Ok
Funny, since it was a direct reply to your comment here
... which was your indirect response to my questioning whether you thought medical science was more credible than climate science.
Were you talking about ads on TV that had nothing to do with "commercial appeal" then? You must be watching different ads than I do.
What do you want? You want me to recycle links as well? Not wasting my time on you.
I derived the 0.18% from the Lean 2004 study. I have linked it before. The 0.18% comes from using an 11 year rolling average, from 1750 to 2004(?) of that study, to average out the regular short solar cycle. Energy does not get lost. Watts are watts. It's a rather simple way to show the IPCC is lying. If you don't understand these simple things, then what can I say. You reject everything I've posted and linked in the past. I've even linked material related to soot (black carbon) where even the IPCC acknowledges it is far higher than they used in the AR4.
This anthropogenic warming scare is dying, like global cooling did in the 70's. Anyone heavily invested in selling carbon credits, or other forms of material relying on this will lose money.
Mark my words. It is obvious to one who takes a true scientific approach. Just see what happens within 5 or 10 years.
Because I make money sitting on my ass for 6 of my 8 work hours, getting paid good money to watch movies or play games on my laptop.
I'm just a parts changer. Remember?
I was trying to make a more abstract point about the relative trustworthiness/popularity of professions.
I failed.
No way.
Last edited by Winehole23; 11-28-2010 at 07:58 AM.
Very amusing, and indicting, how people are vehemently enraged when "wealth distribution" is even hinted at from rich to non-rich, but are perfectly, reflexively silent/agreeable when the economic system is rigged/corrupted by corporations/capitalists to redistribute wealth from non-rich to rich.
Yes, seriously. I've been scoping out portable Blu-Ray players.
wino seel uv aproovl
Wow. I'm duly impressed.
My job is to be an expert at fixing complex automation equipment. I know robots, conveyor systems, hydraulics, pneumatics, electronics, control circuits, communications circuits, PLCs, etc. etc. etc... I get paid to be immediately available to fix the equipment when it goes down. If it runs all night without fail, I have one piece of equipment that I do preventative maintenance on that lasts about an hour. We usually have several small incidents that often are fixed quicker than it takes me to walk across in the 145 acre building.
I have a very rounded scientific understanding. You people should listen to me when I learn new topics like Global Warming.
It probably goes hand in hand with your ego.
I should listen to WC and ignore the people with PhDs in the relevant sciences. We don't make fun of WC for being a parts changer, we make fun of him for believing that caring weight it doesn't.
Caring weight it doesn't.
"it carries weight it doesn't."
Posting in a hurry leads to mistakes I guess.
I liked the mistake better.
The problem with that, and why I don't do it, is because your analysis is heavily tainted with confirmation bias.
On the topics that I understand well enough to fully understand your claims, and what digging I have done into a lot of your sources leads me to believe you jump at things you agree with, without any consideration of their veracity or strength of arguments.
I would trust you to maintain machines, but complex analysis of new information is not your schtick.
No it isn't. that's what the AGW crowd does.
No, I have viewed the arguments of both sides. I understand enough to know who is bull ting and who isn't. There is also the fact that the "deniers" put out their material for review. The AGW dogma has no comprehensive show of work for us to see and evaluate. They expect us to believe the work of others, who fail to supply their methodology.
Believe as you wish.
I should listen to WC and ignore the people with PhDs in the relevant sciences. We don't make fun of WC for being a parts changer, we make fun of him for believing that caring weight it doesn't.
I'm not sure YOU should be making fun of anyone.
Climategate is the very essence of confirmation bias. They threw out or applied a "very artificial correction" to data they didn't like and heavily weighted data that fit their "nice tidy story". Unfortunately, Keith Briffa's dataset was not their only inconvenient divergence problem -- they also have the last 12 years of temperature data that don't comport with the model. How many more years of this divergence before we say their models are useless?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
