starting strength gym
Page 45 of 54 FirstFirst ... 354344454647 ... LastLast
Results 441 to 450 of 535

Thread: Commentary #6: Global Warming

  1. #441
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Garage of GainzZz
    Posts
    3,301

    Default

    • starting strength seminar jume 2024
    • starting strength seminar august 2024
    • starting strength seminar october 2024
    Quote Originally Posted by Frivillesid View Post
    This is a strange response. Why do you view the world through the lens of us vs them? Is this useful or practical? Are you suggesting that the best way to fight disinformation is to create an equal disinformation response on the other side? You appear to have already chosen a side and are fine with anything that validates your set of beliefs whether it is true or not. People like you are the problem, regardless of what political stripe or belief systems they hold.
    Repudiate every post you’ve made on this forum then if you actually believe this.

  2. #442
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,102

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Subby View Post
    The central claim is that the measuring stations are in locations which taint the results.
    Weather forecasters use climate models to predict climate trends, there are multitudes of these models.

    "Future climate changes over the 21st century cannot be simply extrapolated from past climate. Non-linear processes must be taken into account, along with a range of plausible future greenhouse gas and aerosol concentration pathways. The best tools for projecting climate change are global climate models (GCMs)."

    "Confidence in models comes from their basis in fundamental physical principles, and from their ability to represent important features of the current and past climate."

    Climate models

    I don't know if there is a conflict with these statements here from "Climate Change Australia", but I would have thought that looking into history would give a more clearer picture of whatever scientific study anyone does let alone climate science.

    To give a practical example from our own Federal Bureau of Meteorology here in Australia, using these models the "Bom" predicted El Nino for this summer down here with dry, hot, drought conditions which was taken by the Meat Producers of an indication that there would be little or no feed for livestock hence stock was sold at loss. The weather we have had here on the east coast has been wet and cooler however so restocking has cost these folk millions. This is with a government funded weather forecaster who now are backtracking from that statement saying that we may be having a "wet" El Nino and are drifting back into a La Nina weather pattern with the accompanying wet weather.

    So with all this computing power, millions of taxpayers dollars and a mirad of climate models we are no better off than just sticking out head out the window. I mean if forecasters cannot predict weather trends a few months ahead, how can they predict trends years ahead.

    Farmers frustrated after destocking following BOM'''s incorrect El Nino forecast - ABC News


    Here is a statement from our own Federal Minister regarding the failure of the BOM in Queensland floods.


    Federal Emergency Management Minister Murray Watt said meteorology was not a “perfect science” and pointed out warnings had been issued for days leading up to the event.

    “The Bureau of Meteorology do the absolute best they can with the science they have available,” he said on Tuesday.

    “I can’t think of another agency in the world that I’d rather be relying on to make decisions.”

    But Watt conceded warning systems would continue to be refined after the major floods.

    “If there are improvements that we can make around warning systems, then we’ll make those,” he said.

    “Again, I’d ask people to remember that what we were dealing with was a highly unpredictable, unprecedented amount of rain into an area of Australia that knows how to deal with storms, cyclones and floods.”

    But our government here in Australia are making changes to our energy system based on these "unpredictable" climate models that is costing us Billions, I smell a rat.

  3. #443
    Join Date
    Jun 2021
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    633

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Frivillesid View Post
    There are 2 distinct posts that are being referenced. Please keep them straight if you are going to respond to me. One post cited an internet blog from the heartland institute. That is the one that discussed the location of the measuring stations. The other post, which is the one I referenced regarding the central thesis, did not discuss the measuring stations at all. It was a presentation by Ian Plimer from a conference set up by the heartland institute. Most of what I saw was him discussing the time period between ice ages. But as I said, I did not watch it in its entirety. I briefly skimmed through it. If he did mention anything at all about the weather stations it would have been pretty brief.

    I find it amusing that the source of the funding does not matter when it is someone defending whatever it is that you believe. What about the funding of the vast overwhelming majority of the scientific community who believe in and study climate change? Suddenly when their arguments are presented others are always quick to point out that they don't want to give up their perceived gravy train of funding for their research. People cannot have it both ways. If there are conflicts of interest they should be presented regardless of your own personal beliefs about an issue. It should go without saying that oil and gas companies, who fund the heartland institute, have a substantial bias. But more specifically, Ian Plimer has been accused by many scientists for falsehood, misrepresenting data and spreading misinformation.
    Quote Originally Posted by Frivillesid View Post
    Perhaps once they are able to break free from circular logic. The cited study was published by the heartland institute, which is a conservative think tank that is funded through oil and gas companies. Obviously they are going to have a bias. They are not so much of a research organization, but more of a well funded internet blog that holds conferences to push through their agenda. The post you responded to contained an article written by them while referencing themselves to enforce their own viewpoint.

    This type of article reminds me of the time I got into an argument with a religious nut job regarding the age of the earth who then provided me a book written by a man who referenced themselves as evidence of his claim that the earth was only a few thousand years old. Albeit, I will admit that the heartland institute is significantly slicker in their presentation. Referring to anything written by the heartland institute as the gospel truth is like referencing a marathon runner about the dangers of strength training as they only cite their own experiences as a reference.
    In a claim that's made by pointing out that the locations of measuring equipment is in the wrong location. Someone has to physically go to that location and observe. How does the source of funding to actually travel to those locations affect the observations of those locations?

  4. #444
    Join Date
    Jan 2024
    Posts
    24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Subby View Post
    In a claim that's made by pointing out that the locations of measuring equipment is in the wrong location. Someone has to physically go to that location and observe. How does the source of funding to actually travel to those locations affect the observations of those locations?
    But when you are drawing flawed conclusions from the data collected so that you can post misinformation to social media to aid in the spread of the disinformation it becomes a problem. You cannot be this dense.

    Your browser is not supported | usatoday.com

  5. #445
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    Albany, Western Australia
    Posts
    93

    Default

    Wal, did you forget that they get offended when people refer to them as BOM? They must be referred to by their full title or in short as The Bureau or something will happen.

    They've been wrong twice in a week for me. 5 degrees hotter than predicted a day beforehand. And 40% chance of rain today with no rain in sight. It's more accurate just to go outside and look up.

  6. #446
    Join Date
    Jan 2023
    Posts
    94

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Frivillesid View Post
    Perhaps once they are able to break free from circular logic. The cited study was published by the heartland institute, which is a conservative think tank that is funded through oil and gas companies. Obviously they are going to have a bias. They are not so much of a research organization, but more of a well funded internet blog that holds conferences to push through their agenda. The post you responded to contained an article written by them while referencing themselves to enforce their own viewpoint.
    A fair criticism, but how is that any different than the circular gatekeeping of publishing Michael Mann's cronies practice?

    Just a moment...

  7. #447
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    53,652

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Frivillesid View Post
    But when you are drawing flawed conclusions from the data collected so that you can post misinformation to social media to aid in the spread of the disinformation it becomes a problem. You cannot be this dense.

    Your browser is not supported | usatoday.com
    So you post an article from USA Today. One more time: Do you have a disagreement with the geologist's specific arguments?

  8. #448
    Join Date
    Jan 2024
    Posts
    24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    So you post an article from USA Today. One more time: Do you have a disagreement with the geologist's specific arguments?
    So now suddenly the source of the information matters? Did it occur to you that this is the reason why I posted an article from USA today? I am not going to do any great in depth research into the topic given the low quality sources you use for refutation. Please be sure to highlight or specifically quote the first 11-14 words in that prior sentence in what will likely be your witty retort. But no, I have no disagreements with him that ice ages happened before in the past or that CO2 levels were much higher when the earth was forming and the planet would have been uninhabitable to us.

    Also, once again, the point I am making is in regards to individuals complaining about social media and people being unable to think for themselves. These are the same people who are using social media to drive propaganda. That is why the blog post you cited, that has even less credibility than USA today, contains those easily accessible links to social media sites on the left side of the page.

  9. #449
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    53,652

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Frivillesid View Post
    But no, I have no disagreements with him that ice ages happened before in the past or that CO2 levels were much higher when the earth was forming and the planet would have been uninhabitable to us.
    This was not his main argument. Surely you are clever enough to see the problem here. At any rate, have fun on the internet.

  10. #450
    Join Date
    Jan 2024
    Posts
    24

    Default

    starting strength coach development program
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    This was not his main argument. Surely you are clever enough to see the problem here. At any rate, have fun on the internet.
    I was wondering if you could please point me towards any post that I made where I was directly referencing the geologists presentation? I cited the blog post from the heritage foundation (contained with a very specific post) as having engaged in circular logic in their article where they made claims about a topic and then cited themselves as evidence. That is certainly a problem. I never directly mentioned the geologists presentation, which was a separate and unique post. I did make some criticisms regarding how this man is perceived to be a fraud, but that was only after I was asked to comment and a post that I had very little interest in and never specifically commented on. I even admitted as much when I said I did not bother to watch it, but I did skim through it after the fact as I had very little interest. But again, the point I was making was about the same people complaining about the use of social media and people being unable to think for themselves are the same people using social media and not thinking for themselves. Interestingly, much of the information you pass along on here has easy links to post it to social media. Personally, I do not have a large presence on social media and I ignore the type of information that gets posted there (which would include the very articles that you post on here). My engagement in this discussion honestly has nothing to do with climate change research, but more with the faulty logic and reasoning skills being presented by the same people who complain that people are unable to think for themselves. So please, stop asking me about the geologists presentation and address the issue I am actually speaking on.

Page 45 of 54 FirstFirst ... 354344454647 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •