How to cure global issues without Al Gore: Swingers Discussion 886771091

SwingLifeStyle Swingers Personal Ads. | SwingLifeStyle Swingers Clubs

Busy Swingers Forum

Everything you always wanted to know about swingers.

Create A Free Account

TOPIC: How to cure global issues without Al Gore

GoTo Page: Less ... 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ... More

Start

91 to 100 of 209

End

User Details are only visible to members.	I won't argue with you, perfect. You're way off, but it's not worth arguing. Your statements indicate that you don't have much understanding of how science is done or how experiments are designed or how data is analyzed and interpreted. But you're a decent guy, so I won't argue the point. Jim
South Riding VA			Username hidden (8158 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	Deatin, I asked you some pointed questions about whay you know in an attempt to determine if you have credentials to understand the situatiion or are just mouthing something you've been told. Please give us an answer to these questions. Otherwise we can only conclude that your evasion indicates you are just blowing smoke. Jim
South Riding VA			Username hidden (8158 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	and your sources are pure, I could ask the same of you...it has all been debunked and those supporting it are a little quackkers. We know egore does it for money and political gain, and even he said he lied about global warming for his greater good...so I suggest you look at those supporting people pushing it for financial and political gain.
Destin FL			Username hidden (14562 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	JIm, the same can be said for the pimply faced science nerds... follow the money. their lively hood is based on them toting the religion of global warming. If it's ever proved beyond all doubt it's bullshit they'll be out of govt sponsored research funds.
Lake Worth FL			Username hidden (7209 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	Jim, I'm not willing to give up my freedom or change my lifestyle because some middle aged science nerd with a bad combover is "guessing" something is the way he thinkgs it is. prove it beyond all doubt and I'll think about changing... other than that the science nerds and politicos can suck my ass.
Lake Worth FL			Username hidden (7209 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	Destin, you clearly have accumulated a bunch of anti-global warming stories, but from where? Who are these people making these claims? Who do they work for? What is the source of their funding? What are their credentials? Do you even know what Principal Components Analysis IS? And what normalizing transformations ARE? And WHY they are used? Follow the money trail and you'll find the biases. Jim
South Riding VA			Username hidden (8158 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	well there you.. the quacks on global warming are QWACKED now you people can believe the fairy tale all you want just don't expect us to give a shit...lol
Destin FL			Username hidden (14562 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	Long Hot Year: Latest Science Debunks Global Warming Hysteria by Patrick J. Michaels Patrick J. Michaels, a professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia, is a senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Executive Summary The national media have given tremendous play to the claims of Vice President Al Gore, some federal scientists, and environmental activists that the unseasonably warm temperatures of this past summer were proof positive of the arrival of dramatic and devastating global warming. In fact, the record temperatures were largely the result of a strong El Niño superimposed on a decade in which temperatures continue to reflect a warming that largely took place in the first half of this century. Observed global warming remains far below the amount predicted by computer models that served as the basis for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Whatever record is used, the largest portion of the warming of the second half of this century has mainly been confined to winter in the very coldest continental air masses of Siberia and northwestern North America, as predicted by basic greenhouse effect physics. The unpredictability of seasonal and annual temperatures has declined significantly. There has been no change in precipitation variability. In the United States, drought has decreased while flooding has not increased. Moreover, carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere at a rate below that of most climate-change scenarios because it is being increasingly captured by growing vegetation. The second most important human greenhouse enhancer -- methane -- is not likely to increase appreciably in the next 100 years. And perhaps most important, the direct warming effect of carbon dioxide was overestimated. Even global warming alarmists in the scientific establishment now say that the Kyoto Protocol will have no discernible impact on global climate.
Destin FL			Username hidden (14562 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	"Note the word 'hypotheses" Because somethng is a stated hypothesis in an experiment does not mean it's not true or uncertain. Every scientific experiment begins with a hypothesis, or a group of hypotheses. The experiment is then conducted and the data analyzed and then tested statistically using the laws of probablilty. We then can conclude with some controlled degree of probability whether the hypothesis is true or false. To accept a hypothesis as true, the data and statistical analysis must leave less than a 5% chance that such data would give us the results they did due to random error alone. "This is where I have a problem: "mainly attributable to man-made emissions". If this is true then why put a numeric value to it? Why not say it 55% and then tell what the other 45% is." perfect, the answer to your question once more lies in understanding statistics (everyone's favorite subject). The 55% figure you cited just represents the statistical correlation that says that 55% of the observed trend can be explained by the variables related to human activity (I don't know what variables were used in the calculation, but things like greenhouse gas emisisons into the atmosphere are surely involved). The other 45% is due to factors either not statistically significant or not used in the calculations. A problem faced by scientists is always guessing what variables to consider. That presumes we know enough about a situation to include the right variables in the calculations. Clearly with 45% unexplained by human factors, there must be other factors playing a large role too that were not included. Jim
South Riding VA			Username hidden (8158 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	Global Warming Bombshell A prime piece of evidence linking human activity to climate change turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics. Canadian scientists Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick have uncovered a fundamental mathematical flaw in the computer program that was used to produce the hockey stick. In his original publications of the stick, Mann purported to use a standard method known as principal component analysis, or PCA, to find the dominant features in a set of more than 70 different climate records. But it wasnt so. McIntyre and McKitrick obtained part of the program that Mann used, and they found serious problems. Not only does the program not do conventional PCA, but it handles data normalization in a way that can only be described as mistaken.
Destin FL			Username hidden (14562 post)

GoTo Page: Less ... 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ... More

Start

91 to 100 of 209

End

TOPIC: How to cure global issues without Al Gore

		HELP
FORUMS: General Discussions: Politics: How to cure global issues without Al Gore