Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

climategateFollow

#152 Dec 03 2009 at 3:08 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Are you saying that temperatures in the so-called mini ice age were warmer than current temps? I'm not sure what you're getting at, here.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#153 Dec 03 2009 at 3:09 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Can you honestly look at the temperature graph and say that there's anything unusual about the last period in the pattern?

Eight of the ten hottest years on record occurred in this decade (adding in 2009 in the #5 spot per NASA). The other two were 1997 & 1998. Out of the next ten hottest years on record, seven were in the 1990's, one in the 2000's and two in the 1980's.

I'd say that's unusual. I can even say it honestly. I won't comment on the other graph because it's in tiny-vision and I don't have a source or context for it.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#154 Dec 03 2009 at 3:16 PM Rating: Default
Jophed,

Quote:
Eight of the ten hottest years on record occurred in this decade


On record being what 100yrs?
#155 Dec 03 2009 at 3:25 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
158 years, according to the chart. Your point? There's other charts showing the same thing going back further but then you whine that the data back then wasn't good enough.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#156 Dec 03 2009 at 3:30 PM Rating: Good
*****
10,601 posts
publiusvarus wrote:
Xarus,

Quote:
It shows a correlation between CO2 levels and temperature.


And you're making the assumption that if co2 level increase and temperatures also increase then that must mean humans caused temperatures to increase. Sounds about right for how liberals deal with scientific issues.
That's not what I'm saying at all. Are you really completely unfamiliar with how science works?

The two graphs show a correlation between CO2 and temperature. We can also see that CO2 is higher then normal now, ie: it's not following the historical trends. We attribute this increase to human activities, which is fairly quantifiable, and not really up for debate. We do produce a lot of CO2. The argument is that the extra CO2 will affect the normal cycle. It's of course more complicated then that.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#157 Dec 03 2009 at 3:30 PM Rating: Good
Vagina Dentata,
what a wonderful phrase
******
30,106 posts
Jophiel wrote:
158 years, according to the chart. Your point? There's other charts showing the same thing going back further but then you whine that the data back then wasn't good enough.


Unless you go back to the time that the dinosaur's ruled the lands, you can't really make any supposition of the idea that six billion people and massive industrialization would have any effect on the earth. I mean, GOD JOPH! Next thing you know, you'll be all saying that we're descending from monkeys.
____________________________
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
#158 Dec 03 2009 at 4:13 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
The two graphs show a correlation between CO2 and temperature.


No. They don't. That's the problem.

The graph with temperatures on it is of such a long period of time, it's impossible to look at it and have any clue as to what the last century, let alone the last few decades were like temperature-wise.

And yes. There are better graphs. I was just scratching my head about how or why anyone would think that particular graph in any way constituted proof of a correlation between human behavior and temperature.

If we're on the topic of "bad science", there are more problems. Three really:

1. There is nothing in that post or in the graphs to indicate that temperatures are rising.

2. There is nothing in that post or in the graphs to indicate a correlation between temperature and CO2.

3. There is information in the graphs indicating that CO2 levels are rising, but nothing to indicate a correlation between that and human behavior.


He was asked to provide proof that rising temperatures were correlated to human behavior. Surely you can see how the information he provided doesn't do that. I get that there are good arguments for that point. I was merely pointing out that the one he made wasn't one of them...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#159 Dec 03 2009 at 4:15 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Can you honestly look at the temperature graph and say that there's anything unusual about the last period in the pattern?

Eight of the ten hottest years on record occurred in this decade (adding in 2009 in the #5 spot per NASA). The other two were 1997 & 1998. Out of the next ten hottest years on record, seven were in the 1990's, one in the 2000's and two in the 1980's.


And that is indicated on the graph he posted where exactly?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#160 Dec 03 2009 at 4:17 PM Rating: Good
*****
10,601 posts
gbaji wrote:
Sir Xsarus wrote:
The two graphs show a correlation between CO2 and temperature.


No. They don't. That's the problem.
Perhaps you should take a pencil and draw vertical lines at every temperature spike. Notice what else is high?

