So that's it for the election.

[Splorf22]

I just continue to find it so funny that you attack Daldoma for citing sources and then proceed with a massive appeal to authority with *gasp* blog citations from a . . . software developer. http://arthur.shumwaysmith.com/life/who Meanwhile your entire attack on Richard Lindzen is a giant ad hominem against someone who has done a lot more research than you ever will. Do you really not understand that the 'scientific consensus' means nothing compared to the reality of things?

Anyway, I read your Nature article. I can only say . . . HAHAHAHAHAHA. Let me see if I can explain to your mongoloid brain why those authors should be taken out and beaten with a hose. Google the name of the paper (its free to download) and skip down to 'methodology'. Then see if you can tell me with a straight face that a 3-layer neural network with 10 nodes and 12 input parameters can represent our Earth, the sun, its atmosphere, and so on. All of this stuff ends up being the same BS: when you train on data since 1850, both CO2 and temperature have increased. If you throw any statistical measure at this of course it will say they are correlated. Now, repeat after me: correlation is not causation!

Well, I've utterly destroyed all your links, so how about you say something about mine? I mean, other from your usual ad hominems. Flame away, just know that a good post has many ingredients, not just trolling.

[Splorf22]

Originally Posted by pasi [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

For the most part, people are (usually) knowledgeable about what they care about. The knowledge pool combined with our life expectancy sort of rules out the notion of being a renaissance man. For the most part, I think the consensus (I say consensus because you will always have people willing to champion an opposing viewpoint for the spotlight) among scientists in the field means that our knowledge base (although incomplete) is sufficient to act on this matter.

Oh I agree. An expert's opinion is a very useful thing, and a consensus of a group of experts is even more valuable. Unfortunately the science part of climate science has been corrupted by the government in the same way as economics as a way to justify their continued expansion of state power.

As I just posted I know basically how climate "science" works. And like economics, they are trying to make math and statistics do things that you just can't do. Is it better than rule of thumb estimation? Sure it is. But its not nearly accurate to spend trillions of dollars on.

[Alarti0001]

Originally Posted by Splorf22 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Considering that's precisely what I said, I'd say you're embarrassing yourself in RnF again . . .

Actually its not. Did you read what you wrote?

You put out conjecture, and claimed sources without linking and then talked about what you "believe". Poor kid

[Daldolma]

Originally Posted by Splorf22 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I am not saying that mankind doesn't impact the environment. In fact I think that global warming detracts from real environmental issues like preserving the rainforest and endangered species and such.

You think that my previous post represents my feelings because you are just as religious about global warming as Daldoma is about jesus, and you are demanding the same appeal to authority he is.

The reality is: the earth's atmosphere is a very complicated and chaotic system which is extremely difficult to model with mathematics and computers. We know it changes substantially on its own anyway, so the burden of proof is on the nuts (you) who want to fuck with the lives of millions of people. Anyway, since it appears you like links, how about:

http://www.nature.com/climate/2007/0...e.2007.22.html Go to figure 2 and note the width of the pink bar - its almost 50% of the size of the change! OK, you say, the pink bar is still going up. The reality is that the models are predicting the data on which they were trained (a huge no-no in classification) and they still have this kind of error. In other words: we don't know. Since its in Nature I'm sure you'll accept everything they say without questioning.

http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lind...0_TakingGr.pdf And here we have a discussion about troposphere warming and how the IPCC is lying through its teeth.

Geez, you were quick to throw me under the bus the second the same people started fucking with you. I'm not religious re: Jesus, I'm not even a Christian. I think Jesus was born to a mother that was exactly 0% virgin and impregnated by a man that was exactly 100% human. I simply trust the opinions of the vast majority of scholars when it comes to the historicity of Jesus, and I'm not interested in getting into the details with someone less qualified and less informed than those scholars -- especially seeing as how I am less informed than those scholars. Neither my nor Alawen's opinion on the matter is more valuable than the scholarly consensus, so him trying to convince me is utterly worthless. It's also ridiculous to entirely disregard scholarly consensus and make a statement like "there is no evidence to support the historicity of Jesus" like it's fact.

