1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Sub-zero temps in Chicago; record cold/snow in NW; blizzard warnings--Global Warming?

Discussion in 'The OT' started by Lord Vader, Dec 21, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. txtommy

    txtommy Icon

    805
    0
    Dec 30, 2006
    Scientists are able to tell the differences between Flu A, Flu B, Flu C and Flu D. If a vaccine is developed that effectively wipes out 99.99% of Flu Virus A that means that 0.001% of the virus was of a slightly different mutation that is able to withstand the vaccine. When the next year arrives, the Flu Virus A will return but it will be in the mutated form. This can be and has been proved. It can be observed with pure versions of a virus in the lab. This is evolution. Survival of the fittest. It is still Flu Virus A but it has now adapted so that 99.99% is immune to the vaccine.

    This same thing applies to bacteria that become immune to anti-biotics, mosquitoes that are no longer bothered by repellant and thousands of other plants and animal species that slowly adapt to their surrounding environments. Some live and some die. Those that live make the species stronger at least to certain elements.
     
  2. Richard King

    Richard King Hall Of Fame

    21,331
    1
    Mar 25, 2002
    http://www.andrewbostom.org/blog/20...“getting-rid”-of-the-medieval-warming-period/
    Horse Hockey Climate Scientology: “Getting Rid” of the Medieval Warming Period
    More....
     
  3. James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    46,188
    1,074
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    Just because you do not know of them does not mean that they do not exist. Are you sure that you are just refusing to accept as 'true scientists' anyone who does not share your faith in the theory? Extending the same bias in the case of not accepting the science of anyone who doesn't share your faith in global warming?

    They are both theories ... unproven theories.

    If you so believe then do us the intellectual honor of NOT PRESENTING AN UNPROVEN THEORY AS FACT. You don't know it to be true. You believe it is true, great but there is a big gap between faith and fact. Please understand that you are only demonstrating your faith in the theory.
     
  4. jwd45244

    jwd45244 Hall Of Fame

    1,510
    0
    Aug 18, 2006
    Here is the problem I have with the Global Climate Change models. It is based upon computer modeling and significant amounts of statistical extrapolation. The problem with these models is that the standard deviations are huge. The models can give 95% confidence intervals only about 3 - 6 months out. The confidence intervals plunge in to the 20's and teens as you move out 3, 5, 10, 50, 100 years.
     
  5. James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    46,188
    1,074
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    So you want us to read your example of how scientists have failed to stay a step ahead of the flu as proof that scientists are experts on bigger problems?

    That is like asking the kid at the drive through window that can't give you the correct change to balance the national budget. :rolleyes:
     
  6. txtommy

    txtommy Icon

    805
    0
    Dec 30, 2006
    Once again you are failing to acknowledge what the scientific definition of theory is. The scientific method starts out with a hypothesis. Only when sufficient data and observation is available to prove the hypothesis does it become a theory. In science there is little difference in the the terms fact and theory. Theory does not ever mean a guess or an idea or a belief. A scientist never offers a theory until he has the data to explain the theory.

    It is a common trick of deniers to insist on using the common definition of theory to refute scientific facts. Very few people deny the gravitational theory. Most may not understand it but few deny that there is a proved gravitational force yet in science it is still referred to as a theory. That does not mean that any scientist views it as faith, or a guess, or just something they believe in. When you drop an object do you have faith that it will drop or is it a known fact?

    It is the same with global warming and evolution. They are both theories but if the overwhelming body of evidence did not show they were true then they would still be considered hypothesis rather than theory.

    Please do not redefine scientific phrases and then use the same phrases to deny the truth in scientific facts. This is much the same as me redefining 'apple' to mean a square, purple fruit with six eyes and then claiming to disprove the existence of the apple.
     
  7. txtommy

    txtommy Icon

    805
    0
    Dec 30, 2006
    Apples and oranges here. What connection exists between your ideas?

