More undercover global warming pictures.

Gary and Mike get my vote too, well articulated!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
src said:
Partisanship: The belief that 100% proof is required to support a theory that you don't agree with.

The theory of Gravity is not 100% proven, but it is the basis of modern physics.
The theory of Electromagnetism isn't 100% proven, and there are still substantial open questions about how it really works, but it still enough to use in industry and science.

There is no 100%. There is just "This theory is best supported by the evidence we have and the experiments we have performed to date." Anything else isn't science, it's dogma.

Climate science is still science. It is still based upon testable theories, even if we don't yet have the ability to model systems large enough to provide perfect predictions of our world's ecosystem. You agreeing with it isn't necessary for it to work.

The fact that you insist on 100%, on perfect predictions, is exactly the reason that arguing with you about it is pointless.
Click to expand...

For all the babbling about science, what science do you have? Where did you get that science if you do? GW/CC is a near perfect humanity control doctrine. The only truly accurate temperature data we have is from the satellites that have been in use since 1979, before then earthbound sensors have been found to be old technology, some even read by human eyes or in areas that once were remote and forested that are now near urbanization such as HVAC systems and paved parking lots. Even older temperature data is extrapolated from tree ring growth patterns. The truth is we weak little humans don't know a lot about the planet we claim.

Using that kind of data in a "climate model" that purports to be "accurate" is a fools errand and they are frequently shown up but the major compliant media has been sold and they have no curiosity nor will to actually investigate GW/CC, so most folks do not see it.

SRC, since you are taking on the part of true believer, what steps are you personally taking to save the world as we know it? Or are you just one of those that wants the government to make us all do what you believe? It is the height of human arrogance to think we can actually affect the earth that much.

MM
 
Last year I seen a article in a magazine I believe it was Time about how during the seventies scientists were predicting the next ice age. Since that was a little before my time I was wondering for those of you that lived through it what was the reaction from government, media, and the public. Was it something that was disproved through science or did the issue just go away when weather patterns changed?

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk
 
torch318 said:
Last year I seen a article in a magazine I believe it was Time about how during the seventies scientists were predicting the next ice age. Since that was a little before my time I was wondering for those of you that lived through it what was the reaction from government, media, and the public. Was it something that was disproved through science or did the issue just go away when weather patterns changed?
Click to expand...

It is what they taught in science class. I remember it. But it was in the light of "the earth's climate has always been changing and this is probably the cycle coming up." Nothing was taught, that I remember, about it being caused by mankind.

And that's the difference today. Every time one turns on a TV or looks up news, there is this group of people that just want us to feel awful because we were born. Everything is our fault. Want to throw a steak on the grill and have a cold beer? OH NO!!! Cows farted, red meat will kill you, you are hurting animals, blood alcohol over .00002%, the ponds you dig to water them causes pollution, your heart attack is the government's problem, and on and on. Geez... I'm sorry I'm alive. Now we have it when a hurricane hits, it's because I'm alive. And we call it "science"? really? Between the FDA, EPA, FDIC, IRS, and SEC, I'm pretty sure I broke some law today when I took a poop and wiped my butt. And I feel guilty I pooped. I'm sure by the time it's treated and dumped in the river, it'll still have Lipitor in it and kill a fish due to liver problems.

What we should be worried about is someone stealing Boeing 777s and turning them into $250 million cruise missiles with nukes on them. That'll crap up the planet in a hurry.
 
Last edited:
SRC,
You have missed my point but I’ll address your reply further down in this post.

The point was that a theory is an idea or thought about something and a hypothesis is the assumption of validity due to testing and analysis.

My FACT that 100% of scientific investigation has not proven the theory of climate change is 100% true. Otherwise there would be no ongoing debate among scientists. There is no debate over the theory of gravity because everyone that falls, falls towards the earth 100% of the time unless an opposing influencer is in play. The hypothesis can be duplicated 100% of the time.

Electromagnetism can also be duplicated 100% of the time. We call the components that use this force magnetic actuators or pulse with modulating valves. If electromagnetism were not 100% validated then no industry would use these components to operate systems.

The FACT that governments are regulating industry on unsubstantiated climate data is also 100% true.

I know you want to get off into some heady, non-tangible, I can’t see feel or touch it so it aint 100% true discussion but not going into the abstract with this.
BTW not only did I pass all my biology and chemistry courses in school, I went on to teach them.
 
Last edited:
torch318 said:
Last year I seen a article in a magazine I believe it was Time about how during the seventies scientists were predicting the next ice age. Since that was a little before my time I was wondering for those of you that lived through it what was the reaction from government, media, and the public. Was it something that was disproved through science or did the issue just go away when weather patterns changed?

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

The issue just quietly morphed into the warming industry that bedevils us today. Check out these links to see how it was.

http://www.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsroom/2014/01/Newsweek cooling.jpg

http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/02/the-1970s-global-cooling-alarmism.html

http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/sep/19/inside-the-beltway-69748548/

It was always about control...

MM
 
Air O'Nautical said:
Well in our ongoing effort to find the truth.
I just checked a little South of Siberia and there is some bare ground visible.
Maybe global warming IS true....


e3019982e653d3a68e1380cdf78abf4a_zpse4f5078b.jpg


Its amazing the resources CSR will provide to get to the bottom of things.

;)
Click to expand...

Mark, great picture. Being caught up in the GW/CC discussion I had not had a chance to thank you for your contribution to the thread.
Any pilots flying over any of our waters are welcome to post here. Keep us up to date on conditions.
 
I like looking back at the old articles - Thanks! I agree with the fact that there is no 100% proof either way other than the fact that many are making good money with this controversy. From what I see these temperature studies can support either side. The plus/minus tolerance of temperature readings is probably higher than the claimed temperature changes themselves. Regardless of where it goes I'm sure we will adapt so for us it's enjoy what we get. Right now I'm loving the cold, snow and ice with our winter carbon pumps.

Here is a photo from the North side of Grand Island looking out toward the deepest part of Lake Superior. The line along the shoreline ice ridge is a snowmobile track.

1798975_404162323052930_1969272811_o.jpg
 
Four Suns, looks like we have both clearly exposed our personal bias.

Mine is that, even though every discipline and profession contains some members who are self-serving and corrupt, in the end the process of scientific exploration and peer review will win out when it comes to explaining what is happening.

Your bias, clearly stated, is that the field of climate science is (almost) entirely populated by self-serving, corrupt and nefarious people, who all work together as a cabal to get all the money they can by falsifying research.

I guess in about 30 years one of us will owe the other a beer.

OldSkool, you have the definitions of Theory and Hypothesis exactly backwards. Kind of undermines your point, and it might be handy to get them right in any future discussions you get into. My point about Gravity and Electromagnetism isn't whether or not they "work", but that we still don't fully understand the phenomena behind them. I clearly stated that they "work", so that's a moot point. But there are still undefined areas in the "how" and "why" that they are still working on. So, they work, but we don't have 100% explanations why. 100% is a great goal, but it isn't necessary to the process.
 
src said:
Your bias, clearly stated, is that the field of climate science is (almost) entirely populated by self-serving, corrupt and nefarious people, who all work together as a cabal to get all the money they can by falsifying research.
Click to expand...

I actually don't think they are that smart. I think any field of research is "self-serving." You added the corrupt and nefarious. Not me. So don't twist my words into "he's claiming a grand conspiracy." Next thing you'll do is call me a racist because I am not on board with the sky is falling outcries. If private industry provides funding for research, people scream it is self-serving to the corporation doing it. If government provides funding, some people (i.e. you) think people have no bias. You are just wrong.

The problem is the culture in the whole industry of government-funded research is very incestuous IMO. Peer review does not uncover the cherry picking of data to conform to a "publish or perish" mentality that has bias towards an outcome based on political (or private) motives of those providing the funding. I believe many of these "climate" researchers go home at night and truly believe in what they are doing. That is the sad part. 99.9% of them never see how data is accepted or rejected.

lemmings2_zps0e11edd3.jpg


Rule #1 in grant writing is know who is signing off on the grant and make sure your proposal aligns with their beliefs. Look up their research papers, etc. Conform and stroke them in the proposal and you'll get your grant. Make them famous. Cite his papers. Help him get his GS-15 or SES grade. You think the dude sitting in a government lab (NOAA, NASA, NSF, etc.) is going to dole out money to a university if their proposal to a grant is counter to their "research" and beliefs? Hello? Also, everyone knows everyone in a field and wants to get inducted into the professional societies as a "fellow" and have their papers cited in other papers the most, etc. You have to be self-serving to make it to the top and not upset the "group think." You have any idea how valuable it is to a government researcher's resume to say 5 universities agree with him? You know how valuable it is for a university to get a government grant? AND... they don't even give grants to the smartest/brightest anymore. They give them based on political distributions, poverty, etc.. (see NY Times article below). Been there... done that.

I now work in the medical field. It is just as bad with the government funded stuff I've been exposed to. The whole basic concept of a product we are now taking through the FDA process was supposedly developed with multiple millions of dollars of National Institute of Health (NIH) grants. As we dug into it, we found the data was cherry picked and essentially the close out reports submitted to the NIH where falsified. I don't know... I think people should go to jail over that. We spent private equity money redoing all the research, developing a product, collecting in vivo data with everything conforming to the government's own rules on research and data integrity. What is crazy is that research conducted by government labs is exempt from their own rules? It's nuts. Verification and validation is for "other people" that can't be trusted. Those not inspired by the pureness of government funding.

In Medical, the government has cracked down so hard now on private industry that if a medical doctor, PhD, or other scientist gets private funding, they have to disclose it nine-ways-to-Sunday and it is essentially discounted. I'm not sure why that doesn't apply to government funding or other areas like "Climate Science".

So... I don't know where your "bias" comes from... I do know where mine comes from and it's not because it's republican or democrat (crap has been going on in many government funded fields for 50 years). My views (what you call "bias") has come from 30 years of direct professional experience. You can try and discount me all you want but we can start putting links to each of our research papers up here. I don't really care what people "believe in." It's their choice. I just don't want an uneducated, inexperienced, pot-smoking lemming cramming anything down my throat they don't know jack about (I don't really know who jack is either). I did find it interesting that when I asked you your background, you came out guns-a-blazing in attack mode. If you don't smoke, you should. The system doing this to us may not be "in your face corrupt" but it is the definition of "conflict of interest" and I sure as hell don't want fiscal decisions made based on it.

