Silver Stackers logo

Silver Stackers

Discussion forum for those
who love to stack precious metals

You are not logged in.

Announcement

This forum is archived. Please visit the new forums at www.silverstackers.com. Password reset may be required!

#51 2017-02-17 21:36:50

Shaddam IV
Silver Stacker
From: House Corrino
Registered: 2010-03-22
Posts: 6,278

Re: Climate change resource

mmissinglink wrote:
Shaddam IV wrote:
mmissinglink wrote:

That the climate change deniers can say something like "zero credibility", doesn't mean it's rational or true. They are entitled to their own opinions, but not to making up their own facts as they always do. The verdict has been out....science has confirmed that human activity has a measurable affect on the climate. Anthropogenic climate change is indisputable. The only real debate are terms such as "significant" and "too late" and what can be done to hasten or change the trajectories.

Make no mistake, most climate change deniers don't care one bit about the truth when it comes to the climate because they don't care about anything except their own agenda. These are among the most selfish, self centered people on earth. I have come across many of them and they are not sober thinking people.

.

Don't forget Nazizs. If you are going to have a really effective self-righteous, pompous, judgemental rant on a web forum about everyone who is so stupid that they have a different viewpoint to your own you also need to slay them completely so that they truly realize that their thoughts don't fit the correct narrative. You have to finish them off by also calling them a Nazi or a sexist or a deplorable or a homophobe so that they truly realize that they have been beaten by a superior intellect.



You are projecting, again. You've got to get out of the habit of looking in the mirror when you type such rants regarding yourself.   roll





.

you are too funny.

Offline

#52 2017-02-17 21:57:49

mmissinglink
Member
From: Everywhere...simultaneously
Registered: 2012-09-30
Posts: 6,095
Trades :   19 

Re: Climate change resource

gingham69 wrote:
mmissinglink wrote:
gingham69 wrote:

Yep a few irrational nutjobs on here as well but they are entitled to their opinion as opinions are like bums.... we all have one!
As for the obvious??  Obviously the climate change deniers would say the same about believers no?
Zero credibility is no different it's just an opinion as let's be honest many people think Trump and Hansen as an example have zero credibility
and look what's happened, see all about opinions, whose right whose wrong?
Anyway people with perceived credibility are very often full of bulls*it and lies once the truth comes out as it always boils down to the vast majority of humans are just self indulgent ar*eholes.
Climate change has been around for millions if not billions of years and humans will learn to adapt or technology will prevail, however of course humans are having some effect [it just depends on your opinion of how much] along with many many other things so only a matter of time before something catastrophic will happen and wipe most of the human race off the planet if not all. sad



That the climate change deniers can say something like "zero credibility", doesn't mean it's rational or true. They are entitled to their own opinions, but not to making up their own facts as they always do. The verdict has been out....science has confirmed that human activity has a measurable affect on the climate. Anthropogenic climate change is indisputable. The only real debate are terms such as "significant" and "too late" and what can be done to hasten or change the trajectories.

Make no mistake, most climate change deniers don't care one bit about the truth when it comes to the climate because they don't care about anything except their own agenda. These are among the most selfish, self centered people on earth. I have come across many of them and they are not sober thinking people.
.

Yes they are entitled to their opinion but based on facts? The facts as you put it still seem to be out on what level humans actually really play? Your statement of 97% of scientists [more like 80%] isn't correct as just one quick google http://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/20 … 9537187c6c  could tell you that so are you being hoodwinked and just a sheep following the mass??
So you also said the only real debate is how significant which I agree with but the so called FACTS aren't always what they appear are they!
Also make no mistake that most people full stop are selfish and self centered as I said earlier so it's not just reserved for deniers as you put it.
So being that 97% is the figure that is commonly used and is not correct what else isn't or are you just an irrational nutjob to even question it? sad



You have to be joking....using an article written by an industry energy guy (a University of Houston Energy Fellow). That's a really good joke.  lol  lol  lol

Have you ever heard of the term "promoting self interest"?  This industry energy guy is the dictionary definition of that term.

Try to resource someone who is more objective.





.


In some ways, we are not that different

Offline

#53 2017-02-17 22:59:29

gingham69
Member
From: W.A.
Registered: 2011-05-28
Posts: 515
Trades :   

Re: Climate change resource

mmissinglink wrote:
gingham69 wrote:
mmissinglink wrote:


That the climate change deniers can say something like "zero credibility", doesn't mean it's rational or true. They are entitled to their own opinions, but not to making up their own facts as they always do. The verdict has been out....science has confirmed that human activity has a measurable affect on the climate. Anthropogenic climate change is indisputable. The only real debate are terms such as "significant" and "too late" and what can be done to hasten or change the trajectories.

Make no mistake, most climate change deniers don't care one bit about the truth when it comes to the climate because they don't care about anything except their own agenda. These are among the most selfish, self centered people on earth. I have come across many of them and they are not sober thinking people.
.

