Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Climate Change and Environmental Issues Thank God for GW

Who knew Ma was an engineer AND a stand-up?!

Ma, the problem with everything you say about global climate change (not "global warming") is that you do not understand it in the slightest.

All models for GCC include large variations in climate, including temperature and rain/snowfall. If you actually took the time to explore the subject you would see that record cold in Miami is exactly consistent with GCC.

Phil,
see MaR's posts in the taxes thread. He confirmed that the facts are irrelevant; its about contorting the argument so that his "side" wins it.

Well, there is "science" and then there are the faithful in science. Wherever there are the faithful, there will be hucksters who prey upon that faith. And where there are hucksters there will be opportunity by manipulators to put them to use for political purposes. So, we must endure the prattle of those followers who claim, "the science shows ..." whenever it is politically useful to their cause, or has been massaged into being politically useful. At some point the thinking person recognizes when they are being BS'd and begins to question the source and the filtering done prior to release for public consumption.
Yours,
Issodhos

Is this just rhetoric or do you have any proof to back this up? Specifically in relation to Nasas measurements of this year being the hottest on record (despite it being in a period of la nina and solar minimum?.

I understand them very well actually, I also understand the process that was taken and applied to the "science" to achieve the thesis that the end is nigh, unless we ruin our economy.

I was never very taken with the scientific path that the UN followed in their pursuit of their preferred outcome. It was based on selective sample locations and intimidation. The one part of the science that I couldn't really argue with, the hockey stick, was proven to be a fabrication of the "Climate Scientists" and their creative software engineers.

Yeah, I poke some fun at the "science", and the parens really do deserve to be around the term when talking about global warming, and Phil I really must insist on calling it what it was called when all of those world famous scientists climbed on board to advocate trials for deniers and firings for meterologists who disagreed. The emails have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the results of their experiments were manipulated to show a certain result. Data was excluded or manipulated to reinforce their desired results and keep the gravy train going. Sceintific review was cursory at best and that also was manipulated by having only sympathetic reviewers look at the data. Then, when proof was needed to back up their claims of imminent disaster, the data became conveniently lost.

The term of endearment is Global Warming, it was assigned by the UN and the "scientists" who advocated its existance. Changing course of their experiment by making it so inclusive that proof of existence is impossible, is not what science dictates as proof.

i repeat for you this time

'
I quite agree with you, Issodhos. You make very good points.

I just wish the global heating deniers would apply this cleansing scepticism when it comes to their own cherished political and economic hobby-horses!

And, of course, it would be helpful if they understood something about science, before they put it through the refining fire of their doubt!

Ever since the Scopes trial, science has been wrongfully used as a political tool, unfortunately, by those with agendas. I am an advocate of science because experiments performed can be performed by others for independent validation. That's the beauty of science.

Experiments either prove something to be true, or untrue by looking at the quantitative results.

One of the scientific principles holds that in order for something to be true, the experiment must be repeated independently and validated independently by others not associated with the original findings.

If the experiments and quantitative results are the same, then, it can be said that something is proven as to be true.

I have posted that before, maybe even in this thread. The emails, the ones that have been swept under the table, show that the software used to prove their theories was rigged to output the desired result. All other discussion is a waste of time.

When the basis of your experimentation is proven false, the rest of the experiment is also false. The basis of that proof, the hockey stick graph, has been proven to be fictious, the data used to create it has gone missing and the software used to compare results has been proven to be rigged.

I actually support the results of this quest, who can argue with clean water and air? I just cannot and do not and will not trust the organization who could produce such rubbish and claim it to be gospel. Why, next you will have one of those "scientists" claiming that glaciers will melt in the Himalayas.

Also, it is based out of the UN. Who could ever imagine bad science coming out of a bad organization? Who'd have thunk it?