Page 20 of 72
Posted: Wed Jan 20, 2016 8:27 pm
by GORDON
Hottest year.... since the end of the ice age we are still getting out of, they mean.
Posted: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:30 am
by Leisher
My wife filled up for $.99/gallon cents this week.
Hottest year evar
I really wish someone had the balls to point out that we're talking about a 136 year period and that, literally, millions of years of climate data were not recorded.
I don't know how anyone can look at such a small sample size and claim they definitively know what's going on and call themselves an "expert" or "scientist". (And this statement is not a climate change denial, although I'll argue cause all day.)
It's already been proven that some folks have faked climate data for funding or just gotten it wrong. Wouldn't it be hilarious, and actually quite crafty, if NASA was faking data to improve funding for missions with the ultimate goal of off planet colonization?
Posted: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:18 pm
by GORDON
These guys say that the numbers published for the previous "hottest year on record" in 1997 have been adjusted down over 3 degrees in order to make 2015 the new "hottest year on record."
The fact there is no more unadjusted data is pretty unfortunate for real science.
http://www.mrctv.org/blog/claim-2015-was-hottest-year-ever-bogus
Posted: Fri Jan 22, 2016 6:38 pm
by TheCatt
GORDON wrote:These guys say that the numbers published for the previous "hottest year on record" in 1997 have been adjusted down over 3 degrees in order to make 2015 the new "hottest year on record."
The fact there is no more unadjusted data is pretty unfortunate for real science.
http://www.mrctv.org/blog/claim-2015-was-hottest-year-ever-bogus
Rebuttal
I think. I didn't read it.
Posted: Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:34 pm
by GORDON
It says they have to adjust the raw data, but don't go into detail. Still smells like bullshit to me.
The only way they can show the earth warmingis to change the past.
Posted: Sat Jan 30, 2016 5:45 pm
by TheCatt
Posted: Sat Jan 30, 2016 6:32 pm
by GORDON
I wish anyone would own their bullshit.
Posted: Tue Feb 16, 2016 7:23 pm
by GORDON
Sea levels aren't rising anywhere near as fast as predicted, wild-ass guesses posited as to why, also science is still settled.
http://www.latimes.com/science....ry.html
Also, I just learned that Lake Superior held 20% of the fresh surface water on the planet (already knew that), and also it is only 10k years old (knew, but never really thought about it). I wonder if scientists take into account that 20% of the earth's fresh water got sequestered in that inland sea a geological heartbeat ago into their calculations when they look at tree rings and ice cores and shit to get historical data, because I doubt it, because I've never heard of them doing so in any of their arguments.
Posted: Tue Feb 16, 2016 7:39 pm
by TheCatt
They're rising 80% of what was expected. Really, that's "[not] rising anywhere near as fast as predicted"?
Posted: Tue Feb 16, 2016 8:07 pm
by GORDON
Yeah, what's a trillion tons of error here and there.
Posted: Tue Feb 16, 2016 8:12 pm
by TheCatt
GORDON wrote:Yeah, what's a trillion tons of error here and there.
20%. That's what it is.
Posted: Tue Feb 16, 2016 9:53 pm
by TPRJones
GORDON wrote:Also, I just learned that Lake Superior held 20% of the fresh surface water on the planet (already knew that), and also it is only 10k years old (knew, but never really thought about it). I wonder if scientists take into account that 20% of the earth's fresh water got sequestered in that inland sea a geological heartbeat ago into their calculations when they look at tree rings and ice cores and shit to get historical data, because I doubt it, because I've never heard of them doing so in any of their arguments.
Probably not necessary, as back then that water would have been locked up in glaciers rather than part of the oceans. It probably balances out.
Posted: Tue Feb 16, 2016 10:12 pm
by GORDON
TPRJones wrote:GORDON wrote:Also, I just learned that Lake Superior held 20% of the fresh surface water on the planet (already knew that), and also it is only 10k years old (knew, but never really thought about it). I wonder if scientists take into account that 20% of the earth's fresh water got sequestered in that inland sea a geological heartbeat ago into their calculations when they look at tree rings and ice cores and shit to get historical data, because I doubt it, because I've never heard of them doing so in any of their arguments.
Probably not necessary, as back then that water would have been locked up in glaciers rather than part of the oceans. It probably balances out.
Are you officially declaring this science, settled?
Posted: Tue Feb 16, 2016 10:16 pm
by TheCatt
GORDON wrote:Are you officially declaring this science, settled?
Are you saying evolution isn't settled?
They are wrong by 15x! 1400%! DEAR GOD, EVOLUTION ISN'T HAPPENING
Posted: Tue Feb 16, 2016 10:18 pm
by GORDON
Is tonight my night for your special attentions, or something? FYI: negging has never worked on me to get me into bed.
Edited By GORDON on 1455679228
Posted: Tue Feb 16, 2016 10:24 pm
by TPRJones
For a long time scientists have believed that the rate of change in the mitochondrial genome was never faster than about 2% per million years.
That's just flat out wrong. Punctuated equilibrium while not universally accepted has been gaining popularity for quite some time. This thing with the chickens would be an example, with human chicken farming being the cause of the sudden changes.
...the team also discovered a single instance of mitochondrial DNA being passed down from a father
Now THAT is interesting.
Posted: Tue Feb 16, 2016 10:25 pm
by TPRJones
GORDON wrote:TPRJones wrote:Probably not necessary, as back then that water would have been locked up in glaciers rather than part of the oceans. It probably balances out.
Are you officially declaring this science, settled?
Of course not. The word "probably" should be considered an indicator of uncertainty.
Edited By TPRJones on 1455679573
Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2016 8:53 am
by TheCatt
GORDON wrote:Is tonight my night for your special attentions, or something? FYI: negging has never worked on me to get me into bed.
I'm just saying, you keep harping on climate change being unsettled, by using a standard that indicates MOST science is unsettled, yet you seem to accept most of that other science just fine.
Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2016 10:53 am
by GORDON
TheCatt wrote:GORDON wrote:Is tonight my night for your special attentions, or something? FYI: negging has never worked on me to get me into bed.
I'm just saying, you keep harping on climate change being unsettled, by using a standard that indicates MOST science is unsettled, yet you seem to accept most of that other science just fine.
I would never say such a thing if there hadn't been such a movement to claim that the subject IS settled, there's nothing more to learn, and all we can do now is buy these carbon credits and maybe you will not be personally responsible for destroying the world. What, you don't want to save the world? Why do you hate baby animals? Baby animals live in the world. You are just a subhuman piece of shit.
Because that's the vibe and implications.
And I reject that.
Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2016 11:38 am
by TheCatt
Baby animals are cute.
So.. of the science that does exist: Do you think it's likely that there's 1) global warming and or climate change? and 2) it's caused more than 50% or less than 50% by humans?