Yes they are entitled to their opinion but based on facts? The facts as you put it still seem to be out on what level humans actually really play? Your statement of 97% of scientists [more like 80%] isn't correct as just one quick google http://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/20 … 9537187c6c  could tell you that so are you being hoodwinked and just a sheep following the mass??
So you also said the only real debate is how significant which I agree with but the so called FACTS aren't always what they appear are they!
Also make no mistake that most people full stop are selfish and self centered as I said earlier so it's not just reserved for deniers as you put it.
So being that 97% is the figure that is commonly used and is not correct what else isn't or are you just an irrational nutjob to even question it? sad



You have to be joking....using an article written by an industry energy guy (a University of Houston Energy Fellow). That's a really good joke.  lol  lol  lol

Have you ever heard of the term "promoting self interest"?  This industry energy guy is the dictionary definition of that term.

Try to resource someone who is more objective.
.

No more of a joke than the self interest believers that maybe perpetuating this??
It's JUST your opinion of course about being objective so again I say on what facts as they seem to be only facts when suiting someone's pov.
It's all about MONEY ultimately not the good of the planet that's the biggest joke!
Maybe the answer is the...  mmissinglink?
I don't know the real truth  :- there must be a mmissinglink!

Offline

#54 2017-02-17 23:13:10

mmm....shiney!
Silver Stacker
From: 昆士蘭
Registered: 2010-11-15
Posts: 16,000
Trades :   102 
Website

Re: Climate change resource

gingham69 wrote:

Everything is subjective even you being a Strawberry that should shut the turtle up!!:

Is hydrogen the lightest element in the periodic table or not?


The woolgrower's target shall be the good thriving of his flock and its pastures, and so of himself and those whose livelihoods depend on his enterprise.
"The Woolgrower's Companion", 1906.

Offline

#55 2017-02-17 23:24:16

gingham69
Member
From: W.A.
Registered: 2011-05-28
Posts: 515
Trades :   

Re: Climate change resource

mmm....shiney! wrote:
gingham69 wrote:

Everything is subjective even you being a Strawberry that should shut the turtle up!!:

Is hydrogen the lightest element in the periodic table or not?

True to form eh snippet man!
To humour you yes but it's not far off the methane you produce! lol

Offline

#56 2017-02-17 23:35:22

mmm....shiney!
Silver Stacker
From: 昆士蘭
Registered: 2010-11-15
Posts: 16,000
Trades :   102 
Website

Re: Climate change resource

gingham69 wrote:
mmm....shiney! wrote:
gingham69 wrote:

Everything is subjective even you being a Strawberry that should shut the turtle up!!:

Is hydrogen the lightest element in the periodic table or not?


To humour you yes

Correct, it is a known fact. It is not subjective, therefore your statement that everything is subjective has been proven to be wrong.


The woolgrower's target shall be the good thriving of his flock and its pastures, and so of himself and those whose livelihoods depend on his enterprise.
"The Woolgrower's Companion", 1906.

Offline

#57 2017-02-18 01:23:15

gingham69
Member
From: W.A.
Registered: 2011-05-28
Posts: 515
Trades :   

Re: Climate change resource

mmm....shiney! wrote:
gingham69 wrote:
mmm....shiney! wrote:

Is hydrogen the lightest element in the periodic table or not?


To humour you yes

Correct, it is a known fact. It is not subjective, therefore your statement that everything is subjective has been proven to be wrong.

No a fact is something that can NEVER be discredited this can!
So no extremely doubtful to be correct just trying to humour you Mr know it all or should I say Mr supercilious does that suit your grammar...quick google it! lol
It is subjective simple as there is more than likely lighter gases so the period table itself is subjective!

"Hydrogen is the lightest atom , however it is not only atoms that can exist in gaseous form! The lightest gas would be some kind of subatomic gaseous particle (weightless particles such as photons would be excluded due to the fact they travel  at the speed of light).May be an electron clouds, however there are many particles lighter than the electron that could exist in a gaseous state in theory, Muons for example. so on conclusion any researcher should and must look for another gas form that is lighter than hydrogen , super light, call it Muonogen or Hydrolium"

It is a known fact your a pedantic pissant with justtttttt so many inane posts but when you reply I wonder which snippet you'll use this time? roll

Offline

#58 2017-02-18 02:18:13

mmm....shiney!
Silver Stacker
From: 昆士蘭
Registered: 2010-11-15
Posts: 16,000
Trades :   102 
Website

Re: Climate change resource

gingham69 wrote:
mmm....shiney! wrote:
gingham69 wrote:

To humour you yes

Correct, it is a known fact. It is not subjective, therefore your statement that everything is subjective has been proven to be wrong.

No a fact is something that can NEVER be discredited this can!
So no extremely doubtful to be correct just trying to humour you Mr know it all or should I say Mr supercilious does that suit your grammar...quick google it! lol
It is subjective simple as there is more than likely lighter gases so the period table itself is subjective!

