AGW Theory - Discussion

Is this your new way of derailing or are you really that inept?
I'm actually impressed you managed to make a post without swearing so you got that going for you..

Its the oldest way to harness solar power.

Blue green algae invented it billions of years ago.

It is also some kind of holy grail of harvesting solar energy because its so much more efficient than our solar panels and has built in storage capabilities.

We are closing in on it though. In electrifying advance, researchers create circuit within living plants

Where is this again?
Specifically, where is the peer reviewed, published information showing the methodology, hypothesis, reasoning, data collection/sampling/sanitization, analysis, and conclusion?

Have you not been paying attention for the past 2-3 pages? I'm gonna say no..


Show me when they accurately predicted the climate anywhere in the past 75yrs. Don't bother wasting your time looking. It does not exist. The word NEVER, is perfectly appropriate.

Coming from someone who arrived dismissing 30 pages just to tell everyone they're wrong without learning a thing, lol.

Since it didn't seem to register the first time:
Specifically, where is the peer reviewed, published information showing the methodology, hypothesis, reasoning, data collection/sampling/sanitization, analysis, and conclusion?

Show me that they were measurably more inaccurate than any other means of prediction.
edit: Hell, this should be easy for you. Give the other predictions, their methodology, assumptions, data, hypothesis. Oh yes, and it needs to be peer reviewed and published.

You realize in that context "good faith" means to consider that the scientists are not into some kind of conspiracy; and not that they have faith in the hope to be right.

Which can be said for anything you haven't personally studied yourself. Which I'm going to assume it's a lot of subjects.

You just refuse to believe it cause you think this is political first. But while politics are involved due to the energy market, this is first scientific, the rest comes after.

Last I checked the coastline city's are still around and the ice caps still exists.. Do you people forget the asinine claims made by your side?

Why? What could possibly make you think the climate of our planet can be understood? We can barely predict the weather!

This is why you and everyone who believes this crap is wrong.
It is political first and scientific comes after.

I have many pages back, what's the point of repeating ourselves?

In fact ice is melting and sea level is rising.

Nobody here has said the earth is not warming/cooling. I think you are in the wrong thread.

I must have forgotten you have a doctorate in climate science, my bad.

So have we gotten anywhere besides climate change denial and arguing against that level of baffling stupidity?

I think we may have establish that everyone wants cheaper green energy.. Does that count? If anything we have established that people love to call other people stupid.

We established that seems to be a thing across the board back in the early to mid 90s internet infancy.

A smug sense of superiority is what keeps the internet in business, ffs.

So your argument is: They aren't 100% correct!
Question: Ok, can you show anything that is better?
Answer: We can't predict the climate, cause magic god stuff!

Wtf.
The extreme weather patterns caused by climate change affect all species on the planet, and most importantly us. Ignoring the problem won't make it go away. Ecology is possibly the most important thing we should be worried about, and it's no wonder there's so much research going into that field, focusing everything on sustainability.

The politics are absolutely secondary. I'll say it for the fourth time: his conspiracy theory only has such a large consensus among republicans in America. And no, it's not cause the rest of the world is oppressed like Saevel said back in the pages lol.

There's the problem. Why do they have to alter the numbers to prove a point? Why not just remove the irrelevant data and go with factual numbers instead of changing the numbers to fit your agenda?

They could have used the raw data, taken out the incorrect readings (readings showing no data or readings showing impossible numbers), averaged the remainder out, and use that data, but instead, they just outright changed the data itself.

Who cares if the methodology, hypothesis, reasoning, analysis and conclusion is sound when you have junk data in the first place? Even worse when that scientist created the junk data to begin with.

There are countless conservatives and republicans, notably teachers, scientists, and even politicians, who acknowledge that 1) global mean temperatures are rising, 2) climates and weather patterns worldwide are becoming more extreme, and 3) human activities are providing a major contribution to both.

No.. That's a ridiculous assumption.

Again.. Why? Why, do I need to prove it isn't happening, when it cannot even be proved it is!

If you enjoy thinking we can't predict the climate because, not understanding it makes it magic god stuff.. More power to you I guess..

Have been around long before we mere humans walked the earth. Next!

Speaking from a non-climatic point of view:
Because leaving holes in time-based data makes it essentially unuseable. You need to replace it with something otherwise you have a discontinuity which means that you typically can no longer process it.
Think of something like 1/X; you can evaluate it on either side of 0, but when you hit 0, you get screeeewed.
(and to be clear, we aren't talking about adjusting for known/observed biases, but simple removal/replacement)

So what do you do?
You can potentially look at throwing out all data in that sample period(which is overkill for the problem), or you can look at some means of approximating that data, on the basis of lack of uniqueness and the principle of consistency
It doesn't apply for areas/stations that show histories of unique or inconsistent behavior.

So you usually will take either the previous sample (for real-time systems), the sample after, or the interpolation between the samples (e.g. average of the two).

And back to not even acknowledging the effects of climate change.

It's a loop, why bother.

No one is asking you to show that it isn't happening. The question is: Do you have any model which is better at predicting it?

Are you saying that it is perfectly acceptable to use data with missing information when it's not perfectly acceptable to use data with missing information?

You don't get to plug numbers in where the holes are and call that science. Hell, you don't get to plug numbers in when it comes to any kind of analytical work. If the data is corrupted or missing, you don't use it. You can't just make ***up or alter the data and call it science.

I can't believe I have to explain it to anyone, this is the most basic understanding when it comes to analyzing anything. And yet, for climate science, this is what is happening. And people are not only buying into this, they are actually to the point where they are worshiping this bad science.

I mean, if you dare question the data (or dare question God), you are obviously a denier (or a heretic) and must be punished! The parallel between climate science and religion is astounding!

tl:dr version: If the data is incorrect, don't use it.

Do you have any model that uses factual data?

Mere humans can't influence climate. Can bacteria? What can? What can't? Why? What's the difference? Where is the delimiting factor? Is it time-based? Is it resource based? Is it reversible, or one way? Are there any catalytic factors?