I can't say I've ever been put in a great mood being out in the heat
So you would rob a bank, and your defense would be the changing climate?LOL....
Topic: Rise in violence 'linked to climate change' (Read 1940 times)
LOL....
I can't say I've ever been put in a great mood being out in the heat
Who said global cooling?
Global High temperature chart looks like a Global erected penis
http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/173156/
Obviously, more direct study of the matter is required.
That may work for the military, but it doesn't work for scientists. You do know that the people who give out government grants are other scientists, right? Not politicians or someone who would benefit from either answer.
Scientists that work for the government who have based their careers upon global warming.
Governments that receive more money based upon the hype of global warming (see terrorism for military funding).
Who said global cooling?
Global High temperature chart looks like a Global erected penis
There is money to be made in research that shows that there is global warming.
I know from experience that when doing studies for the government, the first question that comes up at the meeting before the study is done is "what answer do they want?". I did simulation coding for military radio technology. They would usually come to us to see if a particular configuration of radios would have a bottle neck or if there would be coverage during a battle. With radio technology there are so many factors to simulate that you can tweak a few numbers and get very different results. Both legitimate based upon the limited ability to model every single aspect of the situation. So we tend to follow the trail that leads toward the result the customer is expecting, or as close to it as possible with plenty of data to back it up.
I know from experience that when doing studies for the government, the first question that comes up at the meeting before the study is done is "what answer do they want?". I did simulation coding for military radio technology. They would usually come to us to see if a particular configuration of radios would have a bottle neck or if there would be coverage during a battle. With radio technology there are so many factors to simulate that you can tweak a few numbers and get very different results. Both legitimate based upon the limited ability to model every single aspect of the situation. So we tend to follow the trail that leads toward the result the customer is expecting, or as close to it as possible with plenty of data to back it up.
That may work for the military, but it doesn't work for scientists. You do know that the people who give out government grants are other scientists, right? Not politicians or someone who would benefit from either answer.
REALLY? Let me check my science book from a few decades back.
Yep, Piltdown man has a whole chapter.
Lol...
There is money to be made in research that shows that there is global warming.
I know from experience that when doing studies for the government, the first question that comes up at the meeting before the study is done is "what answer do they want?". I did simulation coding for military radio technology. They would usually come to us to see if a particular configuration of radios would have a bottle neck or if there would be coverage during a battle. With radio technology there are so many factors to simulate that you can tweak a few numbers and get very different results. Both legitimate based upon the limited ability to model every single aspect of the situation. So we tend to follow the trail that leads toward the result the customer is expecting, or as close to it as possible with plenty of data to back it up.
I know from experience that when doing studies for the government, the first question that comes up at the meeting before the study is done is "what answer do they want?". I did simulation coding for military radio technology. They would usually come to us to see if a particular configuration of radios would have a bottle neck or if there would be coverage during a battle. With radio technology there are so many factors to simulate that you can tweak a few numbers and get very different results. Both legitimate based upon the limited ability to model every single aspect of the situation. So we tend to follow the trail that leads toward the result the customer is expecting, or as close to it as possible with plenty of data to back it up.
That may work for the military, but it doesn't work for scientists. You do know that the people who give out government grants are other scientists, right? Not politicians or someone who would benefit from either answer.
The key is, what answer would get me the next contract or grant.
Cooling! Exxon/Mobil will then give you your next grant.
http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/08/03/unprecedented-july-cold-arctic-sees-shortest-summer-on-record-normally-the-high-arctic-has-about-90-days-above-freezing-this-year-there-was-less-than-half-that/
Evidence!
Seriously, though. I understand that new IPCC report has a substantial chop in the climate sensitivity value, so they are admitting the skeptics have been right, or the hysterical alarmists wrong, take your pick. But there's no reason to read to or refer to that tome for scientific understanding, it's got it's own share of errors and omissions. In fact the very idea of aggregating science into a single viewpoint is ridiculous.
The key is, what answer would get me the next contract or grant.
Cooling! Exxon/Mobil will then give you your next grant.
There is money to be made in research that shows that there is global warming.