"Hydrogen is the lightest atom , however it is not only atoms that can exist in gaseous form! The lightest gas would be some kind of subatomic gaseous particle (weightless particles such as photons would be excluded due to the fact they travel  at the speed of light).May be an electron clouds, however there are many particles lighter than the electron that could exist in a gaseous state in theory, Muons for example. so on conclusion any researcher should and must look for another gas form that is lighter than hydrogen , super light, call it Muonogen or Hydrolium"

It is a known fact your a pedantic pissant with justtttttt so many inane posts but when you reply I wonder which snippet you'll use this time? roll

I'll ask the question again.

Is hydrogen the lightest element in the periodic table?

Yes. There's nothing subjective about it. It is confirmed, it is a fact. The passage you cited does not conflict with the known fact that hydrogen is the lightest element in the periodic table. As to your claim that the periodic table is subjective........I'm not even sure you understand what that means.

Last edited by mmm....shiney! (2017-02-18 02:36:16)


The woolgrower's target shall be the good thriving of his flock and its pastures, and so of himself and those whose livelihoods depend on his enterprise.
"The Woolgrower's Companion", 1906.

Offline

#59 2017-02-18 02:22:29

Stoic Phoenix
Silver Stacker
From: little things big things grow.
Registered: 2014-11-12
Posts: 3,024
Trades :   187 
Website

Re: Climate change resource

Hydrogen is the lightest element in the periodic table - Fact. (Why would you even contest that?)
Hydrogen is the lightest element currently KNOWN to man and has been for near 350 years - also a fact as per above.
Hydrogen is the lightest element in the universe...Theory

With the quote in the above post there are enough however's and maybe's in it to show it is clearly nothing more than an interesting and plausible theory but does nothing to discount the current known facts as listed above.

Last edited by Stoic Phoenix (2017-02-18 02:33:04)


www.searchnstay.com    ....for all your accommodation needs worldwide

Offline

The following user says thank you for this post: mmm....shiney!

#60 2017-02-18 02:55:40

southerncross
Silver Stacker
Registered: 2012-07-26
Posts: 3,393

Re: Climate change resource

sfstacker wrote:
mmissinglink wrote:

Logic tells me that 97% of climate scientists aren't part of some Right Wing concocted nefarious conspiracy theory.....but instead are providing us the best insights into the truth that climate change is impacted notably or significantly by modern human activity......  http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

People who are naive enough to get caught up in conspiracy theories don't practice logic. There will always be that few percent that dont...


This just go's to show that even NASA is in on the Gravy Train. 97% this 97% that, 97% cooked numbers by a shyster and the TRUE BELIEVERS just parrot it away like they can somehow ignore the SCIENCE. Even if there is a Consensus it proves nothing other than arguing from Authority and assuming that they are correct , just because....well we say so.

Continental drift was not so long ago denied outright and laughed at by the Consensus of Science just on a hundred years ago when first published by Alfred Wegener.
A hundred years later we have the Government funded mainstream Science community's all falling in lockstep behind a theory that conveniently provides no evidence at all for it's existence
is a lucrative area of "study" and provides the Gov't with a massive windfall in Taxes and control measures. How convenient.

The 'scientific consensus' about global warming turns out to have a lot more to do with manipulating the numbers

How do we know there's a scientific consensus on climate change? Pundits and the press tell us so. And how do the pundits and the press know? Until recently, they typically pointed to the number 2,500 — that's the number of scientists associated with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Those 2,500, the pundits and the press believed, had endorsed the IPCC position.

To their embarrassment, most of the pundits and press discovered they were mistaken — those 2,500 scientists hadn't endorsed the IPCC's conclusions, they had merely reviewed some part or other of the IPCC's mammoth studies. To add to their embarrassment, many of those reviewers from within the IPCC establishment actually disagreed with the IPCC's conclusions, sometimes vehemently.

The upshot? The punditry looked for and found an alternative number to tout: "97% of the world's climate scientists" accept the consensus, articles in the Washington Post, the U.K.'s Guardian, CNN and other news outlets now claim, along with some two million postings in the blogosphere.

This number will prove a new embarrassment to the pundits and press who use it. The number stems from a 2008 master's thesis by student Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at the University of Illinois, under the guidance of Peter Doran, an associate professor of Earth and environmental sciences. The two researchers obtained their results by conducting a survey of 10,257 Earth scientists. The survey results must have deeply disappointed the researchers — in the end, they chose to highlight the views of a subgroup of just 77 scientists, 75 of whom thought humans contributed to climate change.  The ratio 75/77 produces the 97% figure that pundits now tout.

The two researchers started by altogether excluding from their survey the thousands of scientists most likely to think that the Sun, or planetary movements, might have something to do with climate on Earth — out were the solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, astronomers and meteorologists. That left the 10,257 scientists in such disciplines as geology, geography, oceanography, engineering, paleontology and geochemistry who were somehow deemed more worthy of being included in the consensus. The two researchers also decided scientific accomplishment should not be a factor in who could answer — those surveyed were determined by their place of employment (an academic or a governmental institution). Neither was academic qualification a factor — about 1,000 of those surveyed did not have a PhD, some didn't even have a master's diploma.