Now sure, the graphs don't show the direct correlation. What they show is a correlation between CO2 and temperature. They also show an increase in CO2 lately, which is attributed to human activity. You could then conclude that there is a chance that the human activity could influence the temperature, given the first correlation.

Are you saying human activity hasn't increased CO2 levels? Because that's quantifiable.

Edited, Dec 3rd 2009 4:23pm by Xsarus
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#161 Dec 03 2009 at 4:18 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
And that is indicated on the graph he posted where exactly?

Hi! Quote my second paragraph. Ok, now read it... read it... read it again... one more time for comprehension...


Find your answer yet? If not, try quoting it again! Smiley: smile
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#162 Dec 03 2009 at 4:34 PM Rating: Good
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
So, what's the reason for the liberals to be making up global warming? Who benefits if this is all a big hoax? Someone might have explained this already, but I'm sure I glossed over any long, boring or just plain stupid posts.
#163 Dec 03 2009 at 4:44 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts
Nadenu wrote:
So, what's the reason for the liberals to be making up global warming? Who benefits if this is all a big hoax? Someone might have explained this already, but I'm sure I glossed over any long, boring or just plain stupid posts.

Something about tricking people into voting more liberals into power. I'm not sure why they keep up this cycle of trickery if all they get out of it is putting more allies into place to trick more people, and so forth. I don't really get it. So Barack Obama wants to increase people's reliance on the government so that in the future, people will want to vote another liberal into the presidency? Why does Barack Obama care who's president after him if his only motivation was the trickery, and not altruism? You can't say he's in it for more power, he's already the most powerful person on the planet.

They say global warming is a trick so the liberals can push across the rest of their agenda. But then every other point on their agenda is also explained as a trick to push across their agenda. So it's just a cycle of tricks with no purpose. I guess.



Edited, Dec 3rd 2009 4:56pm by trickybeck
#164 Dec 03 2009 at 4:46 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Nadenu wrote:
So, what's the reason for the liberals to be making up global warming? Who benefits if this is all a big hoax? Someone might have explained this already, but I'm sure I glossed over any long, boring or just plain stupid posts.


The solar-industrial complex.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#165 Dec 03 2009 at 4:48 PM Rating: Decent
***
1,087 posts
Quote:
So, what's the reason for the liberals to be making up global warming? Who benefits if this is all a big hoax? Someone might have explained this already, but I'm sure I glossed over any long, boring or just plain stupid posts


Would suggest the book "State of Fear" by Michael Chrichton for anyone with this question.
#166 Dec 03 2009 at 4:50 PM Rating: Default
Nadenu,

Quote:
So, what's the reason for the liberals to be making up global warming? Who benefits if this is all a big hoax? Someone might have explained this already, but I'm sure I glossed over any long, boring or just plain stupid posts.


Now we're getting to it. One word for why liberals are creating this global warming scare...CONTROL. The exact same reason liberals are for socialized healthcare. Liberals seek complete control over every person in every country. Now how do politicians control the populace...taxes. All carbon credits are is a way for liberals to control capitalism and the free market. And guess who are going to be the ones distributing the carbon credits...liberal politicians. That's right if you want to start a business you will have grovel before some liberal politician that's selling carbon credits which were created based on nothing more than junk science.

If the concept of human caused global warming is crushed then liberals have to find some other way to control the people. Not to mention all the time and money already invested will have been for nothing.




Xarus,

Quote:
Now sure, the graphs don't show the direct correlation. What they show is a correlation between CO2 and temperature.


More of those superb scientific skills coming into play I see. So a rise in co2 levels coinciding with a rise (if you fall for the myth the temp is rising) in temperature means there is a correlation between the two?


Quote:
They also show an increase in CO2 lately, which is attributed to human activity.


It's not attributed to human activity except by radical junk scientists who fabricate and hide information in order to prove their theories.




