|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
 Posted - 06/13/2007 : 20:46:48 [Permalink]
|
The point attempted to be made was that emissions are increasing dramatically. They discounted data that showed a larger decrease in emissions in favor of data showing a smaller decrease, dispite the fact that much of the previous comparative data was from the source they choose to dicount.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2007 : 21:01:36 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
The point attempted to be made was that emissions are increasing dramatically. They discounted data that showed a larger decrease in emissions in favor of data showing a smaller decrease, dispite the fact that much of the previous comparative data was from the source they choose to dicount. |
The decrease difference was only with regards to China, Jerome. Do you have any evidence that the global increase was lower using CDIAC data than EMI data? Of course you don't, since the researchers tell you otherwise. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2007 : 21:05:21 [Permalink]
|
If an large decrease was substituted by a small decrease that would have an effect. Simple math.
Pity they did not provide the estimates to see exactly what the difference is.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2007 : 21:18:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
If an large decrease was substituted by a small decrease that would have an effect. Simple math.
Pity they did not provide the estimates to see exactly what the difference is. |
Pity they told you about the global numbers, you just refuse to admit it because it'll destroy whatever's left of your fragile hold on your speculation. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2007 : 21:25:55 [Permalink]
|
The global numbers are estimates based on energy use. If higher estimates are used in favor of lower estimates for a part, the whole will be higher.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2007 : 21:36:52 [Permalink]
|
| Except they told you about the global numbers. There's no need to try to infer the answer, but here you are, trying to infer the answer instead of just reading what they wrote about the data. The CDIAC global numbers were higher, despite it having the larger decrease in China. You're trying to compare one country to all countries, after complaining that they compared ten years to six (IIRC). You don't get to do what you say makes a study "flawed." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2007 : 21:46:05 [Permalink]
|
Estimates from different sources comparing different data sets from different sources does not make for an trustworthy study.
Way to many variables.
Flawed conclusions based on cherry picked (not even data) estimates.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2007 : 22:42:56 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Estimates from different sources comparing different data sets from different sources does not make for an trustworthy study.
Way to many variables.
Flawed conclusions based on cherry picked (not even data) estimates.
|
Unless of course those conclusions agree with Jerome's position, in which case they're good evidence against the mainstream view.
|
John's just this guy, you know. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2007 : 19:02:03 [Permalink]
|
JohnOAS said "Unless of course those conclusions agree with Jerome's position, in which case they're good evidence against the mainstream view."
Not true at all. I have many times over my life come to different conclusions based on verifiable evidence. Here we have only written about a small number of topics, thus your claim has little basis in real data.
In fact, one topic that we discussed I did temper my view based on verifiable evidence provided.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2007 : 19:24:41 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Flawed conclusions based on cherry picked (not even data) estimates. |
And you're basing conclusions upon cherry-picked statements in what you claim is a flawed study, assuming your conclusion and to heck with the evidence. And when you're called on it, you stop responding and/or change the subject, a behavior you don't let others get away with. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2007 : 19:45:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Flawed conclusions based on cherry picked (not even data) estimates. |
And you're basing conclusions upon cherry-picked statements in what you claim is a flawed study, assuming your conclusion and to heck with the evidence. And when you're called on it, you stop responding and/or change the subject, a behavior you don't let others get away with.
|
What was I called on, and where did I stop responding? I have made an effort to respond to each post offered in all my topics.
edit: punctuation
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
| Edited by - JEROME DA GNOME on 06/14/2007 19:47:02 |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/21/2007 : 05:22:27 [Permalink]
|
Debunked again by science.
http://tinyurl.com/35x68k
"In a series of groundbreaking scientific papers starting in 2002, Veizer, Shaviv, Carslaw, and most recently Svensmark et al., have collectively demonstrated that as the output of the sun varies, and with it, our star's protective solar wind, varying amounts of galactic cosmic rays from deep space are able to enter our solar system and penetrate the Earth's atmosphere. These cosmic rays enhance cloud formation which, overall, has a cooling effect on the planet. When the sun's energy output is greater, not only does the Earth warm slightly due to direct solar heating, but the stronger solar wind generated during these "high sun" periods blocks many of the cosmic rays from entering our atmosphere. Cloud cover decreases and the Earth warms still more."
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/21/2007 : 05:25:22 [Permalink]
|
More debunking from the same link.
http://tinyurl.com/35x68k
"But the science of global climate change is still in its infancy, with many thousands of papers published every year. In a 2003 poll conducted by German environmental researchers Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, two-thirds of more than 530 climate scientists from 27 countries surveyed did not believe that "the current state of scientific knowledge is developed well enough to allow for a reasonable assessment of the effects of greenhouse gases." About half of those polled stated that the science of climate change was not sufficiently settled to pass the issue over to policymakers at all."
When 2/3 no not agree with a consensus is it still worldwide?
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Ghost_Skeptic
SFN Regular
Canada
510 Posts |
Posted - 06/21/2007 : 06:10:15 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
More debunking from the same link.
http://tinyurl.com/35x68k
"But the science of global climate change is still in its infancy, with many thousands of papers published every year. In a 2003 poll conducted by German environmental researchers Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, two-thirds of more than 530 climate scientists from 27 countries surveyed did not believe that "the current state of scientific knowledge is developed well enough to allow for a reasonable assessment of the effects of greenhouse gases." About half of those polled stated that the science of climate change was not sufficiently settled to pass the issue over to policymakers at all."
When 2/3 no not agree with a consensus is it still worldwide?
|
2/3 in Germany in 2003 is not 2/3 worldwide in 2007 - unlike religion, science changes as more evidence is acquired and better models are developed. |
"You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. / You can send a kid to college but you can't make him think." - B.B. King
History is made by stupid people - The Arrogant Worms
"The greater the ignorance the greater the dogmatism." - William Osler
"Religion is the natural home of the psychopath" - Pat Condell
"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter" - Thomas Jefferson |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/21/2007 : 06:34:09 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ghost_Skeptic
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
More debunking from the same link.
http://tinyurl.com/35x68k
"But the science of global climate change is still in its infancy, with many thousands of papers published every year. In a 2003 poll conducted by German environmental researchers Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, two-thirds of more than 530 climate scientists from 27 countries surveyed did not believe that "the current state of scientific knowledge is developed well enough to allow for a reasonable assessment of the effects of greenhouse gases." About half of those polled stated that the science of climate change was not sufficiently settled to pass the issue over to policymakers at all."
When 2/3 no not agree with a consensus is it still worldwide?
|
2/3 in Germany in 2003 is not 2/3 worldwide in 2007 - unlike religion, science changes as more evidence is acquired and better models are developed.
|
"two-thirds of more than 530 climate scientists from 27 countries"
Is this still worldwide scientific consensus?
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Debunked-"world wide scientific consensus"
Topic Locked