To encourage a high participation among these remaining disciplines, the two researchers decided on a quickie survey that would take less than two minutes to complete, and would be done online, saving the respondents the hassle of mailing a reply. Nevertheless, most didn't consider the quickie survey worthy of response — just 3,146, or 30.7%, answered the two key questions on the survey:

1 When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
2 Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

The questions posed to the Earth scientists were actually non-questions. From my discussions with literally hundreds of skeptical scientists over the past few years, I know of none who claims the planet hasn't warmed since the 1700s, and almost none who think humans haven't contributed in some way to the recent warming — quite apart from carbon dioxide emissions, few would doubt that the creation of cities and the clearing of forests for agricultural lands have affected the climate. When pressed for a figure, global warming skeptics might say humans are responsible for 10% or 15% of the warming; some skeptics place the upper bound of man's contribution at 35%. The skeptics only deny that humans played a dominant role in Earth's warming.

Surprisingly, just 90% of the Earth scientists who responded to the first question believed that temperatures had risen — I would have expected a figure closer to 100%, since Earth was in the Little Ice Age in the centuries immediately preceding 1800. But perhaps some of the responders interpreted the question to include the past 1,000 years, when Earth was in the Medieval Warm Period, generally thought to be warmer than today.

As for the second question, 82% of the Earth scientists replied that human activity had significantly contributed to the warming. Here the vagueness of the question comes into play. Since skeptics believe human activity has been a contributing factor, their answer would have turned on whether they consider an increase of 10% or 15% or 35% to be a significant contributing factor. Some would, some wouldn't.

In any case, the two researchers must have feared that an 82% figure would fall short of a convincing consensus — almost one in five wasn't blaming humans for global warming — so they looked for a subset that would yield a higher percentage. They found it — almost — by excluding all the Earth scientists whose recently published peer-reviewed research wasn't mostly in the field of climate change. This subset reduced the number of remaining scientists from over 3,000 to under 300. But the percentage that now resulted still fell short of the researchers' ideal, because the subset included such disciplines as meteorology, which Doran considers ill-informed on the subject. "Most members of the public think meteorologists know climate, but most of them actually study very short-term phenomenon," he explained, in justifying why he decided to exclude them, among others. The researchers thus decided to tout responses by those Earth scientists who not only published mainly on climate but also identified themselves as climate scientists.

"They're the ones who study and publish on climate science," Doran explained. "So I guess the take-home message is, the more you know about the field of climate science, the more you're likely to believe in global warming and humankind's contribution to it."

Once all these cuts were made, 75 out of 77 scientists of unknown qualifications were left endorsing the global warming orthodoxy. The two researchers, the master's student and her prof, were then satisfied with the findings of her master's thesis. Are you?
Financial Post

http://business.financialpost.com/fp-co … oked-stats

Offline

The following 2 users say thank you for this post: mmm....shiney!, Shaddam IV

#61 2017-02-18 03:55:43

mmm....shiney!
Silver Stacker
From: 昆士蘭
Registered: 2010-11-15
Posts: 16,000
Trades :   102 
Website

Re: Climate change resource

@gingham, that post ^ is a justified belief. SC has adopted a position on AGW and backed it up with evidence. That doesn't men he's necessarily correct as his evidence may be faulty.


The woolgrower's target shall be the good thriving of his flock and its pastures, and so of himself and those whose livelihoods depend on his enterprise.
"The Woolgrower's Companion", 1906.

Offline

#62 2017-02-18 03:58:57

gingham69
Member
From: W.A.
Registered: 2011-05-28
Posts: 515
Trades :   

Re: Climate change resource

Stoic Phoenix wrote:

Hydrogen is the lightest element in the periodic table - Fact. (Why would you even contest that?)
Hydrogen is the lightest element currently KNOWN to man and has been for near 350 years - also a fact as per above.
Hydrogen is the lightest element in the universe...Theory

With the quote in the above post there are enough however's and maybe's in it to show it is clearly nothing more than an interesting and plausible theory but does nothing to discount the current known facts as listed above.

To humour you yes but it's not far off the methane you produce! lol

I clearly stated that hydrogen was the lightest element in answer to mmm....slimeys! stupid question which was to try and prove a point so you obviously have selective reading as well so what's your point then? roll
I also pointed out that it's only currently known with a plausible explanation so it cannot be a fact as you also clearly stated and what relevance is 350 years wowwwwwwww 350 years eh!
I'm very touched you feel obliged to help your mate out with selective reading and thanking of each others post as it happens all the time, quite sweet really
Lastly I was going to say F*ck you back...but you might take me literally! tongue

Last edited by gingham69 (2017-02-18 05:22:08)

Offline

#63 2017-02-18 04:06:04

gingham69
Member
From: W.A.
Registered: 2011-05-28
Posts: 515
Trades :   

Re: Climate change resource

mmm....shiney! wrote:

@gingham, that post ^ is a justified belief. SC has adopted a position on AGW and backed it up with evidence. That doesn't men he's necessarily correct as his evidence may be faulty.

