ghstofmaxwll

Theres one good thing about this panic, we may learn loads of additional climate cycle processes. Maybe this will enable us to artificially prevent natural population reductions and extinctions. Thats if your faith proves to be wrong of course.

Since some areas of the planet are actually cooling, you can head off a lot of unecessary disagreement by referring to it as "Global Climate Change" instead of global warming.

Maybe we should just call it global Hadley cell change then. i.e. natural climate redistribution.

Regarding CDarwin.

No one is denying the evidence(well im not any way), its a caution as to the validity of the evidence against a possible coincidental rise in global temperatures.

Would you be raving about global warming if we were in the midst of a decline in temperatures? Are you making a cause fit the effect more than the effect fitting the cause?

What if global temperatures start to decline in the next decade to a comparable magnitude? Will you still be raving then?

Do you understand why context is important, and why its important to remeber that statistical climbs dont alter the odds of future trends in anyway i.e. the sharp upward gradient of a graph doesn't predict future climb any more than future decline?

Do you understand how such things as evolution is stronger because it is predictive, and has been verified after the fact to be right countless times?

OK our very home is of extreme importance and we cant take any chances no matter what, but do you have to make a mockery of the scientific method by claiming facts at the drop of the hat alike the intelligent design community?

Swansont,

Thank you for providing the above references. I do however have issues with the back-dating periods provided by these references. When I asked for a period of time from 1007 to present I was really just looking for a significant period of time. The exact dates were not of particular interest. I was more interested in whether or not current models could explain why the medieval warm period and the little ice age occurred. Would the modeled results follow the know history for these significant events in our recent past. If they could, then we would know if they had any meaningful accuracy in predicting climate in the absence of anthropogenic forcing. If current models are not accurate enough to explain past climate warming and cooling periods, why should we trust their ability to predict the future of our current warming period? Is this too much to ask? Do you find anything unscientific about this request?

Excellent point, of course, you wont get what you ask for, well I've never seen them even use context of even a century back in their argument, let alone model it(which of course they cant because they havent got the historic data they need).

I see many similarities in creationists and global warming deniers. I appreciate healthy skepticism, and it's good to challenge data. However, when those challenges fail and the data holds to be accurate and replicable, yet you still hold your old ideas and refuse to accept it, that's just retarded.

 

That's how I see creationists and global warming deniers. A special form of retarded.

 

 

I also want to apologize to all of those out there who are (or know someone who is) mentally handicapped. It's rude of me to lump creationists and global warming deniers into a group of people who already have enough challenges to overcome on their own.

Look in the mirror, spastic.

Duhhhb wave you hand about your wrist rapidly and listen

"no one is saying no to your wank!", we just dont want to copy you.

Do my eyes deceive me or is that dome a tardis aswell? derderdermmerderum wooowoooweeehwehhhhwehherwehhh!

Its not about there being any cut-off where I will believe wholeheartedly that we are causing global warming, its about how certain we can ever be that we are causing it by the little we know today on 29th Oct 2007. As I have said before : I dont deny there is compelling pointers for man altering our climate, I just resent the claim that one factual cause can be drawn for the current phase of global temperature rise.

If you would open up to other possibilities, maybe we can understand our climate more, and also direct some of the panic resources towards more apparent environmental pursuits i.e. oceanic pollution and destruction of rainforest's(which ultimately keep the balance of 80% N + 20% O + small amount of co2 in the air we breathe).

Dude you have copied just about every argument I made in the "whats your opinion on global warming" thread. Are you seriously saying you are for real? Are you seriously saying you think Im a for real greenassed pro global warming nut?

 

Lastly though, why is GW a faith as you would have it?

Because it is based chiefly on the assertions built up by so called authority figures. While it has a modicum of actual scientific validity, there are so many variables in planetary climate(thats not to mention peaks in photosphere activity), that only a faith type can jump to any conclusion that we are undoubtedly the cause of the current trend of planetary temperature increase.

LOL, the same could be said about you. We deniers at least look at the data BEFORE we say with certainty that it is bunk.

You have really gotten confused dude. My support of global warming claims in the other thread were parody.

Dont come the idiot, you know full well Im parodying the type of guys you are a sockpuppet of. Just as you are parodying me. Who are you really? the guy with the judo avatar?

Ok here is the proof that global warming is our fault(you wont be able to understand it though because creationist type people dont understand percentages):

OK its parodies is it? Ill play.

Geo, we all know for fact that we are causing global warming because we have a graph of co2 increases in the last 30 years that match so well with the earth getting hotter in the same period, the only conclusion is global warming is our fault! Also you are nothing but a creationist for not believing something so scientific as this, which is for fact more certain than evolution, nurnurnurnurnur

Where is this echoing bollocsk coming from?

