstrated.






To believe that humans have no impact on the rising temperatures would either imply that:
A) Increased frequnecies of CO2 do not lead to an increase in temperature
or
B) Man does not contribute to rising levels of CO2

Your graph only shows since 1900, that does not disprove anything. The rest of the article does not have much data from year to year.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL!!!!!!
​

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laxyoaHOP1c

Your thorough analysis of the empirical evidence you have provided, and the trends you have demonstrated, leads me to believe that your theory is without a doubt a universal technical fact.