Yep good on SC for having an opinion...sorry justified belief and good on me for having my opinion..sorry justified belief! roll
And how on earth can SC be right with you around to pipe in with another inane comment? Only a matter of time before you say something derogatory/patronising or arrogant [what's new] about his post like you do everyone else except for the other two stooges! cool

Offline

#64 2017-02-18 05:02:19

mmm....shiney!
Silver Stacker
From: 昆士蘭
Registered: 2010-11-15
Posts: 16,000
Trades :   102 
Website

Re: Climate change resource

gingham69 wrote:
mmm....shiney! wrote:

@gingham, that post ^ is a justified belief. SC has adopted a position on AGW and backed it up with evidence. That doesn't men he's necessarily correct as his evidence may be faulty.

Yep good on SC for having an opinion...sorry justified belief and good on me for having my opinion..sorry justified belief! roll

You haven't justified your opinion therefore it remains just an opinion.

Effective argumentation requires effort.

Last edited by mmm....shiney! (2017-02-18 05:02:31)


The woolgrower's target shall be the good thriving of his flock and its pastures, and so of himself and those whose livelihoods depend on his enterprise.
"The Woolgrower's Companion", 1906.

Offline

#65 2017-02-18 05:20:18

gingham69
Member
From: W.A.
Registered: 2011-05-28
Posts: 515
Trades :   

Re: Climate change resource

mmm....shiney! wrote:
gingham69 wrote:
mmm....shiney! wrote:

@gingham, that post ^ is a justified belief. SC has adopted a position on AGW and backed it up with evidence. That doesn't men he's necessarily correct as his evidence may be faulty.

Yep good on SC for having an opinion...sorry justified belief and good on me for having my opinion..sorry justified belief! roll

You haven't justified your opinion therefore it remains just an opinion.

Effective argumentation requires effort.

I have already justified my opinion so therefore it is now a justified belief can't you read man!!!!!!!!!!
I'm not wasting anymore time than I need to copying and pasting etc
And that's a FACT! tongue

Offline

#66 2017-02-18 05:45:52

mmm....shiney!
Silver Stacker
From: 昆士蘭
Registered: 2010-11-15
Posts: 16,000
Trades :   102 
Website

Re: Climate change resource

gingham69 wrote:
mmm....shiney! wrote:
gingham69 wrote:

Yep good on SC for having an opinion...sorry justified belief and good on me for having my opinion..sorry justified belief! roll

You haven't justified your opinion therefore it remains just an opinion.

Effective argumentation requires effort.

I have already justified my opinion so therefore it is now a justified belief can't you read man!!!!!!!!!!
I'm not wasting anymore time than I need to copying and pasting etc
And that's a FACT! tongue

I didn't make myself clear, I was referring to the topic of the thread, climate change. You haven't justified your opinion.


The woolgrower's target shall be the good thriving of his flock and its pastures, and so of himself and those whose livelihoods depend on his enterprise.
"The Woolgrower's Companion", 1906.

Offline

#67 2017-02-18 06:07:48

southerncross
Silver Stacker
Registered: 2012-07-26
Posts: 3,393

Re: Climate change resource

In Science there are no hard or certain Facts, you might have repeatable experiments or observable and objective evidence to strongly support a hypothesis or theory, but everything is open to a new set of evidence or explanation that might well repudiate and change such predisposed current knowledge.
Human Flight, the speed of sound or light, Fixed Earth theory all eventually changed over time, Newtons Laws of Motion were discounted by Einstein's new work 300 years later and now some of that is being disputed by yet more new knowledge.

Facts as we call them are only viable until they aren't any more.

Offline

The following 2 users say thank you for this post: mmm....shiney!, gingham69

#68 2017-02-18 06:32:55

southerncross
Silver Stacker
Registered: 2012-07-26
Posts: 3,393

Re: Climate change resource

mmm....shiney! wrote:

@gingham, that post ^ is a justified belief. SC has adopted a position on AGW and backed it up with evidence. That doesn't men he's necessarily correct as his evidence may be faulty.


Not only can I back it up with evidence, but in the world of Science it is really up to those proposing a new mechanism for the supposed detection of .07 Deg C per decade of recent Climate Change to show evidence that it is the emission of Human produced Co2 that is responsible for that measured change as they claim.

Null Hypothesis :

In inferential statistics, the term "null hypothesis" usually refers to a general statement or default position that there is no relationship between two measured phenomena, or no association among groups.[1] Rejecting or disproving the null hypothesis—and thus concluding that there are grounds for believing that there is a relationship between two phenomena (e.g. that a potential treatment has a measurable effect)—is a central task in the modern practice of science, and gives a precise criterion for rejecting a hypothesis.

