Comments for Climate Change and Control Information http://cc9.org www.cc9.org Thu, 16 Feb 2012 03:36:56 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 Comment on Climate Change 3of12: Atmospheric Temperature Data by theinquisitor http://cc9.org/climate-change-3of12-atmospheric-temperature-data/#comment-549 theinquisitor Thu, 16 Feb 2012 03:36:56 +0000 http://cc9.org/climate-change-3of12-atmospheric-temperature-data/#comment-549 You're right about Al Gore. He did more damage to the argument than anyone else. He exaggerated an actual danger in an attempt to draw more attention to it, but only gave the other side something to point to as a way of dismissing everything. The professor in this video actually mentions this in a later part. Unless you're a climate scientist, you're not qualified to analyse the data properly, so on what basis can you decide that it's bogus? Where do you get your information from? You’re right about Al Gore. He did more damage to the argument than anyone else. He exaggerated an actual danger in an attempt to draw more attention to it, but only gave the other side something to point to as a way of dismissing everything. The professor in this video actually mentions this in a later part.

Unless you’re a climate scientist, you’re not qualified to analyse the data properly, so on what basis can you decide that it’s bogus? Where do you get your information from?

]]> Comment on Climate Change 3of12: Atmospheric Temperature Data by theinquisitor http://cc9.org/climate-change-3of12-atmospheric-temperature-data/#comment-548 theinquisitor Thu, 16 Feb 2012 02:44:06 +0000 http://cc9.org/climate-change-3of12-atmospheric-temperature-data/#comment-548 I'd love it if you were right, I really would. I just don't understand how you can accept the opinions of a minority of scientists and reject the majority. "the science is falling to bits" No really, where do you get your information from? I really actually want to know, that's not rhetorical. I’d love it if you were right, I really would. I just don’t understand how you can accept the opinions of a minority of scientists and reject the majority.

“the science is falling to bits”

No really, where do you get your information from? I really actually want to know, that’s not rhetorical.

]]> Comment on Climate Change 3of12: Atmospheric Temperature Data by Dave26851 http://cc9.org/climate-change-3of12-atmospheric-temperature-data/#comment-547 Dave26851 Thu, 16 Feb 2012 02:25:13 +0000 http://cc9.org/climate-change-3of12-atmospheric-temperature-data/#comment-547 Well as i said i'm in close agreement with this professor i think he is fair minded and accurate with most of what he says, however, it is unbecoming of him to have based some of what he says on IPCC conclusions. "Unless you're a climate scientist, you're not qualified to analyse the data properly" Tell the 2400+ people at the IPCC that. It just so happens i have a strong background in physics, however, everyone is sufficiently qualified to make judgements based on the data which is presented Well as i said i’m in close agreement with this professor i think he is fair minded and accurate with most of what he says, however, it is unbecoming of him to have based some of what he says on IPCC conclusions.

“Unless you’re a climate scientist, you’re not qualified to analyse the data properly”
Tell the 2400+ people at the IPCC that. It just so happens i have a strong background in physics, however, everyone is sufficiently qualified to make judgements based on the data which is presented

]]> Comment on Climate Change 3of12: Atmospheric Temperature Data by theinquisitor http://cc9.org/climate-change-3of12-atmospheric-temperature-data/#comment-546 theinquisitor Thu, 16 Feb 2012 02:09:24 +0000 http://cc9.org/climate-change-3of12-atmospheric-temperature-data/#comment-546 "everyone is sufficiently qualified to make judgements based on the data which is presented" Are you serious? You think someone with no background in the subject and no understanding of the methods used to gather data, no understanding of the physics or statistics or anything to do with the subject is sufficiently qualified to make judgments? If you don't know what's wrong with that statement, then I really don't know how to explain it to you. Expertise means nothing to you? GOATS ON FIRE! “everyone is sufficiently qualified to make judgements based on the data which is presented”

Are you serious? You think someone with no background in the subject and no understanding of the methods used to gather data, no understanding of the physics or statistics or anything to do with the subject is sufficiently qualified to make judgments?

If you don’t know what’s wrong with that statement, then I really don’t know how to explain it to you. Expertise means nothing to you? GOATS ON FIRE!

