WE NEED YOUR HELP! Please donate to keep ReaderRant online to serve political discussion and its members. (Blue Ridge Photography pays the bills for RR).
Current Topics
Trump 2.0
by Irked - 03/17/25 12:09 PM
2024 Election Forum
by jgw - 03/16/25 10:58 PM
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 14 guests, and 0 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
Agnostic Politico, Jems, robertjohn, BlackCat13th, ruggedman
6,305 Registered Users
Popular Topics(Views)
10,261,156 my own book page
5,051,309 We shall overcome
4,251,105 Campaign 2016
3,856,731 Trump's Trumpet
3,055,922 3 word story game
Top Posters
pdx rick 47,431
Scoutgal 27,583
Phil Hoskins 21,134
Greger 19,831
Towanda 19,391
Top Likes Received (30 Days)
Irked 1
Forum Statistics
Forums59
Topics17,128
Posts314,556
Members6,305
Most Online294
Dec 6th, 2017
Today's Birthdays
There are no members with birthdays on this day.
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 11 of 14 1 2 9 10 11 12 13 14
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 47,431
Likes: 373
Member
CHB-OG
Offline
Member
CHB-OG
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 47,431
Likes: 373
Originally Posted by loganrbt
....if the polar ice caps were in fact melting, then one could realize the search for the Northwest Passage and accomplish the feat that eludes so many back in the 16th and 17th centuries. And if over the course of 500 years it still isn't possible then this must all be tommyrot fradulent science!! Let's get real here!

Oh. Wait a minute. This just in:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6995999.stm
Quote
Canada says it has full rights over those parts of the Northwest Passage that pass through its territory and that it can bar transit there.
Passage through our territory? That'll be two 'Loonies', eh?


Contrarian, extraordinaire


Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,850
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,850
Originally Posted by california rick
Quote
Canada says it has full rights over those parts of the Northwest Passage that pass through its territory and that it can bar transit there.

Passage through our territory? That'll be two 'Loonies', eh?

Not to worry. There isn't really an opening. It's all a scientific fraud. The ice is really still there.

Last edited by loganrbt; 12/14/10 04:58 AM.

"The white men were as thick and numerous and aimless as grasshoppers, moving always in a hurry but never seeming to get to whatever place it was they were going to." Dee Brown
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 21,134
Administrator
Bionic Scribe
Offline
Administrator
Bionic Scribe
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 21,134
Blather blather blather, but no one is willing to get real and answer my questions.

I thought some people at least might attempt, but since they got nothing but nonsense to say, why point out the obvious to the oblivious?


Life is a banquet -- and most poor suckers are starving to death -- Auntie Mame
You are born naked and everything else is drag - RuPaul
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 12,010
Pooh-Bah
Offline
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 12,010
Originally Posted by Ma_Republican
Any scientific thesis starts with an assumption and proceeds to the experimentation stage. During experimentation the thesis is tested at its limits to see if further testing is necessary. That testing phase, also called experimentation, is what decides whether the thesis is correct or flawed. If the thesis is flawed then it must be refined or discarded. In this case the thesis was at least flawed, but the data was manipulated to prove the thesis.


What is a scientific theory?
Quote
In the sciences, a scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.[1]

A scientific theory is a type of inductive theory, in that its content (i.e. empirical data) could be expressed within some formal system of logic whose elementary rules (i.e. scientific laws) are taken as axioms. In a deductive theory, any sentence which is a logical consequence of one or more of the axioms is also a sentence of that theory.[2]
wiki link

So... essentially science is the process of trying to map observable phenomena to a system of understanding that makes those phenomena understandable and predictable. Anyone should be able to test the validity of the theory in order to verify that the theory correctly predicts observable events according to the logic of the theory.

What continues to confuse many climate change skeptics is the origin of the climate change theory. It is not the case that people noticed that the climate was changing and went around looking for a scientific theory that would explain these changes.

Instead, scientists began to notice that the composition of the atmosphere was changing... IE increased concentrations of CO2 and other gases.

Scientist then started to do research into these various gases to determine the physical characteristics of those gases in order to determine possible implications of changes in atmospheric gas composition.

And, all of the potential effects are not bad. After all, plants need CO2 to grow, and so the earth might grow crops better with higher concentrations of CO2

But, given the verified physical characteristics of these gases, there could also be some negative consequences. For example, when C)2 dissolves in water it creates an acid. So, all things being equal, an increased atmospheric concentration of CO2 might tend to acidify large bodies of water... and this has in fact happened.

Further, one of the physical characteristics of these gases led scientists to be aware of a potential for increased CO2 concentrations to increase atmospheric heat retention.

As far as I am aware, all of the above relies entirely on science that is undisputed.... (IE increases of atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and the physical characteristics of these gases)

Ma. can you supply any evidence that any of the above information has been the subject of rigging?


...........

What "may" have been "rigged" was some sort of model that was attempting to project the impacts of known increases in atmospheric CO2 and known physical characteristics of that gas.

But, as it turns out, weather/atmospheric modeling is extraordinarily complex... and so there will likely never be an absolutely accurate model.

All that we can say with absolute certainty is that...