The null hypothesis is generally assumed to be true until evidence indicates otherwise. In statistics, it is often denoted H0 (read "H-nought", "H-null", or "H-zero").

The concept of a null hypothesis is used differently in two approaches to statistical inference. In the significance testing approach of Ronald Fisher, a null hypothesis is rejected if the observed data is significantly unlikely if the null hypothesis were true. In this case the null hypothesis is rejected and an alternative hypothesis is accepted in its place. If the data are consistent with the null hypothesis, then the null hypothesis is not rejected (i.e., accepted). In neither case is the null hypothesis or its alternative proven; the null hypothesis is tested with data and a decision is made based on how likely or unlikely the data is. This is analogous to a criminal trial, in which the defendant is assumed to be innocent (null is not rejected) until proven guilty (null is rejected) beyond a reasonable doubt (to a statistically significant degree).

In the hypothesis testing approach of Jerzy Neyman and Egon Pearson, a null hypothesis is contrasted with an alternative hypothesis, and the two hypotheses are distinguished on the basis of data, with certain error rates.

Proponents of each approach criticize the other approach. Nowadays, though, a hybrid approach is widely practiced and presented in textbooks. The hybrid is in turn criticized as incorrect and incoherent—for details, see Statistical hypothesis testing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis


In the case of Climate Change the onus is on those who propose the Hypothesis that it is mankind's emissions of Co2 that are responsible for the recent slight warming of the Planet rather than it being a completely natural phenomenon seen countless times throughout the geological record and indeed in the recent recorded records.

To date there is absolutely Zero empirical evidence available to show that Co2 produced by mankind is responsible for any change in the environment of the Planet. There is though plenty of evidence available to show that the predictive abilities of those who promote this belief have been proven wrong time and time again.

The real test of a scientific hypothesis is that of prediction. It either works or it doesn't, so far > 99% of the accepted IPCC models have been disproved, as have a similar number of other predictions made by AGW proponents over the last twenty years.

Offline

The following 2 users say thank you for this post: mmm....shiney!, gingham69

#69 2017-02-18 06:47:50

mmm....shiney!
Silver Stacker
From: 昆士蘭
Registered: 2010-11-15
Posts: 16,000
Trades :   102 
Website

Re: Climate change resource

southerncross wrote:

In the case of Climate Change the onus is on those who propose the Hypothesis that it is mankind's emissions of Co2 that are responsible for the recent slight warming of the Planet rather than it being a completely natural phenomenon seen countless times throughout the geological record and indeed in the recent recorded records.

That's my justification for being an AGW denier. I don't know enough about the topic to debate it beyond that it seems that the proponents of AGW completely disregard any other possible cause.


The woolgrower's target shall be the good thriving of his flock and its pastures, and so of himself and those whose livelihoods depend on his enterprise.
"The Woolgrower's Companion", 1906.

Offline

#70 2017-02-18 07:14:36

gingham69
Member
From: W.A.
Registered: 2011-05-28
Posts: 515
Trades :   

Re: Climate change resource

mmm....shiney! wrote:
gingham69 wrote:
mmm....shiney! wrote:

You haven't justified your opinion therefore it remains just an opinion.

Effective argumentation requires effort.

I have already justified my opinion so therefore it is now a justified belief can't you read man!!!!!!!!!!
I'm not wasting anymore time than I need to copying and pasting etc
And that's a FACT! tongue

I didn't make myself clear, I was referring to the topic of the thread, climate change. You haven't justified your opinion.

I have you just haven't read it properly so I'll sum it up in plain English for you...
Yes I believe in climate change which there has always been FACT, however the jury is still out for me on the subject of the MASSIVE so called human factor as the FACTS aren't always what they appear to be and only ever seem to suit whoever's agenda so no I don't think humans are causing the total destruction of this planet nowhere near the levels to what is put out there so if you or anybody else can show me categorical proof then I may change my mind.
I certainly know that most of the so called evidence is based on hypothetical models that are in themselves over exaggerated to suit an agenda so if there really was categorical proof then it would there for the whole world to see which it's not.
Is that justification enough for you oh wise one? wink

Offline

#71 2017-02-18 07:46:53

alor
Silver Stacker
From: Pulau Alor ;)
Registered: 2011-06-16
Posts: 4,541
Trades :   39 

Re: Climate change resource

with today's connectivity, it is no longer possible to hide the real from so many freaking people

test to see how the earth feeds 1000 billions of people, yes we can (Obama), just do it (Nike)


Hear Say See -> N o t h i n g
May this stacking hobby be my blessing smile

Offline

#72 2017-02-18 09:31:37

southerncross
Silver Stacker
Registered: 2012-07-26
Posts: 3,393

Re: Climate change resource

mmm....shiney! wrote:
southerncross wrote:

In the case of Climate Change the onus is on those who propose the Hypothesis that it is mankind's emissions of Co2 that are responsible for the recent slight warming of the Planet rather than it being a completely natural phenomenon seen countless times throughout the geological record and indeed in the recent recorded records.

That's my justification for being an AGW denier. I don't know enough about the topic to debate it beyond that it seems that the proponents of AGW completely disregard any other possible cause.

Not only do they ignore any other causes,  they also ignore any evidence of previous warming periods within the recent instrumental record period, ignore previous historical records that clearly show that it was warm enough to grow things like Grapes and Cereal crops in the northern hemisphere where it is impossible to do so now, Forest's that are >2000 years old being exposed by recent Glacier retreat, settlements on Greenland that grew both livestock and crops over a thousand years ago where they can't now, clear evidence of both collusion and the manipulation of data by the likes of Michael Mann, James Hanson, Phil Jones, Kevin Trenberth, Tom Wigley, with Climate Gate  or the recent evidence of a whistle blower from NOAA who shows clearly how so called Scientific Peer reviewed "Evidence" is nothing more than manufactured propaganda used to sway political opinion.

Most people who have not had twenty years of indoctrination via schooling, the MSM and university 101 Brainwashing can clearly see all this for what it is. Unfortunately for those outside of that demographic cadre it takes quite a lot of convincing and rewiring along with a fair bit of self questioning to accept that all they have been told is not quite what it is.

Post Modern Science, IE Modelling and the introduction of political intrusion into science as opposed to just plain old experimentation and deduction, free from funding threats, has a lot to answer for. The admixture of ideological groups such as the Greens and WWF who have infiltrated both Politics and the So Called scientific groups to the point that we have had the likes of the IPCC including totally bogus and FAKE findings in their reports despite them being the apparent Ducks Nuts of Climate Science, just one example is the Himalayas losing all their ice within three hundred years written by a WWF Uni student for a Rock Climbing magazine finding it's way into a final report for the IPCC and widely touted in the MSM as a catastrophic result of Globul Warming caused by man.     

The IPCC was set up for one reason only, and that is to investigate ONLY the impact of Human Produced Co2 on climate change, don't believe me?  go check it out in their own mandate. The IPCC climate models don't even include clouds FFS! ? as they are .....too difficult. Their sole and only purpose is to find and mitigate Human Caused climate change and nothing else.
Trillions of dollars spent on an aspect of science that is actively looking for a place to not only belong but also has actively been looking for a place to lay blame for over twenty years, yet in all this time and in all these years they have still been unable to attribute any smoking gun towards their mandated outcome, not even a single peer reviewed scientific paper can claim to show a direct link between Human Produced Co2 and any change in the planets Climate.

On the other hand there is ample evidence of the manipulation of data, ample evidence of collusion to sway political opinion and ample evidence of scientific misconduct by the so called leaders of the Climate Change elite as evidenced in the Climategate emails in their own words.

In the meantime Trillions have been spent on a failed attempt by One World Government types and the associated Watermelon groups of bureaucratic unelected control freaks telling people how large their house windows must be and denying electricity to the masses in the third world because children in Europe might not know what snow is any more and that Perth will be the first City in the world that will die because of permanent drought. All the while, Pristine Rainforests have been felled enmasse, Animals have gone extinct due to hunting, millions have died due to a lack of clean drinking water or disease, Real pollution is still rampant in growing third world city's, and millions still go hungry in refugee camps all over Africa and the Middle east.

It really takes an extra special kind of stupid, one that burns really hot and hurts like brain freeze after slurping on a frozy cup too hard to accept what the whole AGW religion offers when you actually look at the basic science...If you know what basic science is I guess (as a qualification) in this case you find that it is nothing more than projections and models that have already failed the rigours of real science time after time after time, don't trust me on this, go check it out for yourself.
Most sensible people don't trust their own locally elected officials even if they voted for them themselves, but in this case they implicitly trust some unelected bunch of bureaucrats in a far off land and are quite happy for them to make decisions for their own sovereign country based upon some... shit, I don't even know what to call it here right now, but they trust some bunch of unknown unelected aresholes overseas to dictate LAW for them based upon an obviously flawed scientific basis that has no real foundation in science at all whatsoever.

Climate Changes? = Yes, It always has.

How much has it changed lately ? = Not much at all, in fact it is cooler now than it was 2000, 5000, 7000 years ago, but apparently it has warmed .07 deg C since 1880 on a global scale since we came out of the last mini ice age. It was actually hotter back in the 1930's than it is now though.

Does climate Change because of man made Co2 = Well there is Zero evidence despite a lot of looking and a lot of money spent looking. But there is still Zero evidence that any Co2 produced by Humans affects the climate at all, and if you look at the evidence there have been many times during the instrumental record (unadjusted that is) where it has been hotter in the past than it is right now.

That is basically the crux of it all, there is Zero evidence full stop! But we allow unelected bureaucrats overseas to dictate laws for us here in Australia and abide by them while our commercial competitors gain advantage over us at the same time ? Forrest Gump once said "Stupid is as Stupid does", Forrest would probably be President as well in the world of Idiocracy , go watch it if you haven't.

There is No evidence for Human induced warming or change, there is no more "extreme" weather now than there has ever been , in fact it is the opposite with less extremes, less Tornado's, Cyclones, Floods, And Zero evidence of more extreme storms etc, etc. There is no accelerated sea level rise, it has in fact plateaue'd over recent decades with an average of just under 3mm per year on a global scale, as it has been since records began and which is to be expected after a recent Ice Age. About the only thing that has changed is the population in the path of such events and the ability of people to report first hand accounts compared to the recent past.

I will happily discuss/argue the Science and the Politics day in day out with anyone prepared to present any rational argument or science that deals with the subject, just as I did in the recently disappeared thread started by Yippee a few years back. In all that time not a single proponent of AGW was able to produce even a single peer reviewed scientific paper that directly linked human produced Co2 with any form of climate change despite the request being made on numerous occasions on over 76 pages of that thread here on Silver Stackers.

They can never do it, why is that ?

Offline

The following user says thank you for this post: gingham69

#73 2017-02-18 10:15:35

southerncross
Silver Stacker
Registered: 2012-07-26
Posts: 3,393

Re: Climate change resource

gingham69 wrote:
mmm....shiney! wrote:
gingham69 wrote:

I have already justified my opinion so therefore it is now a justified belief can't you read man!!!!!!!!!!
I'm not wasting anymore time than I need to copying and pasting etc
And that's a FACT! tongue

I didn't make myself clear, I was referring to the topic of the thread, climate change. You haven't justified your opinion.

I have you just haven't read it properly so I'll sum it up in plain English for you...
Yes I believe in climate change which there has always been FACT, however the jury is still out for me on the subject of the MASSIVE so called human factor as the FACTS aren't always what they appear to be and only ever seem to suit whoever's agenda so no I don't think humans are causing the total destruction of this planet nowhere near the levels to what is put out there so if you or anybody else can show me categorical proof then I may change my mind.
I certainly know that most of the so called evidence is based on hypothetical models that are in themselves over exaggerated to suit an agenda so if there really was categorical proof then it would there for the whole world to see which it's not.
Is that justification enough for you oh wise one? wink


You two need to get a room, a nice serve of Fish and Chips (with or without the Tartere sauce), and a few lemons with a BLUNT knife, two shot glasses and a bottle of Dom Julio Reposado.

By the end of the night you will have solved most of the worlds problems, will also have helped each other to walk while slurring "Ijshlove ya mate", helped each other out in arguments with the local grandmothers walking their poodles and shitzu's in a park while staggering through the local neighbourhood, and scaring off a gang of young hoods into backing down afterwards and no doubt realised that you are not so far apart in your personal general ideology.

Honestly, it's been a bit like watching a couple of lovestruck highschool students cross barbs with each other, albeit without the underlying sexual connotations (ewww)  but the force is strong with you two. You both strike me as the type that could sit around a campfire until dawn spewing shit just for the sake of it and boring your familys to sleep in the process as they stare at the stars and sigh in resignation, children wishing they had never been born and wives nodding together knowingly the next morning and then a simultaneous shaking of heads as they pity each other.

Here's a question for you both, do you spend as much time, spend as much effort, spend as much thought, on your REAL LIVES and the people in it, as you do on this ? You know... the one and the people that really matter ?

Offline

#74 2017-02-18 14:19:30

mmissinglink
Member
From: Everywhere...simultaneously
Registered: 2012-09-30
Posts: 6,095
Trades :   19 

Re: Climate change resource


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXA777yUndQ&t=15s






.

Last edited by mmissinglink (2017-02-18 14:23:15)


In some ways, we are not that different

Offline

#75 2017-02-18 18:01:26

mmm....shiney!
Silver Stacker
From: 昆士蘭
Registered: 2010-11-15
Posts: 16,000
Trades :   102 
Website

Re: Climate change resource

southerncross wrote:

Here's a question for you both, do you spend as much time, spend as much effort, spend as much thought, on your REAL LIVES and the people in it, as you do on this ? You know... the one and the people that really matter ?

SC, value is subjective, I consider this forum a part of my real life, I converse with real people on this forum, argue with real people on this forum, share ideas with real people on this forum, I don't watch TV, I read the threads on this forum and post mainly as a means of self-education and enhancing my knowledge and skills as well as to influence others. Topics i encounter here are followed up avidly in other sources. I've learnt more in the 5 - 6 years being a forum member about economics, politics, the environment, than I have in 12 years of school and the 6 years I spent at uni.

Your only window into my life is what you see in this forum. You're more than free to ponder my life if that's what turns you on, but keep your personal musings about me to yourself. It's not appreciated.

So basically, get turtled.

Last edited by mmm....shiney! (2017-02-18 20:03:25)


The woolgrower's target shall be the good thriving of his flock and its pastures, and so of himself and those whose livelihoods depend on his enterprise.
"The Woolgrower's Companion", 1906.

Offline

The following 2 users say thank you for this post: southerncross, mmissinglink

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB