Post deleted by User.
AGW Theory - Discussion |
||
|
AGW Theory - Discussion
Offline
Posts: 4394
Is this your new way of derailing or are you really that inept?
I'm actually impressed you managed to make a post without swearing so you got that going for you.. Leviathan.Chaosx said: » .... Valefor.Sehachan said: » biosolar Blue green algae invented it billions of years ago. It is also some kind of holy grail of harvesting solar energy because its so much more efficient than our solar panels and has built in storage capabilities. We are closing in on it though. In electrifying advance, researchers create circuit within living plants Altimaomega said: » when those climate scientist work is proven nonfactual Specifically, where is the peer reviewed, published information showing the methodology, hypothesis, reasoning, data collection/sampling/sanitization, analysis, and conclusion? Offline
Posts: 4394
Bahamut.Milamber said: » Specifically, where is the peer reviewed, published information showing the methodology, hypothesis, reasoning, data collection/sampling/sanitization, analysis, and conclusion? Have you not been paying attention for the past 2-3 pages? I'm gonna say no.. Asura.Floppyseconds said: » After all you are the expert in the field and all these people have "NEVER" gotten it right Show me when they accurately predicted the climate anywhere in the past 75yrs. Don't bother wasting your time looking. It does not exist. The word NEVER, is perfectly appropriate. Altimaomega said: » Have you not been paying attention for the past 2-3 pages. I'm gonna say no.. Altimaomega said: » Bahamut.Milamber said: » Specifically, where is the peer reviewed, published information showing the methodology, hypothesis, reasoning, data collection/sampling/sanitization, analysis, and conclusion? Have you not been paying attention for the past 2-3 pages? I'm gonna say no.. Specifically, where is the peer reviewed, published information showing the methodology, hypothesis, reasoning, data collection/sampling/sanitization, analysis, and conclusion? Altimaomega said: » Show me when they accurately predicted the climate anywhere in the past 75yrs. Don't bother wasting your time looking. It does not exist. The word NEVER, is perfectly appropriate. edit: Hell, this should be easy for you. Give the other predictions, their methodology, assumptions, data, hypothesis. Oh yes, and it needs to be peer reviewed and published. Altimaomega said: » Your last damn post said everything is based on GOOD FAITH ASSUMPTIONS. You call that SCIENCE! Which can be said for anything you haven't personally studied yourself. Which I'm going to assume it's a lot of subjects. You just refuse to believe it cause you think this is political first. But while politics are involved due to the energy market, this is first scientific, the rest comes after. Offline
Posts: 4394
Bahamut.Milamber said: » Show me that they were measurably more inaccurate than any other means of prediction. Bahamut.Milamber said: » Hell, this should be easy for you. Give the other predictions, their methodology, assumptions, data, hypothesis. Oh yes, and it needs to be peer reviewed and published. Valefor.Sehachan said: » You just refuse to believe it cause you think this is political first. But while politics are involved due to the energy market, this is first scientific, the rest comes after. It is political first and scientific comes after. Altimaomega said: » you should at the very least contribute your opinion on the matter. Altimaomega said: » Last I checked the coastline city's are still around and the ice caps still exists.. Do you people forget the asinine claims made by your side? Offline
Posts: 4394
Valefor.Sehachan said: » Altimaomega said: » Last I checked the coastline city's are still around and the ice caps still exists.. Do you people forget the asinine claims made by your side? Nobody here has said the earth is not warming/cooling. I think you are in the wrong thread. I must have forgotten you have a doctorate in climate science, my bad. So have we gotten anywhere besides climate change denial and arguing against that level of baffling stupidity?
Offline
Posts: 4394
Jetackuu said: » So have we gotten anywhere besides climate change denial and arguing against that level of baffling stupidity? I think we may have establish that everyone wants cheaper green energy.. Does that count? If anything we have established that people love to call other people stupid. Altimaomega said: » If anything we have established that people love to call other people stupid. We established that seems to be a thing across the board back in the early to mid 90s internet infancy. A smug sense of superiority is what keeps the internet in business, ffs. Altimaomega said: » Bahamut.Milamber said: » Show me that they were measurably more inaccurate than any other means of prediction. Bahamut.Milamber said: » Hell, this should be easy for you. Give the other predictions, their methodology, assumptions, data, hypothesis. Oh yes, and it needs to be peer reviewed and published. Valefor.Sehachan said: » You just refuse to believe it cause you think this is political first. But while politics are involved due to the energy market, this is first scientific, the rest comes after. It is political first and scientific comes after. Question: Ok, can you show anything that is better? Answer: We can't predict the climate, cause magic god stuff! Altimaomega said: » It is political first and scientific comes after. The extreme weather patterns caused by climate change affect all species on the planet, and most importantly us. Ignoring the problem won't make it go away. Ecology is possibly the most important thing we should be worried about, and it's no wonder there's so much research going into that field, focusing everything on sustainability. The politics are absolutely secondary. I'll say it for the fourth time: his conspiracy theory only has such a large consensus among republicans in America. And no, it's not cause the rest of the world is oppressed like Saevel said back in the pages lol. Bahamut.Milamber said: » Altimaomega said: » when those climate scientist work is proven nonfactual Specifically, where is the peer reviewed, published information showing the methodology, hypothesis, reasoning, data collection/sampling/sanitization, analysis, and conclusion? They could have used the raw data, taken out the incorrect