I know from experience that when doing studies for the government, the first question that comes up at the meeting before the study is done is "what answer do they want?". I did simulation coding for military radio technology. They would usually come to us to see if a particular configuration of radios would have a bottle neck or if there would be coverage during a battle. With radio technology there are so many factors to simulate that you can tweak a few numbers and get very different results. Both legitimate based upon the limited ability to model every single aspect of the situation. So we tend to follow the trail that leads toward the result the customer is expecting, or as close to it as possible with plenty of data to back it up.
You know how in math class you would sometimes have the answers in the back of the book but you still had to show your work. And how you would do the math question keeping the answer in mind as you go through it. That is how such research is done.
If I were an environmentalist and my data showed cooling, I would go back and refine the data in a completely legitimate way until the results showed warming. Both answers would be right. Based upon the limited abstraction of the simulated data. You cannot simulate every molecule in the world, so you have to summarize large amounts of molecules in an explainable way.
The key is, what answer would get me the next contract or grant.
I know from experience that when doing studies for the government, the first question that comes up at the meeting before the study is done is "what answer do they want?". I did simulation coding for military radio technology. They would usually come to us to see if a particular configuration of radios would have a bottle neck or if there would be coverage during a battle. With radio technology there are so many factors to simulate that you can tweak a few numbers and get very different results. Both legitimate based upon the limited ability to model every single aspect of the situation. So we tend to follow the trail that leads toward the result the customer is expecting, or as close to it as possible with plenty of data to back it up.
You know how in math class you would sometimes have the answers in the back of the book but you still had to show your work. And how you would do the math question keeping the answer in mind as you go through it. That is how such research is done.
If I were an environmentalist and my data showed cooling, I would go back and refine the data in a completely legitimate way until the results showed warming. Both answers would be right. Based upon the limited abstraction of the simulated data. You cannot simulate every molecule in the world, so you have to summarize large amounts of molecules in an explainable way.
The key is, what answer would get me the next contract or grant.
I would go as far to say that critical thinking is the one must productive topics to master to become a more rounded human being, genuine life changing stuff.
Agreed. Rational thought should be the very first thing people learn after understanding their native language and before being forced through years of school without any clue why they can't figure anything but what they'll wear that day and if that hot girl/guy in their 3rd period class will notice them--but I digress.
Looks like the bitcoin difficulty graph 
Yes, and anyone who says the difficulty is flat is just as uninformed as anyone who says temperature is not increasing.
2x
I thought global cooling was the new thing. Are people still on the global warming fad?
This is so confusing. Will we become less violent when the world cools down as the new fad suggests?
Who said global cooling?This is so confusing. Will we become less violent when the world cools down as the new fad suggests?
Looks like the bitcoin difficulty graph
Will bitcoin ice up if the world chills?
I thought global cooling was the new thing. Are people still on the global warming fad?
This is so confusing. Will we become less violent when the world cools down as the new fad suggests?
Who said global cooling?This is so confusing. Will we become less violent when the world cools down as the new fad suggests?
Looks like the bitcoin difficulty graph
Can't you guys just read the IPCC report?
That sounds really really boring....That's like some couple thousand pages pap refined to the promulgated truthies by the dirty dozen, right?
Can't you guys just read the IPCC report?
Anyone confused about the global warming debate should check out the youtuber "potholer54". He is a former science journalist who understands what science is and how the media butcher science. His videos are as much about critical thinking, standards of evidence etc. Serious brainfood. I would go as far to say that critical thinking is the one must productice topics to master to become a more rounded human being, genuine life changing stuff.
I posted the data in post #4. It's from the IPCC. Please look at the whole range since the industrial revolution. You wouldn't make a post saying the overall bitcoin price trend was down based on april 3 - april 10 would you?
Maybe he wouldn't do that for bitcoin, but he's obviously not above doing it for temperatures. I'm sure it will come out that he sides with the deniers.
I posted the data in post #4. It's from the IPCC. Please look at the whole range since the industrial revolution. You wouldn't make a post saying the overall bitcoin price trend was down based on april 3 - april 10 would you?
Jump to: