Started By
Message
2
Posted on 1/27/16 at 7:28 pm to chauncey1
So what do you think is driving through current climate change?
Posted on 1/27/16 at 7:31 pm to chauncey1
quote:
How old are you. 25? You don't know your arse from your hand. I can manipulate data to show you whatever your agenda is... I review technical papers the PhDs write. The majority of them are crap, but they get letters behind their names non the less. Trust the author, not the masses. You don't know poop. What are you environmental or industrial. Either way, you're probably not a productive member of society...
30. And I understand quite a bit. Given how fricking stupid your "piss in the ocean" comparison was, I doubt you have any fricking clue what you're talking about on the matter. Seriously, I've seen some stupid shite in these debates, but that is among the worst. And from someone that claims to be a fricking engineer, no less.
You're out of your league.
And at risk of revealing my employer, I am employed as a biomedical engineer at a children's hospital. No offense, but I think my work is actually pretty damned important.
Posted on 1/27/16 at 7:37 pm to chauncey1
quote:
Further models are models. Have you ever done modeling? If so, you'd put as much faith into a model someone else does as I do.
What a jack arse...
Some small scale stuff.
And yes, I understand that all models are by definition wrong. That doesn't mean they aren't useful and to be dismissed out of hand because you disagree with the result on an ideological level.
This post was edited on 1/27/16 at 7:39 pm
Posted on 1/27/16 at 7:44 pm to Duke
There is a combination of factors, but a significant portion is associated with ocean currents.
Posted on 1/27/16 at 8:01 pm to Bigbens42
So being a biomedical engineer somehow makes you a climate scientist? Really? What journals do you look at actually review? Stick to the hospital, son.
So you have 7-8 years real world experience... Just starting to figure the big boy world out! Good for you. You really don't know anything...
The argument of the ocean is an example of relevance and significance. I see it all the time. People get caught looking at the trees and don't see the forest. Engineers are the worst. Paralysis by analysis.
And the vast majority of historical climate changes are not very well understood. You stating they are, is a falsehood.
People come up with theories. Theories and facts are not the same. Maybe they didn't teach that at Auburn.
So you have 7-8 years real world experience... Just starting to figure the big boy world out! Good for you. You really don't know anything...
The argument of the ocean is an example of relevance and significance. I see it all the time. People get caught looking at the trees and don't see the forest. Engineers are the worst. Paralysis by analysis.
And the vast majority of historical climate changes are not very well understood. You stating they are, is a falsehood.
People come up with theories. Theories and facts are not the same. Maybe they didn't teach that at Auburn.
Posted on 1/27/16 at 8:10 pm to chauncey1
I can make a model show you what I want you to see by manipulating small arbitrary inputs. A model is only as good as the software it's written, available known parameters, data being honored and the person running the program. Honestly, finding a "scientist" that has the ability is very rare...
If I get funded by environmentalists pushing a pro global warming agenda, I don't bite the hand that feeds me...
If I get funded by environmentalists pushing a pro global warming agenda, I don't bite the hand that feeds me...
Posted on 1/27/16 at 8:19 pm to chauncey1
What would be the mechanism re: the oceans?
Changes in circulation patters? Warmer water dissolving less CO2? If ocean currents are a specialty of yours, learn me somethin.
Changes in circulation patters? Warmer water dissolving less CO2? If ocean currents are a specialty of yours, learn me somethin.
Posted on 1/27/16 at 8:40 pm to chauncey1
quote:
So being a biomedical engineer somehow makes you a climate scientist? Really?
I've never claimed any sort of expertise on climate science and will readily admit I'm arguing from authority on the matter. I do, however, work in and have a degree in what is essentially hard science field, so I do know something about scientific method, consistency and coherence of conclusions derived from data, validity, reliability, peer review, and the behaviour of complex systems. I know what to look for regarding scientific fraud.
quote:
What journals do you look at actually review? Stick to the hospital, son.
Stick to stuff you actually have a grasp of, jackass. You're talking out of your arse on climate change.
And I do follow journals as a matter of course at work. IEEE's Biomedical and Health Informatics, Digital Imaging etc.
quote:
So you have 7-8 years real world experience... Just starting to figure the big boy world out! Good for you. You really don't know anything...
Far more than your crotchety old arse seems to realize.
quote:
The argument of the ocean is an example of relevance and significance. I see it all the time. People get caught looking at the trees and don't see the forest. Engineers are the worst. Paralysis by analysis.
And you think that's the case with the vast majority of scientists and others that study the matter?
quote:
And the vast majority of historical climate changes are not very well understood. You stating they are, is a falsehood.
I didn't say that. The changes you mentioned are pretty well understood, though.
quote:
People come up with theories. Theories and facts are not the same. Maybe they didn't teach that at Auburn.
Theories must be well supported by facts. You must be one of those that doesn't understand the difference between theory in the scientific and colloquial sense. Maybe you missed that part in class, as I'm sure they teach that at LSU.
Posted on 1/27/16 at 8:43 pm to Duke
I started learning about currents studying sedimentology and deposition. It's a really interesting field that should be more prominent in the climate change discussion.
Your on the right path. To make it short because I'm typing on my phone... It has to do with what drives ocean currents (temperature/geology) and carbon capture/emission. What holds temperature better a liquid or a gas? You should read up on it. There are a few really good books on the subject matter if you want to nerd out one weekend.
Your on the right path. To make it short because I'm typing on my phone... It has to do with what drives ocean currents (temperature/geology) and carbon capture/emission. What holds temperature better a liquid or a gas? You should read up on it. There are a few really good books on the subject matter if you want to nerd out one weekend.
