What did your blogs tell you?
A new team.
Most of you have this crazy view of how science is done, but Yonivore you take the damn cake.
What did your blogs tell you?
Its amazing that scientists thought to check their models without Yonivore coming up with the idea first.
http://www.grida.no/publications/oth...1/figspm-4.htm
Doesn't matter how it's defined when you expect the evidence and conclusions to both meet the same reasonableness standard.
In that case, the conclusions are as good as the evidence.
So, you don't know how they turned out?
I don't know if any of them would say there there is absolutely no empirical data supporting the theory that man-made factors are causing some climate changes.
Do you think there is no empirical evidence supporting this theory at all?
Yeah - I don't know Yoni. I look to you and your blogs for information on climate sciences.
It seems to be the central argument here, so it does matter.
You don't want it to matter, because you realize on some level you aren't being reasonable.
Define a "reasonable" level of evidence. We obviously don't have enough now to satisfy you, so what would?
FWIW, here is one of those alarmists blathering on about reducing emissions.
This made me change my mind about nuclear power though. New information, reasonably presented.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traveling_wave_reactor
Bloody brilliant idea, IMO. Uses nuclear waste to make energy.
Hard to do from what I read, but I'm sure the technical barriers can be overcome, with the right investment.
It is always reasonable to question scientific studies. That is the nature of science.
I hope even you would admit that our understanding of our climate has vastly improved and will continue to improve going forward. Do you admit this?
i am just glad the the insurance industry and thus the financial industry is realizing they have a significant stake in this. Catastrophic weather related claims are severely impacting the industry.
They are concerned with what actually happens rather than trying to convince people that something will not happen so they can sell you something.
So when we find one instance of this, we ignore all the data?for any given scientific field, if decades of research in that field resulting in hundreds of research papers tends to point to one theory as being the most likely one, and arrives at that conclusion based on multiple lines of evidence, is does that reach the level where one can reasonably accept that explanation as being the most probable one?
Is it reasonable to assume that all scientists in this field partake in this conspiracy?
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...te+change+real
Yuppers.
The ad hominems work one way for Deniers, but not the other. Hence the OP. The line between legitimate skepticism and pseudoscience is fairly clear.
Those who believe in AGW being the primary cause of our warming do not understand real science. i don't know what else to say. It's all been said, and I'm tired of arguing with religious fanatics, over the religion of AGW.
The ing parts changer telling scientists who actually publish their methods and show their work that they don't know what science is.
Hey the guys at Berkley, Cornell, NASA, MIT, etc are all dummies but he can read a trouble shooting checklist and figure out which part to change. Hes even memorized the lists now.
I see I woke up the peanut gallery.
Hansen just skips the peer review process and publishes on his Columbia website.
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/
He's also still out there telling people he thinks sea level will rise 5 meters this century.
Love the Indiana Jones look, btw.
If I were those NASA employees, I'd be embarassed too.
Congrats to Hansen. Its funny how there are so many holes to be poked in AGW yet where is the peer reviewed lit doing just that?
900+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm
http://www.populartechnology.net/200...upporting.html
I wonder where Hansen got the idea for the le of his recent book?
What was it you said that one time Darrin about posting blogs in response to peer reviewed literature?
And since you're so well read on that list, Darrin, would you mind pointing me to the specific papers on it that debunk the effects of CO2?
Thanks!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)