User Controls
Aliens Cause Global Warming
-
2019-03-07 at 6:10 AM UTC
Originally posted by gadzooks Yeah, an INDIVIDUAL could totally fudge up their data… But then when that same study is scrutinized by others in the field, or new evidence comes to light, then that PARTICULAR SCIENTIST will be shown for the fraud that they are.
For ENTIRE scientific fields to pull this shit off would require a little thing called a conspiracy.
And the second anyone started dropping that particular C-word, I'm out.
I'll debate reality, not wild and unsubstantiated speculation.
There's a big difference between conspiracies theories, and conspiracy facts. Most people run when the conspiracy facts come out, not when the conspiracy theories come out. Fact. -
2019-03-07 at 6:12 AM UTC
Originally posted by vindicktive vinny i dont you understand what im saying, its not the fudging of the data. its the interpretation of it.
say an artifact is 6000 years old according to c14 dating technique. that means it could be either 5500 years old or 6500 years old, now your free to place this piece of artifact as to belong to the reign of this pharoa or that, and youll still be right.
not really. scientists are people too, and have their biases due to their personal beliefs or financial needs.
scientists are no more different than your typical politicians, and the only difference between them is instead of working with lesgilation and legislating, they work with data and the intepretation of it.
Most times it's even simpler than that. It's just that they are God-damned stupid and practically brain-dead idiots, who got their credentials out of a CrackerJack box. And I'm not kidding. Some of these jackasses have a lower IQ than, say, a bag of rocks, or a tree stump. -
2019-03-07 at 6:21 AM UTCComputer models are a hell of a lot more accurate now than they were during the Cold War era. I’m sure every simulation back then showed that nuclear holocaust was imminent.
-
2019-03-11 at 12:50 AM UTC
Originally posted by gadzooks Admittedly, I have not scrutinized that entire article, it's pretty long so I saved it for later and just kinda skimmed certain parts so far.
I was mainly responding to the part that you quoted here, and that was even bolded in the article itself, about the nature of consensus in science.
And regarding that particular point, I see what he's getting at, but my problem with it isn't the underlying point, but the fact that most of the opponents of climate change will use nearly identical arguments, and that's why I see a need to refute that central thesis.
It's totally true that science is consensus based, but climate change deniers can't use that as an argument against climate change.
When it comes to using mathematical prediction models, the results are only as good as the data fed into them.
i.e. Garbage in, garbage out.
I haven't taken a super close look at the data, but obviously thousands of respected, highly-specialized climatologists have reviewed the data and are satisfied with it.
As to the accuracy of these predictions, it's all a numbers game. The more data points you feed into a model, the more accurate your predictions can become. But then there's also specificity of predictions. If you want to take thousands of years of global temperature data and use that to try and predict global temperature data for a few years from now, it should be pretty damn accurate.
But if you want to predict something way more complex, such as isolated weather phenomena within specific geographic regions… That's going to be a lot trickier.
Similarly, the Drake equation is a similar such estimation, but it's a LOT more difficult to verify since we can't exactly load up a rocket ship full of space exploring astronauts and just launch them into every neighbouring galaxy.
Did you ever finish reading it? -
2019-03-11 at 1:04 AM UTC
Originally posted by Methuselah Computer models are a hell of a lot more accurate now than they were during the Cold War era. I’m sure every simulation back then showed that nuclear holocaust was imminent.
This reminds me of the Foundation Trilogy by Isaac Asimov. He was a jedi, but atheist, and his sci-fi was all white.
In it his protagonists would wonder if something would happen, then crank out a little "symbolic math" on a napkin, then conclude either "yes it would" or "no it wouldn't".
Symbolic math/logic was like some weird math version of game theory. It could predict social and political trends and forces. It was basically Ashkenazi conceit reduced to a (fictional) science. Harry Seldon was a jedi in all but name. Symbolic logic was always proven correct within the context of the novels.
Unfortunately climate scientists are the dumbest, most disreputable fuckers on the planet. If you're smart right now you go into nuclear physics, or computer science. If you're greedy and willing to sell your soul by being dishonest, you go into financial modelling - all you need to do there is nod your head while the salesmen are talking your clients into the latest "financial engineering" con.
Only complete degenerate fuckers go into climatology. -
2019-03-11 at 3:01 AM UTCWorse, despite all their super computers and super models they couldnt even accurately predict a storm five days into the future and somehow idiots and retards take their words raw up their asses and believe they can predict weather pattern 500 to 5000000 years into the future accurately.
the climate change retards today are no different than those millennium doomsday cult you had back in AD 1000.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
