Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Chicken Little Might Be Wrong?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by Right Divider View Post

    Nobody labeled you anything.
    ROcketman did:
    Originally posted by rocketman View Post

    It certainly is relevant, if you are swayed by an agenda driven through a complete lack of factual data that backs up the assertion, then your post is completely biased to your chosen belief set, and not actual data. The earth has warmed 1.4 degrees F since 1880 according to NASA's data, that is hardly an alarming trend, nor does it warrant the hysteria that it has garnered. The fact that you are questioning whether humankind should "do something about it" is exactly the hubris of this issue that I have been speaking of, you actually believe that humans can change planetary climate...It is an absurd assertion, and I am surprised you cannot, or will not see it as such.

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by ok doser View Post


      ... it became apparent very quickly that while our testing protocol was effective in identifying broad scale anomalies,..
      When we talk about the climate, we are talking about the "broad scale".

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by chair View Post

        When we talk about the climate, we are talking about the "broad scale".
        we had some product lines where we scrapped 80% of the manufactured product because it didn't meet spec - it could be wildly out on the high side or it could predict negative values (an impossibility in the application)

        if we didn't know how to identify and remove the bad data/product from our calculations, our predicted values would be meaningless

        that is the situation we have wrt "global temperatures"
        we don't understand the processes involved in adding heat and removing heat
        we don't understand daily variations and think that by averaging them out, we have valid data
        and our sampling rate is infinitely smaller than 1 in 700
        Last edited by ok doser; January 13th, 2020, 04:47 PM.

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by ok doser View Post
          "Ok doser" would be the first to assert that without providing a source, we shouldn't be expected to accept this graph at face value!

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by jgarden View Post

            "Ok doser" would be the first to assert that without providing a source, we shouldn't be expected to accept this graph at face value!
            Google

            it's not just for kids anymore

            besides, it's right there in the jpeg name

            https://mustreadalaska.com/green-new...lots-of-green/

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by ok doser View Post

              Google

              it's not just for kids anymore

              besides, it's right there in the jpeg name

              https://mustreadalaska.com/green-new...lots-of-green/
              The source of this graph was the Competitive Enterprise Institute which Media Bas/Fact Check characterized as a questionable - source, biased on the far right - promotion of propaganda - use of poor sources - lack of transparency with funding - a long history of lobbying for the tobacco industry - a general rejection of scientific consensus - politically rather scientifically motivated

              Media Bias/Fact Check for the Competitive Enterprise Institute
              Editorially, the primary purpose of the CEI is to mislead on climate change.
              They have been criticized by scientist for publishing misleading information such as this:
              Scientist to CEI: You Used My Research To “Confuse and Mislead”. According to Ballotpedia the “CEI believes that scientific consensus on climate change and global warming were politically rather than scientifically motivated.”
              Finally, the CEI has a long history of lobbying for the tobacco industry and since 2011 has advocated for the e-cigarette industry.


              Overall, we rate the Competitive Enterprise Institute Questionable based on far right bias, promotion of propaganda, use of poor sources, lack of transparency with funding, and a general rejection of scientific consensus. (D. Van Zandt 7/12/2016) Updated (9/21/2019)


              https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/compe...ise-institute/

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by jgarden View Post
                The source of this graph was the Competitive Enterprise Institute which Media Bas/Fact Check characterized as a questionable - source, biased on the far right - promotion of propaganda - use of poor sources - lack of transparency with funding - a long history of lobbying for the tobacco industry - a general rejection of scientific consensus - politically rather scientifically motivated

                Media Bias/Fact Check for the Competitive Enterprise Institute
                Editorially, the primary purpose of the CEI is to mislead on climate change.
                They have been criticized by scientist for publishing misleading information such as this:
                Scientist to CEI: You Used My Research To “Confuse and Mislead”. According to Ballotpedia the “CEI believes that scientific consensus on climate change and global warming were politically rather than scientifically motivated.”
                Finally, the CEI has a long history of lobbying for the tobacco industry and since 2011 has advocated for the e-cigarette industry.