Anyway, you'll learn soon enough that you're not quite being trolled but the result is the same.

[Hasbinlulz]

Originally Posted by Splorf22 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

As I just posted I know basically how climate "science" works.

Yet you quote businesspeople fronting as scientists and think CO2 is the only harmful greenhouse gas (apparently).

[Hasbinlulz]

Originally Posted by Splorf22 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Anyway, I read your Nature article. I can only say . . . HAHAHAHAHAHA. Let me see if I can explain to your mongoloid brain why those authors should be taken out and beaten with a hose. Google the name of the paper (its free to download) and skip down to 'methodology'. Then see if you can tell me with a straight face that a 3-layer neural network with 10 nodes and 12 input parameters can represent our Earth, the sun, its atmosphere, and so on. All of this stuff ends up being the same BS: when you train on data since 1850, both CO2 and temperature have increased. If you throw any statistical measure at this of course it will say they are correlated. Now, repeat after me: correlation is not causation!

Yeah, except that a simulation only needs to be as complex as will produce consistent and predictive results, you fucking tool.

Read the last paragraph, and see if your fancy letters can help you ferret out the reason why this study is valid rather than invalidated by lack of infinite complexity, as you seem to desire:

Here we have shown that for global temperature the fundamental principle of conservation of energy, combined with knowledge about the evolution of radiative forcing, provides a complementary approach to attribution. Our results are strongly constrained by global observations and are robust when considering uncertainties in radiative forcing, the observed warming and in climate feedbacks. Each of the thousands of model simulations is a consistent realization of the ocean atmosphere energy balance. The resulting distribution of climate sensitivity (1.7–6.5 °C, 5–95%, mean 3.6 °C) is also consistent with independent evidence derived from palaeoclimate archives11. Using a more informative prior assumption does not significantly alter the conclusions (see Supplementary Information). Our results show that it is extremely likely that at least 74% (±12%, 1σ) of the observed warming since 1950 was caused by radiative forcings, and less than 26% (±12%) by unforced internal variability. Of the forced signal during that particular period, 102% (90–116%) is due to anthropogenic and 1% (−10 to 13%) due to natural forcing. The discrepancy between the total and the sum of the two contributions (14% on average) arises because the total ocean heat uptake is different from the sum of the responses to the individual forcings. Even for a reconstruction with high variability in total irradiance, solar forcing contributed only about 0.07 °C (0.03–0.13 °C) to the warming since 1950 (see Fig. 3c). The combination of those results with attribution studies based on optimal fingerprinting, with independent constraints on the magnitude of climate feedbacks, with process understanding, as well as palaeoclimate evidence leads to an even higher confidence about human influence dominating the observed temperature increase since pre-industrial times.

[huggies]

Originally Posted by Alarti0001 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

you are underestimating the power of really really stupid people.

hi i have a celebrity as my avatar , im a fucking wannabe and i love cock

thanks for the cock folks ill be here all week

[Loke]

HBB, we've always gotten along so don't take this the wrong way, but I just wanted to point out that 80% the posts on page 59 were from you with 5 of them being consecutive. Two of them quoted the same post followed by a one sentence reply. I don't think it is unreasonable to expect better than that from you in the future.

[Orruar]

It's kinda funny how this thread has covered pretty much every major topic of discussion and Altari has managed to be wrong on every single one.

[Orruar]

It would be pretty awesome if anthropogenic global warming is true. First, it would mean man is powerful enough to effect the climate. This is very good news in a world where a very serious volcanic event or meteor strike can cool the globe for decades. Second, it would likely increase the carrying capacity of earth, as it would open up vast areas of Canada and Russia for agriculture. Warmer periods in Earth's history were characterized by much more abundant life, with plants reaping many benefits from increased CO2 levels. We should hope we could move the Earth back in that direction again.

Any notion that Earth would turn into Venus or otherwise completely uninhabitable are not too serious. The vast difference in solar insolation and atmospheric density makes this highly unlikely. And if the warming began to threaten humanity, we already know many ways to cool the climate that would actually cost less than the pointless carbon taxes being proposed.