readings (readings showing no data or readings showing impossible numbers), averaged the remainder out, and use that data, but instead, they just outright changed the data itself. Who cares if the methodology, hypothesis, reasoning, analysis and conclusion is sound when you have junk data in the first place? Even worse when that scientist created the junk data to begin with. Bahamut.Milamber said: » Altimaomega said: » Bahamut.Milamber said: » Show me that they were measurably more inaccurate than any other means of prediction. Bahamut.Milamber said: » Hell, this should be easy for you. Give the other predictions, their methodology, assumptions, data, hypothesis. Oh yes, and it needs to be peer reviewed and published. Valefor.Sehachan said: » You just refuse to believe it cause you think this is political first. But while politics are involved due to the energy market, this is first scientific, the rest comes after. It is political first and scientific comes after. Question: Ok, can you show anything that is better? Answer: We can't predict the climate, cause magic god stuff! Altimaomega said: » This is why you and everyone who believes this crap is wrong. It is political first and scientific comes after. Offline
Posts: 4394
Bahamut.Milamber said: » So your argument is: They aren't 100% correct! Bahamut.Milamber said: » Question: Ok, can you show anything that is better? Bahamut.Milamber said: » Answer: We can't predict the climate, cause magic god stuff! Valefor.Sehachan said: » The extreme weather patterns Asura.Kingnobody said: » Bahamut.Milamber said: » Altimaomega said: » when those climate scientist work is proven nonfactual Specifically, where is the peer reviewed, published information showing the methodology, hypothesis, reasoning, data collection/sampling/sanitization, analysis, and conclusion? They could have used the raw data, taken out the incorrect readings (readings showing no data or readings showing impossible numbers), averaged the remainder out, and use that data, but instead, they just outright changed the data itself. Who cares if the methodology, hypothesis, reasoning, analysis and conclusion is sound when you have junk data in the first place? Even worse when that scientist created the junk data to begin with. Because leaving holes in time-based data makes it essentially unuseable. You need to replace it with something otherwise you have a discontinuity which means that you typically can no longer process it. Think of something like 1/X; you can evaluate it on either side of 0, but when you hit 0, you get screeeewed. (and to be clear, we aren't talking about adjusting for known/observed biases, but simple removal/replacement) So what do you do? You can potentially look at throwing out all data in that sample period(which is overkill for the problem), or you can look at some means of approximating that data, on the basis of lack of uniqueness and the principle of consistency It doesn't apply for areas/stations that show histories of unique or inconsistent behavior. So you usually will take either the previous sample (for real-time systems), the sample after, or the interpolation between the samples (e.g. average of the two). Altimaomega said: » Have been around long before we mere humans walked the earth. Next! It's a loop, why bother. Altimaomega said: Bahamut.Milamber said: » Question: Ok, can you show anything that is better? Bahamut.Milamber said: » Asura.Kingnobody said: » Bahamut.Milamber said: » Altimaomega said: » when those climate scientist work is proven nonfactual Specifically, where is the peer reviewed, published information showing the methodology, hypothesis, reasoning, data collection/sampling/sanitization, analysis, and conclusion? They could have used the raw data, taken out the incorrect readings (readings showing no data or readings showing impossible numbers), averaged the remainder out, and use that data, but instead, they just outright changed the data itself. Who cares if the methodology, hypothesis, reasoning, analysis and conclusion is sound when you have junk data in the first place? Even worse when that scientist created the junk data to begin with. Because leaving holes in time-based data makes it essentially unuseable. You need to replace it with something otherwise you have a discontinuity which means that you typically can no longer process it. Think of something like 1/X; you can evaluate it on either side of 0, but when you hit 0, you get screeeewed. (and to be clear, we aren't talking about adjusting for known/observed biases, but simple removal/replacement) So what do you do? You can potentially look at throwing out all data in that sample period(which is overkill for the problem), or you can look at some means of approximating that data, on the basis of lack of uniqueness and the principle of consistency It doesn't apply for areas/stations that show histories of unique or inconsistent behavior. So you usually will take either the previous sample (for real-time systems), the sample after, or the interpolation between the samples (e.g. average of the two). You don't get to plug numbers in where the holes are and call that science. Hell, you don't get to plug numbers in when it comes to any kind of analytical work. If the data is corrupted or missing, you don't use it. You can't just make ***up or alter the data and call it science. I can't believe I have to explain it to anyone, this is the most basic understanding when it comes to analyzing anything. And yet, for climate science, this is what is happening. And people are not only buying into this, they are actually to the point where they are worshiping this bad science. I mean, if you dare question the data (or dare question God), you are obviously a denier (or a heretic) and must be punished! The parallel between climate science and religion is astounding! tl:dr version: If the data is incorrect, don't use it. Bahamut.Milamber said: » Altimaomega said: Bahamut.Milamber said: » Question: Ok, can you show anything that is better? Mere humans can't influence climate. Can bacteria? What can? What can't? Why? What's the difference? Where is the delimiting factor? Is it time-based? Is it resource based? Is it reversible, or one way? Are there any catalytic factors?
|
|
All FFXI content and images © 2002-2024 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD. FINAL
FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.
|