What are the options to "tackle global warming"

chitwnvw · Post by **chitwnvw** » Tue Apr 19, 2011 5:48 pm

Yet he sites Christopher R. Scotese, a doctoral recipient from the University of Chicago and professor at University of Texas, for his temp info and R.A. Berner, another professor, this time at Yale for his CO2 levels.

ruckman101 · Post by **ruckman101** » Tue Apr 19, 2011 5:59 pm

Yes he does, in an effort to appear credible. Data can be construed to achieve any result desired, especially when you leave out the parts that don't work.

His main gig is as West Virginia's Office of Miner’s Safety chief engineer. You know, if I were a West Virginian miner, I'd be concerned about that.

neal

turk · Post by **turk** » Tue Apr 19, 2011 6:07 pm

If the graph isn't credible (per the Koch's conspiracy theory) is there a more credible graph of the same chronology and variables? Please present that graph. We will then critique it appropriately.

ruckman101 · Post by **ruckman101** » Tue Apr 19, 2011 6:12 pm

I have nothing to prove. The body of credible evidence speaks for itself.

neal

chitwnvw · Post by **chitwnvw** » Tue Apr 19, 2011 6:18 pm

ruckman101 wrote:Data can be construed to achieve any result desired, especially when you leave out the parts that don't work.

Lol! Yes, Neal I agree, the IPCC is not to be trusted.

ruckman101 · Post by **ruckman101** » Tue Apr 19, 2011 6:25 pm

chitwnvw wrote:
ruckman101 wrote:Data can be construed to achieve any result desired, especially when you leave out the parts that don't work.
Lol! Yes, Neal I agree, the IPCC is not to be trusted.

Why is that? They seem pretty accredited to me, transparent with their info.

neal

steve74baywin · Post by **steve74baywin** » Tue Apr 19, 2011 6:26 pm

turk wrote:If the graph isn't credible (per the Koch's conspiracy theory) is there a more credible graph of the same chronology and variables? Please present that graph. We will then critique it appropriately.

I haven't seen anything since the Inconvenient Truth but surely there are a few
more graphs.
I would like to see some also.
If no one else finds one I may look tomorrow if I have time, remember and feel like it.

turk · Post by **turk** » Tue Apr 19, 2011 6:39 pm

ruckman101 wrote:
chitwnvw wrote:
ruckman101 wrote:Data can be construed to achieve any result desired, especially when you leave out the parts that don't work.
Lol! Yes, Neal I agree, the IPCC is not to be trusted.
Why is that? They seem pretty accredited to me, transparent with their info.

neal

The IPCC is a dying horse. They have been discredited in their "reports" recently. They are in need of revamp or just disbanded altogether for a more credible organization. How many scientists does it really represent. I listen to those former IPCC authors, now demonized by it. It's not science. It's politics. The charter even states just that. It's not a science research body. It's political from the get go.

ruckman101 · Post by **ruckman101** » Tue Apr 19, 2011 6:42 pm

Missed all that.

neal

turk · Post by **turk** » Tue Apr 19, 2011 6:49 pm

Well I'm sorry you missed all that. If I feel like it I will find all the recent stories, such as the 100% dead wrong prediction of 50,000,000 climate change refugees this year, and all the Himalayan Glaciers disappearing in 35 years, etc.. This is the tripe they are well known for. Where have you been? Don't worry, the internet doesn't forget.

ruckman101 · Post by **ruckman101** » Tue Apr 19, 2011 6:52 pm

Oh right, observed variations from predictions.

neal

turk · Post by **turk** » Tue Apr 19, 2011 6:53 pm

Anyone can say that. You have to have a base hit at least once in a while. Show me one of those.

ruckman101 · Post by **ruckman101** » Tue Apr 19, 2011 6:56 pm

What are you talking about? One of those? What is those?

The IPCC seems very concerned about the accuracy of data.

neal

turk · Post by **turk** » Tue Apr 19, 2011 7:07 pm

A "base hit" : something that was predicted , and observed as predicted. I would say they don't even have a batting average, meaning zero predictions panned out in observation. That's why we have the notorious backpedalling with the "science" label feebly plastered on it by the press : "not cooler, warmer" and so forth. What I give more credence to is satellite observations, which again, show no warming in the tropospheric "hot-spot" predicted decades ago. So, ball in your court, so to speak.

ruckman101 · Post by **ruckman101** » Tue Apr 19, 2011 7:09 pm

turk wrote:Well I'm sorry you missed all that. If I feel like it I will find all the recent stories, such as the 100% dead wrong prediction of 50,000,000 climate change refugees this year, and all the Himalayan Glaciers disappearing in 35 years, etc.. This is the tripe they are well known for. Where have you been? Don't worry, the internet doesn't forget.

Don't put yourself out, especially if your sources are culled from organizations with similar lack of credibility and with ties, funding et al to energy corporations like Koch Industries.

neal

Itinerant Air-Cooled

Itinerant Air-Cooled

What are the options to "tackle global warming"

Re: What are the options to "tackle global warming"

Re: What are the options to "tackle global warming"

Re: What are the options to "tackle global warming"

Re: What are the options to "tackle global warming"

Re: What are the options to "tackle global warming"

Re: What are the options to "tackle global warming"

Re: What are the options to "tackle global warming"

Re: What are the options to "tackle global warming"

Re: What are the options to "tackle global warming"

Re: What are the options to "tackle global warming"

Re: What are the options to "tackle global warming"

Re: What are the options to "tackle global warming"

Re: What are the options to "tackle global warming"

Re: What are the options to "tackle global warming"

Re: What are the options to "tackle global warming"