06 Aug 07
Originally posted by WajomaNo, ups and downs that last a few years are an anomoly. The difference between "climate" and "weather" is timescale, generally accepted as about years 30 I believe. So a 30 year average is by far the best, though 5 or 10 year averages seem to be the generally accepted value.
Yes yes, any ups and downs prior to the industrial revolution were anomalies, anything since is AGW, except any dips which are anomalies as well.
If Dr David Evans is a liar then so is scottish, it's that simple.
But even the skeptics agree that the current trend is a warming one, the point of contention is whether the cause of the current trend is man or nature. All the evidence, which you've been provided with on countless occasions points to man as the culprit for the current trend. Your diversionary tactics of trying to get an individuals average contribution is pointless, that's not how statistics works. The point of an average is that it's across many individuals.
Here's a present so that you can stop annoying people with irrelevant tangents.
http://www.howbigisyourfootprint.com/calculator.php
06 Aug 07
Originally posted by WajomaThe ups and downs are part of cycles. The current warming is part of a cycle disrupted by human activity
Yes yes, any ups and downs prior to the industrial revolution were anomalies, anything since is AGW, except any dips which are anomalies as well.
If Dr David Evans is a liar then so is scottish, it's that simple.
07 Aug 07
Originally posted by WajomaNot at all. Thee cooling around 1945, I'd guess, probably has something to do with the nuclear detonations in Japan sending particulate matter into the atmosphere. It would account for a rapid decrease in temperature due to Global Dimming. You are yet to face up to the fact that the overwhelming trend of the data is a statistically significant increase in temperature over time, and that even the 1945 - 1953 decrease didn't counter that trend.
Yes yes, any ups and downs prior to the industrial revolution were anomalies, anything since is AGW, except any dips which are anomalies as well.
If Dr David Evans is a liar then so is scottish, it's that simple.
If you insist on putting "Dr" David Evans, perhaps you'd be so kind as to refer to me as "Dr" Scottish, and quit with the attempted appeal to authority.
07 Aug 07
Originally posted by SpastiGovThen why should I give a damn that "the majority of scientists appear to be skeptical..."?
...a so-called "consensus" view on anything does not necessarily mean or imply that that position is valid or correct...the majority of scientists appear to be skeptical of AGW theory, contrary to the popular misconception that it's the other way around which merely demonstrates the magnitude of the lie!
Also, "for your edification," I have already admitted that a consensus doesn't act as proof. However, I have proved that a scientific consensus exists. There's a difference there, "for your edification."
07 Aug 07
1 edit
Originally posted by SpastiGov
"If it was intended for me to answer, why not make that obvious by replying to one of my posts with it?"
Oh, I don't know. Maybe it was because I felt a legitimate website was needed to counteract your rant sites, which are all-talk-no-facts, to say the least.
"The 'official' stance [is] taken by assorted government-funded bodies, like universities and other scientific establishments..."
Of course, surely a stance supported by the government and multiple universities and scientific establishments would be worthless.
Again, you astound me with your logic, Spastic.
"Just because wonky can pull some specious statement from a random web site..."
And you expect me to believe that your "sources" aren't "random" websites? In your opinion, what constitures a "random" website, so I might find one that fits your specifications.
"Wonky is very naive and quite daft...He would do better to look at the scientists themselves and see what's left of the so-called consensus."
Thanks, Spastic. Such derrogatory comments from you mean so much to me.
Would you mind pointing out to me where you had taken the liberty of looking at actual climatologists' research? I'd appreciate it.
07 Aug 07
Originally posted by wittywonkaNinny! You've proved nothing of the sort.
Then why should I give a damn that "the majority of scientists [b]appear to be skeptical..."?
Also, "for your edification," I have already admitted that a consensus doesn't act as proof. However, I have proved that a scientific consensus exists. There's a difference there, "for your edification."[/b]
Oh I get it, anything you say is 'proof' for the same reason everything you read is true. Good effort wonky.
07 Aug 07
1 edit
Originally posted by SpastiGovHere's my proof:
Ninny! You've proved nothing of the sort.
Oh I get it, anything you say is 'proof' for the same reason everything you read is true. Good effort wonky.
http://www.environmentaldefense.org/page.cfm?tagID=1011
And until you can come up with something more than whining excuses, it still stands.
07 Aug 07
Originally posted by agrysonWhy isn't scottish getting on your case, if we were to take a 30 year average over the 1940 - 1970 period we'd see, as Dr David Evans has stated, a cooling. Why don't we hear a peep from scottish when someone else other than myself or Dr David Evans makes the claim - scottish is lacking in integrity.