                Overall, we rate the Competitive Enterprise Institute Questionable based on far right bias, promotion of propaganda, use of poor sources, lack of transparency with funding, and a general rejection of scientific consensus. (D. Van Zandt 7/12/2016) Updated (9/21/2019)


                https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/compe...ise-institute/
                of course, the lazy way out is to attack the messenger instead of the message

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by ok doser View Post

                  we had some product lines where we scrapped 80% of the manufactured product because it didn't meet spec - it could be wildly out on the high side or it could predict negative values (an impossibility in the application)

                  if we didn't know how to identify and remove the bad data/product from our calculations, our predicted values would be meaningless

                  that is the situation we have wrt "global temperatures"
                  we don't understand the processes involved in adding heat and removing heat
                  Why is this relevant to the actual measurements?
                  Originally posted by ok doser View Post
                  we don't understand daily variations and think that by averaging them out, we have valid data
                  Do you know this for a fact? Can you point to specific errors they made in treating the data? Or are you saying "they could have made some big errors"
                  Originally posted by ok doser View Post
                  and our sampling rate is infinitely smaller than 1 in 700
                  I'm not sure what is holy about the 1/700 sampling rate, or what constitutes a good sampling rate for global temperatures.
                  You honestly think that nobody has taken a hard look at the data?
                  https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2876/n...s-temperature/

                  Chair


                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Green Energy, in other words, what AOC, Al Gore, the entire Democrat party, etc... pushes on a daily basis has nothing to do with "saving the planet". This comes straight from the "greenies" themselves. Now we'll see how indoctrinated the posters here are. If they deny it Bezemecov was right on the money when he said the left is so brainwashed that he could take them to the USSR and they would refuse to believe the truth when he showed it to them.

                    Progressive Eco-Group Admits It: Renewable Energy is a Hoax that Benefits its Greenie Elmer Gantries like Al Gore

                    By John Eidson
                    Independent physicist John Droz, Jr. alerted me to the website of Deep Green Resistance (DGR), an international environmental organization that calls for the total destruction of what it refers to as the “global industrial economy,” a.k.a. capitalism. Given the group’s hard-left credentials, its call for dismantling capitalism throughout the world is not surprising.
                    What is surprising is that in an unusual show of progressive candor, Deep Green Resistance openly acknowledges what skeptical scientists have been saying for more than two decades: that renewable energy is a government-backed hoax that enriches big corporations -- and green energy investors like Al Gore -- at the expense of taxpayers and the environment. If you find that admission hard to believe, please keep reading. The questions and answers below are verbatim from the FAQ page on the organization’s website.
                    Will green technology save the planet?
                    No. Wind turbines, solar PV panels, and the grid itself are all manufactured using cheap energy from fossil fuels. When fossil fuel costs begin to rise such highly manufactured items will simply cease to be feasible.
                    Solar panels and wind turbines aren’t made out of nothing. They are made out of metals, plastics, and chemicals. These products have been mined out of the ground, transported, processed, manufactured. Each stage leaves behind a trail of devastation: habitat destruction, water contamination, colonization, toxic waste, slave labor, greenhouse gas emissions, wars, and corporate profits.
                    The basic ingredients for renewables are the same materials that are ubiquitous in industrial products, like cement and aluminum. No one is going to make cement in any quantity without using the energy of fossil fuels. And aluminum? The mining itself is a destructive and toxic nightmare from which riparian communities will not awaken in anything but geologic time.
                    From beginning to end, so called “renewable energy” and other “green technologies” lead to the destruction of the planet. These technologies are rooted in the same industrial extraction and production processes that have rampaged across the world for the last 150 years.
                    We are not concerned with slightly reducing the harm caused by industrial civilization; we are interested in stopping that harm completely. Doing so will require dismantling the global industrial economy, which will render impossible the creation of these technologies.
                    Will renewable energy save the economy?
                    Renewable energy technologies rely heavily on government subsidies, taken from taxpayers and given directly to large corporations like General Electric, BP, Samsung, and Mitsubishi. While the scheme pads their bottom lines, it doesn't help the rest of us.
                    Further, this is the wrong question to ask. The industrial capitalist economy is dispossessing and impoverishing billions of humans and killing the living world. Renewable energy depends on centralized capital and power imbalance. We don't benefit from saving that system.
                    Instead of advocating for more industrial technology, we need to move to local economies based on community decision-making and what our local landbases can provide sustainably. And we need to stop the global economy on which renewable energy depends.
                    “Stopping the global economy” means destroying the capitalist system that created here in America the most widespread prosperity the world has ever known. That a progressive eco-group would admit that the true agenda behind the push for renewable energy has nothing to do with “saving the planet” and everything to do with destroying capitalism is quite remarkable. To reinforce its position that renewable energy is a hoax, DGR’s website has a cartoon that shows dollar bills being sucked from a wind turbine directly into the pocket of a fat cat investor in subsidized green energy projects.
                    Stopping the entire global economy will starve hundred of millions, if not billions of people to death, for there will be nobody left but the super rich and the rest of will be peons with no jobs and no way to support ourselves, feed ourselves. The large cities would become ghost towns as there is no way anyone can feed themselves in concrete jungle, and the population would be killing each other as well as starving to death with no way to leave because there would be no gas, no electricity, nothing.

