Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Environment

Environment Environmental Politics Forum - Environmental issues, global warming, pollution, and proposals


Thanks Tree39Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old September 16th, 2016, 03:29 PM   #41
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 55,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by RNG View Post
See, you know nothing. Those aren't examples of bias. Those are examples of experimental error. Which is one of the many reasons real scientists repeat their measurements multiple times and other groups duplicate the work.
When climate scientists revise their theories because of improved observational capabilities, it's a frankly idiotic assertion to claim the changes give a compelling reason to doubt their work and their science.

Scientists back in the 70s I think were predicting an ice age. Silly scientists.

Didja know? If the climate previously changed without human input, that means human input isn't affecting it now no matter what the globalist neocons say.

Carbon dioxide on a pie graph is 3 percent of the atmosphere. Human activity is contributes 3 percent of the 3 percent.

imaginethat is offline  
Old September 16th, 2016, 03:33 PM   #42
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: LA LA Land North
Posts: 26,257
Quote:
Originally Posted by webguy4 View Post
Observer expectancy effect....


I find it easier just to say bias.
There is no observer expectancy effect when one is reading a number.
RNG is offline  
Old September 16th, 2016, 03:40 PM   #43
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: LA LA Land North
Posts: 26,257
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post

Scientists back in the 70s I think were predicting an ice age. Silly scientists.

<snips for bandwidth>
They weren't being silly. They were measuring and modeling the effects of ever increasing particulates in the atmosphere at the time and that was the result. It was valid.

In that case, the world came to recognize the immediate threat to human health from the particulates and government regulations greatly decreased the particulate loading of the atmosphere, reversing that trend.

One of the ideas floated around to counter current warming is to introduce artificial aerosols into the upper atmosphere to increase the blockage of solar energy reaching the surface. A suitable aerosol hasn't been found (thank the FSM, IMO, no telling the total effects of such a move).
RNG is offline  
Old September 16th, 2016, 03:44 PM   #44
Mayor of Realville
 
webguy4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Michigan
Posts: 14,928
Any tendency which prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question.

This includes experimental errors of any kind.
webguy4 is offline  
Old September 16th, 2016, 03:46 PM   #45
Mayor of Realville
 
webguy4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Michigan
Posts: 14,928
Quote:
Originally Posted by RNG View Post
There is no observer expectancy effect when one is reading a number.
Save that as the most delusional post from a supposed scientist ever.
webguy4 is offline  
Old September 16th, 2016, 03:55 PM   #46
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: LA LA Land North
Posts: 26,257
Quote:
Originally Posted by webguy4 View Post
Any tendency which prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question.

This includes experimental errors of any kind.
There you go inventing your own language again.
Thanks from imaginethat
RNG is offline  
Old September 16th, 2016, 03:56 PM   #47
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: LA LA Land North
Posts: 26,257
Quote:
Originally Posted by webguy4 View Post
Save that as the most delusional post from a supposed scientist ever.
If you see your digital clock reading 4:32 do you see 12:47?

The way your brain works, I could see you saying yes.
RNG is offline  
Old September 16th, 2016, 04:13 PM   #48
Mayor of Realville
 
webguy4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Michigan
Posts: 14,928
Quote:
Originally Posted by RNG View Post
There you go inventing your own language again.
I could post a link, but I could also post your response . The exchange bores me.

My posted definition of scientific bias comes from page 2 of an abstract written by two medical doctors, Panucci and Wilkins, about avoiding bias in research.

Last edited by webguy4; September 16th, 2016 at 04:18 PM.
webguy4 is offline  
Old September 16th, 2016, 04:18 PM   #49
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: LA LA Land North
Posts: 26,257
Quote:
Originally Posted by webguy4 View Post
I could post a link, but I could also post your response . The exchange bores me.
You've been boring me for a long time with your illogical blather, but the last time I gave up in exasperation, you accused me of running away and claimed victory. I won't allow that bullshit again.
RNG is offline  
Old September 16th, 2016, 04:26 PM   #50
Mayor of Realville
 
webguy4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Michigan
Posts: 14,928
Quote:
Originally Posted by RNG View Post
You've been boring me for a long time with your illogical blather, but the last time I gave up in exasperation, you accused me of running away and claimed victory. I won't allow that bullshit again.
I ve been posting here and other places on line for a few years. I don't think I've ever claimed victory.
webguy4 is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Environment

Tags
big, lie



Thread Tools
Display Modes



Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.