Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 7, 2015 - 09:09am PT
|
It states absolutely NOTHING to the fact of percentages of C02 that is based on human emissions.
You sound pretty certain of yourself The Chief. Do you have a citation for where you got that factoid?
There is absolutely no level of concise real time valid accuracy to this statement ...
Pure gold I tell ya. More gas for the Noise Machine please!
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
The amazing thing is that Ed continues to try and educate the likes of Chief and the Wasilla wanker.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
Bob & all, I think the key is that Ed likes to learn the science for himself, and then share it in case others might be interested (I am, for one). He's a smart guy with no illusions about Rick or Chief.
|
|
Cragar
climber
MSLA - MT
|
|
^^^ Why else would I come to this thread. Thanks Ed.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
The same can be said about Malemute.
About 90% of your posts are just your azhole showing ......
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
Quack Quack
|
|
McHale's Navy
Trad climber
From Panorama City, CA
|
|
This is silly, we have a very accurate idea of how much CO2 we are pulling out of the ground that was created ages ago, that otherwise would not be coming out and adding to the percentage.
|
|
McHale's Navy
Trad climber
From Panorama City, CA
|
|
Ed, take over please.
:>)
Statements like this are pretty much Straw Herrings though:
I am saying the accuracy is not definitive and clear between natural and anthro due to the current inability to clearly decipher the difference between the two.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 7, 2015 - 11:20am PT
|
Another member of the AGW Parrot brigade here that just repeats what they believe to be true.
And now I suppose you are going to show that you are not one who only repeats what you believe to be true, right The Chief?
The difference is that Ed et al can back up their claims with facts, whereas you, The Chief, simply fart when asked to back up your nonsense.
|
|
McHale's Navy
Trad climber
From Panorama City, CA
|
|
Yeah Chief, I'm the parrot. Haha!
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 7, 2015 - 11:31am PT
|
By posting vague AR5 quotes and C02 graphs then claiming them as the gospel.
That's pure BS. Ed has actually shown his work.
AR5 has been rigorously reviewed and tested.
Got any more farts?
|
|
EdwardT
Trad climber
Retired
|
|
+97%
^^^
Percentage of off-tangent content in this thread.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 7, 2015 - 11:43am PT
|
AR5 has been rigorously reviewed and tested.
By whom? The actual authors of their own work?
Careful The Chief, your ignorance is showing.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 7, 2015 - 11:52am PT
|
Your question has been answered many times in this thread The Chief. It is not my fault you either (1) don't care to read the answers, or (2) ignore the answers.
BTW, it's called the scientific method. Google it.
Or simply read through some of Ed's (and others) posts where they address your very question.
Or read through AR5 itself--you can see for yourself how they tested what is presented and how they reached their conclusions.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
what if it was modelling and corelations? What would that mean to you?
Correlation means to me the covariance of X and Y divided by the standard deviation of X times the standard deviation of Y. Simplest modelling might be a straight line, the slope of which equals the covariance of X and Y divided by the variance of X.
You're welcome. ;-)
|
|
McHale's Navy
Trad climber
From Panorama City, CA
|
|
Correlation is important in determining how experiments should be set up and guided. The anti-science denier community has turned correlation into a dirty word. That much is easy to see, and gives a good clue to the denier's motives.
Edited: By the way Chief, that is not parroted thought.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 7, 2015 - 12:32pm PT
|
scientific method
Which in this particular issue is one sided. Any scientist in the field of CC Research that disagrees with the methodology/consensus that has been deemed gospel, is instantly made out to be disingenuous, a heretic and totally discredited.
Hmmm, so you knew the answer to your question when you asked it. Interesting, in that it shows you were just ginning up more noise.
So, have any proof of your claim that researches who disagree are instantly made out to be disingenuous, instead of the scientific community showing that their scientific claims are found to be unmerited?
No, I didn't think so.
|
|
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
curry: "The best course of action is to slowly but surely move away from fossil fuels"
So she agrees with the IPCC,
starting in approx. 1990 we are now 25 years in, and so we now should be about halfway there to weaning ourselves off fossil fuels.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!