Great article: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/16/s...as-are-privatizing-american-science.html?_r=0

Don't read it like the editor is "correct."

Oh yeah... enjoy that foot of snow you got last night in Richmond here on March 17.
 
Last edited:
src said:
Four Suns, looks like we have both clearly exposed our personal bias.

Mine is that, even though every discipline and profession contains some members who are self-serving and corrupt, in the end the process of scientific exploration and peer review will win out when it comes to explaining what is happening.

Your bias, clearly stated, is that the field of climate science is (almost) entirely populated by self-serving, corrupt and nefarious people, who all work together as a cabal to get all the money they can by falsifying research.

I guess in about 30 years one of us will owe the other a beer.

OldSkool, you have the definitions of Theory and Hypothesis exactly backwards. Kind of undermines your point, and it might be handy to get them right in any future discussions you get into. My point about Gravity and Electromagnetism isn't whether or not they "work", but that we still don't fully understand the phenomena behind them. I clearly stated that they "work", so that's a moot point. But there are still undefined areas in the "how" and "why" that they are still working on. So, they work, but we don't have 100% explanations why. 100% is a great goal, but it isn't necessary to the process.
Click to expand...

Someone call Microsoft Word and let them know SRC found them to be incorrect. Oh and Websters too not to mention every credible science dictionary printed.


theory.jpg
 
Last edited:
. I don't really care what people "believe in." It's their choice. I just don't want an uneducated, inexperienced, pot-smoking lemming cramming anything down my throat they don't know jack about (I don't really know who jack is either). I did find it interesting that when I asked you your background, you came out guns-a-blazing in attack mode. If you don't smoke, you should.

Great article: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/16/s...as-are-privatizing-american-science.html?_r=0

Don't read it like the editor is "correct."

Oh yeah... enjoy that foot of snow you got last night in Richmond here on March 17.[/QUOTE]

For some time many of us have wondered just who is Jack Schitt? We find ourselves at a loss when someone says, "You don't know Jack Schitt!" Well, thanks to my genealogy efforts, you can now respond in an intellectual way. Jack Schitt is the only son of Awe Schitt.
Awe Schitt, the fertilizer magnate, married Miss O. Needeep They had one son, Jack.
In turn, Jack Schitt married Noe Schitt. The deeply religious couple produced six children: Holie Schitt, Giva Schitt, Fulla Schitt, Bull Schitt, and the twins Deap Schitt and Dip Schitt.
Against her parents' objections, Deap Schitt married her cousin Dumb Schitt, a high school dropout. After being married 15 years, Jack and Noe Schitt divorced.
Noe Schitt later married Ted Sherlock, and, because her kids were living with them, she wanted to keep her previous name. She was then known as Noe Schitt Sherlock.
Meanwhile, Dip Schitt married Loda Schitt, and they produced a son with a rather nervous disposition named Chick N. Schitt.
Two of the other six children, Fulla Schitt and Giva Schitt, were inseparable throughout childhood and subsequently married the Happens brothers in a dual ceremony.
The wedding announcement in the newspaper announced the Schitt-Happens nuptials.
The Schitt-Happens children were Dawg, Byrd, and Hoarse. Bull Schitt, the prodigal son, left home to tour the world. He recently returned from Italy with his new Italian bride, Pisa Schitt.
Now when someone says, "You don't know Jack Schitt," you can correct them.
 
Thanks for the Schitt ancestry searsb. Did you know that the last Schitt's reunion was such a success that the venue they chose sent an appreciation letter back to Jack stating that having the Schitts was an honor?
 
Gofirstclass said:
I'm not stating my position on this yet but just wanted to say I'm enjoying the heck out of this thread.
Click to expand...

It's amazing how these take on a life of their own.
I do appreciate all the feed back. I don't think I've seen this many posts from Gary in quite sometime. Great info as far as I'm concerned.
The one thing I wish folks would do is post research information instead of open ended comments. Gary has been point blank and offered much to support his position.
My feed back is in the way of word usage. You may wish to go to battle over what theory and hypothesis mean however that does not dimension or support the point that GW/CC is BS.

Most who can not support their position on GW/CC will use semantics and generalizations to divert away from the real topic at hand.
After 57 posts, except for sloburns link, there is still no supporting evidence offered for GW/CC.
 
Last edited:
OldSkool said:
After 57 posts, except for sloburns link, there is still no supporting evidence offered for GW/CC.
Click to expand...

Nor have the believers shared the steps they have taken to save the planet. If one truly believes this and they do nothing personal to save their families future they are despicable. If one talks the talk, they must walk the walk to be credible.

...And one caveat, activism and forcing others to do as you wish is NOT doing something personal, something personal means personal sacrifice.

MM
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
113,193
Messages
1,428,281
Members
61,104
Latest member
Three Amigos
Back
Top