Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
What to do if Neo-Con Is Found In Load
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="SeniorGeek" data-source="post: 201902" data-attributes="member: 4823"><p> <ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">The Mid Canterbury Federated Farmers in Ashburton (New Zealand) paid a meteorologist to tell them that global warming is a myth? (This guy is now a paid speaker, but "metorologist" does not do justice to his extensive background in Atmospheric Science...funded largely by coal and oil interests.) He's <u>one</u> [-]denier[/-] skeptic.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">This page looks so official, and it is. It's Senator Inhofe's (R-OK) personal blog. He is one known [-]denier[/-] skeptic of global warming.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol"><em>Please</em>, oh please tell me that you consider globalresearch.ca a reliable source of information. Pretty please? The article says, "Zichichi pointed out that human activity has less than a 10% impact on the environment", as if that is not significant. How do we know he arrived at this figure by a method that is coherent and scientifically valid?</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">This extract says, "...results <em>imply</em> that Europe may face a slightly cooler future than predicted by IPCC..." [emphasis mine]. The scientific paper is not about global warming, it is about a smaller weather pheomenon. Why do the [-]deniers[/-] skeptics of global warming latch onto anything that says there might be a temperature drop in <em>part</em> of the world and claim that it applies to the entire globe? (BTW, the top sponsor on my recent visit to this site: Chevron.)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">I've been told that MSNBC is big on surrender, which made me wonder if they are just surrendering on the global warming issue. In any case, this article is about one [-]denier[/-] skeptic whose emphasis appears to be in meteorology, and who concentrates on one part of the world.</li> </ol><p>In defense of the [-]deniers[/-] skeptics, there has been a lot of misinformation. The results of a multivariable nonlinear regression analysis have little meaning to the public - so someone has to interpret those results in order to produce a news story. What is usually lost is the fact that regression-analysis methods give us a formula for predicting future results <u>and</u> an idea of how much confidence we can have in that formula.</p><p> </p><p>I wondered why scientists from so many <u>different</u> fields had come to support human-caused global warming. Now I find why: the models that include human-caused factors always match the data better (and therefore have a higher confidence level) than similar models that leave out human-caused factors. Those other scientists may not be climate experts, but they know the methods and how to interpret the results.</p><p> </p><p>To tie this back to the thread, I suggest [-]denying[/-] expressing skepticism about humans causing any portion of global warming, until you get a chance to leave the area and notify your Sup about a possible source of poisonous invective in your load.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="SeniorGeek, post: 201902, member: 4823"] [LIST=1] [*]The Mid Canterbury Federated Farmers in Ashburton (New Zealand) paid a meteorologist to tell them that global warming is a myth? (This guy is now a paid speaker, but "metorologist" does not do justice to his extensive background in Atmospheric Science...funded largely by coal and oil interests.) He's [U]one[/U] [-]denier[/-] skeptic. [*]This page looks so official, and it is. It's Senator Inhofe's (R-OK) personal blog. He is one known [-]denier[/-] skeptic of global warming. [*][I]Please[/I], oh please tell me that you consider globalresearch.ca a reliable source of information. Pretty please? The article says, "Zichichi pointed out that human activity has less than a 10% impact on the environment", as if that is not significant. How do we know he arrived at this figure by a method that is coherent and scientifically valid? [*]This extract says, "...results [I]imply[/I] that Europe may face a slightly cooler future than predicted by IPCC..." [emphasis mine]. The scientific paper is not about global warming, it is about a smaller weather pheomenon. Why do the [-]deniers[/-] skeptics of global warming latch onto anything that says there might be a temperature drop in [I]part[/I] of the world and claim that it applies to the entire globe? (BTW, the top sponsor on my recent visit to this site: Chevron.) [*]I've been told that MSNBC is big on surrender, which made me wonder if they are just surrendering on the global warming issue. In any case, this article is about one [-]denier[/-] skeptic whose emphasis appears to be in meteorology, and who concentrates on one part of the world.[/LIST]In defense of the [-]deniers[/-] skeptics, there has been a lot of misinformation. The results of a multivariable nonlinear regression analysis have little meaning to the public - so someone has to interpret those results in order to produce a news story. What is usually lost is the fact that regression-analysis methods give us a formula for predicting future results [U]and[/U] an idea of how much confidence we can have in that formula. I wondered why scientists from so many [U]different[/U] fields had come to support human-caused global warming. Now I find why: the models that include human-caused factors always match the data better (and therefore have a higher confidence level) than similar models that leave out human-caused factors. Those other scientists may not be climate experts, but they know the methods and how to interpret the results. To tie this back to the thread, I suggest [-]denying[/-] expressing skepticism about humans causing any portion of global warming, until you get a chance to leave the area and notify your Sup about a possible source of poisonous invective in your load. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
What to do if Neo-Con Is Found In Load
Top