Posted on 1/27/16 at 8:45 pm to Bigbens42
Told yall. Cow farts and termites. Lets get this bitch overheated and watch it burn.
Posted on 1/27/16 at 8:47 pm to chauncey1
quote:
If I get funded by environmentalists pushing a pro global warming agenda, I don't bite the hand that feeds me...
And there's the conspiracy theory.
"Plot idea: 97% of the world's scientists contrive an environmental crisis, but are exposed by a plucky band of billionaires and oil companies."
-Scott Westerfield
I suppose fewer and fewer climate scientists adopting the consensus position could be consistent with some kind of widespread and insidious suppression of ideas, but you know, it's also consistent with having the right answer.
This post was edited on 1/27/16 at 11:19 pm
Posted on 1/27/16 at 8:55 pm to chauncey1
Oceans are clearly going to be the largest heat sink. While I'm not sold that's the important driver, you've certainly piqued my curiosity. Since it's absorbing and transporting most of the energy.
Posted on 1/27/16 at 10:03 pm to Duke
Duke, not only that but look at weather patterns associated with currents, absorption/dissolution, etc. Lots of good stuff...
Good luck auburn. Hope you pull your head out of your arse one day. Maybe then you'll realize how the world works... In today's world, everyone behind a keyboard is equal, whether that's true or not... Sometimes, the masses get it wrong. Go forth sheep.
Good luck auburn. Hope you pull your head out of your arse one day. Maybe then you'll realize how the world works... In today's world, everyone behind a keyboard is equal, whether that's true or not... Sometimes, the masses get it wrong. Go forth sheep.
Posted on 1/27/16 at 10:21 pm to chauncey1
What's funny is look who funds 350 org. I guess other billionaires than the ones you are referring to... People with money, corporations or government fund everything. People have agendas. I'm not saying there is a conspiracy, but it's bad science on bad science.
The 97% is out of context and used by people that don't know anything about what they are talking about. I cringe when I listen to non-technical people try to relay technical data.
The 97% is out of context and used by people that don't know anything about what they are talking about. I cringe when I listen to non-technical people try to relay technical data.
Posted on 1/27/16 at 10:25 pm to chauncey1
quote:Fixed it for ya
I review technical papers the PhDs write while setting in my moms basement in my underwear. Then I masterbate to gay porn but can't quite get to 97% if ya get my drift
Posted on 1/27/16 at 10:42 pm to chauncey1
Don't pontificate, jackass.
Just because you handwave fricktons of research as bad science doesn't make it so.
Just because you handwave fricktons of research as bad science doesn't make it so.
Posted on 1/27/16 at 10:42 pm to chauncey1
Don't pontificate, jackass.
Just because you handwave fricktons of research as bad science doesn't make it so.
Just because you handwave fricktons of research as bad science doesn't make it so.
Posted on 1/27/16 at 10:50 pm to chauncey1
Science is not supposed to be a debate where people lend their perspectives. Take the 97% from the Cook et al 2013 study for instance. That number represents the agreement of over a thousand independent climate scientist's research. The consensus is not a coercive agent.
Further, let's discuss your statement here:
This is a clumsy argument by assertion. If scientists come up with counter-consensus or revolutionary findings they can easily put them into the literature by simply presenting the evidence. They don't have to rock any boats to change the paradigm.
Example. Consider Watson's and Crick's 1 page paper where they said in the last sentence:
Could be considered controversial, and certainly revolutionary, if understated, as it essentially changed the way we understood life.
If a research group comes up with a result that refutes the consensus they can publish regardless of any pressure on them to not do so if they are skilled at writing papers, and they would rush to do so because they would immediately attract the approval and funding from some very rich industries.
Or are we to simply accept your suggestion that all the journals of the world are conspiring to suppress this covert dissent, along with pretty much all of the governments and corporations?
Further, let's discuss your statement here:
quote:
People with money, corporations or government fund everything. People have agendas. I'm not saying there is a conspiracy, but it's bad science on bad science.
This is a clumsy argument by assertion. If scientists come up with counter-consensus or revolutionary findings they can easily put them into the literature by simply presenting the evidence. They don't have to rock any boats to change the paradigm.
Example. Consider Watson's and Crick's 1 page paper where they said in the last sentence:
quote:
It has not escaped our notice that the specific pairing we have postulated immediately suggests a possible copying mechanism for the genetic material.
Could be considered controversial, and certainly revolutionary, if understated, as it essentially changed the way we understood life.
If a research group comes up with a result that refutes the consensus they can publish regardless of any pressure on them to not do so if they are skilled at writing papers, and they would rush to do so because they would immediately attract the approval and funding from some very rich industries.
Or are we to simply accept your suggestion that all the journals of the world are conspiring to suppress this covert dissent, along with pretty much all of the governments and corporations?
This post was edited on 1/27/16 at 10:54 pm
Posted on 1/27/16 at 10:58 pm to Bigbens42
Environmentalism is now a religion.
And mizouCocksucker- since you made a personal attack, just know I'm better than you. I will always be better than you.
And yes, I review and judge engineering papers for colleges or big technical conferences on occasion if my work schedule permits. It keeps me abreast of new technology. You stay under your rock.
And mizouCocksucker- since you made a personal attack, just know I'm better than you. I will always be better than you.
And yes, I review and judge engineering papers for colleges or big technical conferences on occasion if my work schedule permits. It keeps me abreast of new technology. You stay under your rock.
Page 8 of 9
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News