]]> Comment on Climate Change 3of12: Atmospheric Temperature Data by theinquisitor http://cc9.org/climate-change-3of12-atmospheric-temperature-data/#comment-545 theinquisitor Thu, 16 Feb 2012 01:44:55 +0000 http://cc9.org/climate-change-3of12-atmospheric-temperature-data/#comment-545 Just google something like "common statistics errors" and then tell me that no background in statistics is needed to analyse data. Just google something like “common statistics errors” and then tell me that no background in statistics is needed to analyse data.

]]> Comment on Climate Change 3of12: Atmospheric Temperature Data by Dave26851 http://cc9.org/climate-change-3of12-atmospheric-temperature-data/#comment-544 Dave26851 Thu, 16 Feb 2012 01:07:21 +0000 http://cc9.org/climate-change-3of12-atmospheric-temperature-data/#comment-544 You clearly didn't understand what i said. Again I see you appear to have a very short attention span. "everyone is sufficiently qualified to make judgements based on the data which is presented" I did in no way say that expertise means nothing, i do however believe that people must make informed decisions when responding to information presented to them. Scientists should certainly be invaluable sources of information but we should not blindly rely on their interpretations. You clearly didn’t understand what i said. Again I see you appear to have a very short attention span.

“everyone is sufficiently qualified to make judgements based on the data which is presented”

I did in no way say that expertise means nothing, i do however believe that people must make informed decisions when responding to information presented to them. Scientists should certainly be invaluable sources of information but we should not blindly rely on their interpretations.

]]> Comment on Climate Change 3of12: Atmospheric Temperature Data by Dave26851 http://cc9.org/climate-change-3of12-atmospheric-temperature-data/#comment-543 Dave26851 Thu, 16 Feb 2012 00:36:26 +0000 http://cc9.org/climate-change-3of12-atmospheric-temperature-data/#comment-543 Any evidence that this would ever be a problem? Any evidence that this would ever be a problem?

]]> Comment on Climate Change 3of12: Atmospheric Temperature Data by Dave26851 http://cc9.org/climate-change-3of12-atmospheric-temperature-data/#comment-542 Dave26851 Wed, 15 Feb 2012 23:47:51 +0000 http://cc9.org/climate-change-3of12-atmospheric-temperature-data/#comment-542 When the actual temperature data is not in keeping with the model prediction, it is plain that the models are inadequate. Moreover, the computer models are overly simplistic childish simulations of the climate system, which demonstrate a clear misunderstanding of its complexities. In the IPCC's own report of climate forcings, the only natural climate forcing is solar irradiance, which is given 1/16th the weighting of CO2. They mention volcanic activity as a forcing, but fail to include it When the actual temperature data is not in keeping with the model prediction, it is plain that the models are inadequate.

Moreover, the computer models are overly simplistic childish simulations of the climate system, which demonstrate a clear misunderstanding of its complexities. In the IPCC’s own report of climate forcings, the only natural climate forcing is solar irradiance, which is given 1/16th the weighting of CO2. They mention volcanic activity as a forcing, but fail to include it

]]> Comment on Climate Change 3of12: Atmospheric Temperature Data by theinquisitor http://cc9.org/climate-change-3of12-atmospheric-temperature-data/#comment-541 theinquisitor Wed, 15 Feb 2012 23:41:40 +0000 http://cc9.org/climate-change-3of12-atmospheric-temperature-data/#comment-541 Well forgive me for assuming that you actually meant the words that you said, I guess that's just because of my short attention span somehow. When you say everyone, I just naively assume that you mean everyone, including uninformed people. I'm just wondering where you get your information from? Is it all your own analysis? If you really do have a science background, then you should know that even brilliant scientists can make egregious mistakes when looking at things outside their field. Well forgive me for assuming that you actually meant the words that you said, I guess that’s just because of my short attention span somehow.

When you say everyone, I just naively assume that you mean everyone, including uninformed people.

I’m just wondering where you get your information from? Is it all your own analysis? If you really do have a science background, then you should know that even brilliant scientists can make egregious mistakes when looking at things outside their field.

]]> Comment on Climate Change 3of12: Atmospheric Temperature Data by theinquisitor http://cc9.org/climate-change-3of12-atmospheric-temperature-data/#comment-540 theinquisitor Wed, 15 Feb 2012 23:23:46 +0000 http://cc9.org/climate-change-3of12-atmospheric-temperature-data/#comment-540 So I'll ask again very explicitly. Where do you get your information from? I'm actually asking, please tell me. So I’ll ask again very explicitly. Where do you get your information from? I’m actually asking, please tell me.

]]>