On the contrary, the followers of the modern day faith in manmade global warming are the religious types! They believe the claims without question or scrutiny because they are unable to interpret data, models and general draw conclusions of their own. See a pattern?

The suggestion that the scientifically cautious to flash-in-the-pan claims are creationist analogies is the pot calling the kettle black in the extreme.

Like I said. Reminds me of arguing evolution with a creationist.

 

Please do define "scant evidence," as I can show you a metric ass load of data about global climate change and the long-term impact our actions have which is not "derived from the popular culture section." That is, of course, if you would be willing to take your fingers out of your ears and open your eyes.

Its not the quantity of the data but the quality of data( in regards to the amount of time you have collected said data and few variables and known elements it actually covers).

Im sure you have plenty of one dimensional data repeating the same pointers living along side your fingered orifices.

I was responding to the OP in which an expression was to be used as a function.

Oh sorry, I though you were picking at me for having the foresight to know what he really meant.

Show me data which refutes the issues of global climate change and we can discuss that. Your questions above about what the "average" person does or does not know are not relevant to discussion and only serve to show your self-righteous attitude, not counter the facts of the situation.

The data against it is your own ridiculously weak, short-term, one dimensional climate data!

Im self-righteous??? Who are the treehuggers trying to push green policies on everyone no matter how it affects them economically?

 

 

 

 

 

My honest answer (or, more specifically, my opinion) is that it sounds exactly the same as when a creationist doubts natural selection.

No! Natural selection has been shown to be right with every test given to it, and has copious and varying evidence (living and fossil) to back it up. It is still to this day tested for failure and never treated as absolute fact by scientists...... Hence scientific integrity.

Global warming claims however are based on assertion over scant evidence and have derived from the popular culture section with an ever increasing mercenary scientist following......Hence irrational hysteria and big buck chasers .

Furthermore your type wouldnt know what the word "honest" was if you never even heard of the word politics.

I for one am indeed worried about global warming( why do you insist on thinking people who dont accept prevailing global warming theories as fact are not worried about there even being a possibility?), that still does not change ones stance on scientific integrity and lack of it there in, when it comes to cashing in on the commercialization.

f(x)=2x^2-3 is y=2x^2-3, dilburt.

This pic is not Lorentz correct, but just a general illustration:

If the object went on a journey to Centauri( 4 light years away), and it was traveling fast enough(say 3/4 the speed of light). The distance between its starting place and Centauri will have shrunken for the object.

Not at all. It's because they have no clue what a 36% increase means, or how percentage of overall atmosphere is not a valid method of measuring this impact.

 

Btw, I'd suggest that average people are worried, and justifiably so. It seems only those insistent on ignoring information and being intellectually dishonest are not worried. Also, what is the source of your chart?

Has the average doom monger any clue that carbondioxide isnt the only greenhouse gas?

Have they any lack of ignorance to the fact that CO2 can increase but overall greenhouse gases actually do not?

Have they any understanding what a 500% decrease is(the decrease of greenhouse gases since the early earth)?

Are they simpletons that dont know that spikes are a natural occurrence in climate, and in fact a flat-line in any graph with complex patterns and very many variables would actually be the anomaly?

And by the way the "average person" actually follows the trend of jumping on the global warming bandwagon these days, or dont you believe the assertions of your own fad-scientist friends if it doesnt suit you at the time?

 

 

Yes, like Jim Hansen, perhaps one of the foremost proponents of anthropogenic greenhouse gases being the dominant forcing...

Well OK, you've dug up one muppet from an enormous organization:D. As a whole you will find that NASA do not support the outrageous popular culture claims. For one thing, I challenge you or any wacko to find on NASAs websites(the climate and earth science ones in particular) where they even mention it....I often read their site and have never seen one word of endorsement for your cause. It is also of note that a NASA chief(Griffin) was flamed and discredit was thrown against his name earlier this year because he publicly argued with a green activist that science has been taken over by politics in regard to climatology.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/environment/2007-06-06-griffin-regrets-warming-comments_N.htm

In the shortest possible summary I can think of: The closer an object is approaching the speed of light --> the more its time slows down and its journey contracts.

Do a table of plots. So plug 1 into "x" then 2 into "x" and so on and so on.... Then plot these x and y values as coordinates on an xy graph. Then you will have a parabola, then just shift every point down 3 and this 2nd parabola will be "f(x)=2x^2-3"(your equation you were on about).

I have the fx9860g. I dont think they would be any different though for this purpose.

Go to >menu/ graph/EXE

...Then define Y1 with an exponent on "x" i.e. Y1:x^2. So you have a non linear function.

Simple!