Edited, Dec 3rd 2009 5:54pm by publiusvarus

Edited, Dec 3rd 2009 5:55pm by publiusvarus
#167 Dec 03 2009 at 4:51 PM Rating: Default
Terrifying,

Liberals don't read books like that. Now give them a new harry potter book and watch them swarm to the stores.

#168 Dec 03 2009 at 4:55 PM Rating: Good
*****
10,601 posts
publiusvarus wrote:
Xarus,

Quote:
Now sure, the graphs don't show the direct correlation. What they show is a correlation between CO2 and temperature.


More of those superb scientific skills coming into play I see. So a rise in co2 levels coinciding with a rise (if you fall for the myth the temp is rising) in temperature means there is a correlation between the two?
Seeing as you pretty much just defined what correlation means, yes? I mean, you do understand the word you're using right?

Edited, Dec 3rd 2009 4:58pm by Xsarus
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#169 Dec 03 2009 at 4:56 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Quote:
So a rise in co2 levels coinciding with a rise... in temperature means there is a correlation between the two?


By definition, yes. I think you meant to question the causal relationship.

Edit: damn you, Xsarus.



Edited, Dec 3rd 2009 2:58pm by Samira
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#170 Dec 03 2009 at 4:59 PM Rating: Good
*****
12,049 posts
publiusvarus wrote:

Quote:
Now sure, the graphs don't show the direct correlation. What they show is a correlation between CO2 and temperature.


More of those superb scientific skills coming into play I see. So a rise in co2 levels coinciding with a rise (if you fall for the myth the temp is rising) in temperature means there is a correlation between the two?


Hahahahaha.

Wait, are you serious?

Hahahahaha!
#171 Dec 03 2009 at 5:08 PM Rating: Default
Samy,

I meant what I said, sarcasm and all. Just because two variables are going in the same direction does not automatically mean there is any correlation.

#172 Dec 03 2009 at 5:09 PM Rating: Good
*****
10,601 posts
publiusvarus wrote:
Samy,

I meant what I said, sarcasm and all. Just because two variables are going in the same direction does not automatically mean there is any correlation.

yeah, actually that is what correlation means. Welcome to English!
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#173 Dec 03 2009 at 5:11 PM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
21,027 posts
publiusvarus wrote:
I meant what I said, sarcasm and all. Just because two variables are going in the same direction does not automatically mean there is any correlation.

That fits the very definition of correlation. How is it not correlation?
#174 Dec 03 2009 at 5:12 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
publiusvarus wrote:
Samy,

I meant what I said, sarcasm and all. Just because two variables are going in the same direction does not automatically mean there is any correlation.


Causation is what you're arguing this isn't. Which isn't what's being said.

You fail.

Edit: Damn you, Samira. and by association, Xarus.

Edited, Dec 3rd 2009 6:16pm by Debalic
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#175 Dec 03 2009 at 5:16 PM Rating: Good
*****
10,601 posts
haha! I win both times Smiley: tongue
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#176 Dec 03 2009 at 5:18 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
And that is indicated on the graph he posted where exactly?

Hi! Quote my second paragraph. Ok, now read it... read it... read it again... one more time for comprehension...


Um... Hello! I'm not talking about your graph. I'm talking about the temperature graph posted by Ash. You know... the one I was talking about all along? The one he posted in response to a request that he provide proof of a correlation between human behavior and rising temperatures.


Let me go reeeeeeaaaaaaalllllly slllllloooooooowwww for you. All I was saying was that the graphs posted by Ash in no way constituted a valid response to the question he was asked. Get it? I was (and still am) scratching my head looking at that graph showing 400,000 years of temperatures and wondering why he thought it meant anything relevant.

And I'm continuing to scratch my head wondering why when I mentioned this, several people popped out of the woodwork to insist that I was somehow scientifically challenged because I couldn't see how that graph clearly showed a correlation between human activity and temperature.


See... No matter how much you believe something, or even how much you're sure it's been proven, that does not equate to a single specific bit of "proof" actually being valid. It's interesting psychology though. People don't look at the actual evidence. They assume it shows what they believe to be true. What I'm seeing is a perfect example of that behavior...

____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 379 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (379)