---yes the concentrations of atmospheric gases is changing
---yes, those changes do appear to be caused by human activities
---yes, we have verifiable tested the physical characteristics of the gases in question
---and yes, all things being equal, it seems highly likely that these increased gas concentrations should increase atmospheric temperatures... over time, by some amount that is difficult to ascertain
---and yes, we do seem to be experiencing a time of increasing temperatures... for what ever reason.
--- and no, we cannot rule out human activity as some part of the cause of this change.






Last edited by Ardy; 12/14/10 06:55 AM.

"It's not a lie if you believe it." -- George Costanza
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves. --Bertrand Russel
Ardy #170279 12/14/10 09:13 AM
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 47,431
Likes: 373
Member
CHB-OG
Offline
Member
CHB-OG
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 47,431
Likes: 373
Scientific theory is all about observation. How can one discount other's observations? Said discounter doesn't know, said discounter wasn't there.

Don't believe, repeat the experiment yourself. Otherwise, present counter scientific evidence from scientific journals.

...otherwise all that is being none is deluging everyone with 'white noise.'


Contrarian, extraordinaire


Joined: May 2005
Posts: 47,431
Likes: 373
Member
CHB-OG
Offline
Member
CHB-OG
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 47,431
Likes: 373
Originally Posted by issodhos
Let's just say it is from observation, Schlack. Hopefully that is not considered blasphemy among the Initiates of All Things 'Science'.:-)
Observation is one of the key fundamentals of scientific theory. smile


Contrarian, extraordinaire


Joined: May 2005
Posts: 47,431
Likes: 373
Member
CHB-OG
Offline
Member
CHB-OG
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 47,431
Likes: 373
Originally Posted by Phil Hoskins
Blather blather blather, but no one is willing to get real and answer my questions.
I don't know enough about the subject to answer your questions; I can however, provide insight into how scientific theory is performed, having done so many times in college.

Scientists specialize and draw upon past performance. As in medicine, questions on a particular topic is better answered by those with experience in the subject matter - or - answers can be copied, or linked, verbatim from a scientific journal.

...just as I provide a wealth of knowledge when it comes to my field of nutrition and food safety.

Scientific journal articles ARE NOT opinion pieces - they are the real, deal. Incidentally, scientific journal articles need to reconstruct the experiment in writing. Write about the results and failures, and present conclusions based on the experiment - which is why such articles tend to leave the layman's eyes glazed over... smile


Contrarian, extraordinaire


Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 19,831
Likes: 180
Carpal Tunnel
Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 19,831
Likes: 180
Quote
It's all a scientific fraud. The ice is really still there.
Wrongo, Mate. The Ice has actually gone south for the winter.
After enduring centuries of frigid Canadian winters the Ice has simply moved to warmer climes. Some of it has been seen as far south as Florida.


Good coffee, good weed, and time on my hands...
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 6,523
old hand
OP Offline
old hand
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 6,523
Originally Posted by Phil Hoskins
In order to ratchet this discussion down into pieces, MaRep can you help me understand your point of view better:

1. Are you aware that the term is not now nor has it ever been (among scientists, not the public) "global climate change", not "global warming"?

2. Are you aware that the vast majority of scientists working on the subject (not the ones commenting upon it) have concluded that there are significant changes to our climate now taking place?

3. Leaving aside all the politicians and commentators, do you agree that the evidence to date indicates global climate changes on a level not ever seen during our lifetime?

4. Do you agree that there are significant increases in chemicals in the global atmosphere within the past 6 decades which can only be traced to human activity?

5. Is it your argument that the conclusions some draw based upon these facts are wrong or that these facts are untrue? I am specifically excluding the statements of politicians or any scientist not actively working in the field of global climate data.

My hope is that we can isolate the rhetoric from the facts and then go from there.

For the moment let's assume that everything you say is true. So what? It doesn't change the fact that the "science" that has been presented as fact is flawed and cannot be repaired without starting from the beginning.

As for Global Warming, it has been called that from the beginning, Global Climate Change was fabricated when Global Warming started to be proven false. Moving targets create opportunity for obfuscation.


A proud member of the Vast Right-wing Conspiracy, Massachusetts Chapter

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
Thomas Jefferson
Ardy #170294 12/14/10 12:48 PM
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 6,523
old hand
OP Offline
old hand
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 6,523
So, after reading all of those observations, should I never drive a care because I might get into an accident? Never ski because a Kennedy once died while playing football on skis and didn't see the tree he ran into? Never eat raw fish, never breath unfiltered air, never go into a big city because the crime rate in the cities are much higher than in the country?

As I have said many times, I agree with the ulterior motives of this new enviro-religion. Who doesn't want clean water and clean air? My problem is the path that was taken to impose it upon the entire industrialized world.

When perfroming an experiment the data collected dictate the results of the experiment. If the test equipment used in the experiment is made to indicate false results, the experiment itself is a useless exercise in curiosity, its results as useless as the exercise. Once the "scientists" decided to exclude data points that did not fit their desired results, once they decided to modify thier software to produce only desired results, once they decided to job the peer review process by using only sympathetic reviewers and hiding their data, it stopped being an experiment and became an exercise in curiosity.


A proud member of the Vast Right-wing Conspiracy, Massachusetts Chapter

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
Thomas Jefferson
Page 11 of 14 1 2 9 10 11 12 13 14

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5