No, ups and downs that last a few years are an anomoly. The difference between "climate" and "weather" is timescale, generally accepted as about years 30 I believe. So a 30 year average is by far the best, though 5 or 10 year averages seem to be the generally accepted value.
But even the skeptics agree that the current trend is a warming one, the point of ...[text shortened]... people with irrelevant tangents.
http://www.howbigisyourfootprint.com/calculator.php
On the one hand you say "individuals average contribution is pointless" and then on the other hand you tell me to take a test "howbigisyourfootprint" which you've just got through saying is irrelevant, you're as self contradictory as scottish.
I've done the frickin test and said so many times - result: average foot print.
I will not be attaching a 'Dr' to a non de plume, because it is just that, anonymous, and, I doubt that it's true.
07 Aug 07
Originally posted by wittywonkaThat's not proof!! It's just another random alarmist web link that repeats the same tired old story.
Here's my proof:
http://www.environmentaldefense.org/page.cfm?tagID=1011
And until you can come up with something more than whining excuses, it still stands.
Here's proof the whole thing is a hyped up hoax to frighten the gullible, like yourself:
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=848
http://www.stuff.co.nz//timaruherald/4064691a6571.html?source=email
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article1368920.ece
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/debate/singer.html
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/
http://globalwarminghoax.com/news.php
07 Aug 07
Originally posted by SpastiGovIf it's wrong, then explain why in scientific terms. Go through each myth you disagree with in at least part 2 of http://www.environmentaldefense.org/documents/4418_MythsvFacts_05.pdf
That's not proof!! It's just another random alarmist web link that repeats the same tired old story.
Here's proof the whole thing is a hyped up hoax to frighten the gullible, like yourself:
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=848
http://www.stuff.co.nz//timaruherald/4064691a6571.html?source=email
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ...[text shortened]... debate/singer.html
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/
http://globalwarminghoax.com/news.php
If it is a hoax then this should be no problem.
07 Aug 07
Originally posted by WajomaBecause he read what I had written, I'm not saying that you can take a thirty year segment of time and be happy, I'm saying construct your patterns from thirty year means, or in the commonly accepted case, 5 year means. Also, hate to point out the slight mathematical flaw in your argument but...
Why isn't scottish getting on your case, if we were to take a 30 year average over the 1940 - 1970 period we'd see, as Dr David Evans has stated, a cooling. Why don't we hear a peep from scottish when someone else other than myself or Dr David Evans makes the claim - scottish is lacking in integrity.
On the one hand you say "individuals average contribu ...[text shortened]... to a non de plume, because it is just that, anonymous, and, I doubt that it's true.
"if we were to take a 30 year average over the 1940 - 1970 period we'd see, as Dr David Evans has stated, a cooling."
No, if you take an average, you get a point value, not an indication of a trend.
Scottish is absolutely right in everything he says so far as I can see. The only place we differ is that he believes Evans is lying, while I think he actually believes his own falsehoods and thus can't really be lying.
07 Aug 07
Originally posted by WajomaDumbass, I gave you the link to the test so that you'd get off everyones back about the bloody "individual contribution" thing and not depend on us to hold your hand and give you the answer.
On the one hand you say "individuals average contribution is pointless" and then on the other hand you tell me to take a test "howbigisyourfootprint" which you've just got through saying is irrelevant, you're as self contradictory as scottish.
07 Aug 07
Originally posted by SpastiGovNot a fact anywhere in any of those links that hasn't already been challenged and defeated.
That's not proof!! It's just another random alarmist web link that repeats the same tired old story.
Here's proof the whole thing is a hyped up hoax to frighten the gullible, like yourself:
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=848
http://www.stuff.co.nz//timaruherald/4064691a6571.html?source=email
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ...[text shortened]... debate/singer.html
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/
http://globalwarminghoax.com/news.php
One article did mention the Al Gore thing again though. This really confuses me. I've never read any books by him, seen a film by him, heard his voice or in any way heard or read what he says.
You guys seem to think that we're arguing from authority and that by undermining that authority that our argument crumbles.
Al Gore is a politician who is using political measures to broadcast a message from what I've gathered, this is why I'm not interested in what he says or does. I, like many on this thread are interested only in objective facts and evidence.
Character assassination of Al Gore does not undermine any of my arguments, and incidentally, neither has anything any of you has said.
Simply stating that the debate is over does not make it so.
07 Aug 07
Originally posted by agryson...and you know what, the test still didn't say how much I heated up the planet by.
Dumbass, I gave you the link to the test so that you'd get off everyones back about the bloody "individual contribution" thing and not depend on us to hold your hand and give you the answer.