                    This is the true agenda of marxist elite.

                    The article can be found here.
                    “Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith.”
                    ― Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

                    “One and God make a majority.”
                    ― Frederick Douglass

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by ok doser View Post

                      of course, the lazy way out is to attack the messenger instead of the message

                      "Ok doser," in his infinite wisdom, is responsible for selecting a source that has been characterized by Media Bias/Fact Check as:

                      - questionable

                      - biased on the far right

                      - promotes propaganda

                      - use of poor sources

                      - lack of transparency with funding

                      - a long history of lobbying for the tobacco industry

                      - a general rejection of scientific consensus

                      - politically rather scientifically motivated

                      Now "ok doser" is trying to shift the blame to "this messenger" when the credibility of his source doesn't stand up to scrutiny!
                      Last edited by jgarden; January 15th, 2020, 10:49 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by ffreeloader View Post
                        Green Energy, in other words, what AOC, Al Gore, the entire Democrat party, etc... pushes on a daily basis has nothing to do with "saving the planet". This comes straight from the "greenies" themselves. Now we'll see how indoctrinated the posters here are. If they deny it Bezemecov was right on the money when he said the left is so brainwashed that he could take them to the USSR and they would refuse to believe the truth when he showed it to them.



                        Stopping the entire global economy will starve hundred of millions, if not billions of people to death, for there will be nobody left but the super rich and the rest of will be peons with no jobs and no way to support ourselves, feed ourselves. The large cities would become ghost towns as there is no way anyone can feed themselves in concrete jungle, and the population would be killing each other as well as starving to death with no way to leave because there would be no gas, no electricity, nothing.

                        This is the true agenda of marxist elite.

                        The article can be found here.
                        They want to do away with cement and aluminum?

                        They're insane

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by jgarden View Post
                          "Ok doser," in his infinite wisdom, is responsible for selecting a source that has been characterized by Media Bias/Fact Check as:

                          - questionable

                          - biased on the far right

                          - promotes propaganda

                          - use of poor sources

                          - lack of transparency with funding

                          - a long history of lobbying for the tobacco industry

                          - a general rejection of scientific consensus

                          - politically rather scientifically motivated

                          Now "ok doser" is trying to shift the blame to "this messenger" when his credibility of his source doesn't stand up to scrutiny!
                          and once again you take the lazy route

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by ok doser View Post

                            and once again you take the lazy route

                            "Lazy route" - a rather self-serving comment given that the same "oh dosier" who rarely produces a post with punctuation or exceeds a dozen words!

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by ok doser View Post
                              Of course, it's far too late for a generation of retards who have been raised to believe the sky is falling, like Greta



                              We’re Getting a Clearer Picture of the Climate Future — and It’s Not as Bad as It Once Looked


                              http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/...=pocket-newtab
                              So you really think that Sir David Attenborough OM CH CVO CBE FRS FRSB FRSA FLS FZS FRSGS
                              is a retard?

                              The Oxygen in the seas is reducing.
                              Nasa has just reported that the last decade has been the hottest since records began.
                              The Glaciers are retreating.
                              The seas are already beginning to rise.
                              The World's Weather patterns are more extreme.
                              The Polar Ice Caps are receding.
                              .... and more.

                              ...... Climate Change denialism seems weird. Really.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by eider View Post
                                ...... Climate Change denialism seems weird. Really.
                                good thing that's not what's happening here, eh?


                                try to catch up so we're all on the same page before you post, ok sparky?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X