    Since evolution is mostly random it is impossible to stay one step ahead. Probabilities can be formulated that will make the best possible predictions but we cannot prove ahead of time what the next mutation will be. No one can possibly prove ahead of time what mutation will occur in a single virus that will allow it to survive the vaccine. That would be like predicting the lottery. It becomes fact only after the drawing. It is comparable to playing dodgeball. Do you dodge right or left before the ball is release?

    Global warming theories are based on studies of data over centuries and observing trends. Trends tend to continue in the same direction and can therefore be predicted unlike the entirely random aspect of mutations. After the dodgeball is released and you see it going to your right, you can assume that it will continue going to you right without suddenly changing direction. Global climate change has already established its direction. That direction is upward. As it has throughout the 4-5 billion years of the earths existence the trend will change but that is a slow natural trend. It is mans contribution to the current trend that has accelerated the rate of change that we need to concern ourselves.
     
  8. txtommy

    txtommy Icon

    805
    0
    Dec 30, 2006
    Would this be the same Dr. Deming?

    His certification was not removed because of the media. Read up on him. His hypotheses are mostly bogus and he is a certifiable nut case.

    It is also notable that 'Dr.' Deming has worked for oil companies and religious groups for pay while developing scientific hypothesis to support their side of the global warming argument. He is being paid to prove their side of the argument. A scientist does not formulate his hypothesis to fit the needs of those who pay the most. This guy is not a scientist but a prostitute.
     
  9. Richard King

    Richard King Hall Of Fame

    21,331
    1
    Mar 25, 2002
    Of course, Al Gore and his followers don't "work for pay" do they? Bringing the $$$ into this is totally out of place since BOTH sides are making many $$$$ on the battle, mostly on the pro man made "Global Climate Change" side.

    Greenpeace. :lol:
     
  10. txtommy

    txtommy Icon

    805
    0
    Dec 30, 2006
    Everyone works for pay, even scientists, but when you are paid to only find things that prove a particular side of an argument then you are no longer a scientist. Dr. Deming works as a lobbyist for the oil companies and the religious right. The pay him to find 'evidence' that global warming is non-existant and to argue their cause. His documents denying global warming are not based on well researched facts but on cherry-picked information much of which is fabricated.

    The bummer of science is that often you will find results that do not support your argument or theory. A true scientist will at that point modify the theory to fit the proved facts rather than distort or ignore the evidence. It is only scientists who have no agenda to prove who can be fully trusted. Dr. Deming is not one of those which is a part of the reason why he no longer can teach courses for credit at OU. He is the type of 'scientist' who will start with a theory and then find only those facts which seem to support his theory.
     
  11. txtommy

    txtommy Icon

    805
    0
    Dec 30, 2006
    BTW, the current temperature is 78 F which make today the warmest December 26th on record for our area. Just mentioning that but I certainly would never consider using a one day record as an indication to prove anything. By the same standard no one should try using a cold day, week or even season as proof of anything.
     
  12. James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    46,188
    1,074
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    What you are missing in your "flu" example is that the next year's flu that science has to adjust the vaccine for is not a mutation. When putting together the vaccine the scientists CHOOSE which strains to fight and which strains to ignore. The fact that an ignored strain lives to fight another year isn't a mutation ... it is a byproduct of the choice the vaccine makers made.

    How many centuries of accurate data exists and just how accurate is that data? Global warming followers spout facts that are only guesses at historical data. If you want to put your faith in a theory based on guesses feel free. Just stop insulting those who don't have the same faith as you.

    You believe in global warming. Great! Do you also believe in Santa Claus? The Easter Bunny? There is a difference between fact and fiction. Weeding out the fiction is needed. As you said ... theories change to fit the available observations. When you cannot assure the accuracy of the observations how can you call the theory proven?

    It takes a lot of faith to believe in global warming.

    There you go again ... assuming that you (or anyone else) can accurately portray the past 4-5 billion years. Our science does not go back that far. It is only guesses.

    Sounds like a description of those with faith in global warming. Inventing some test that prove historical temperatures to the degree? Sounds like scientists creating facts to prove their preconceptions.
     
  13. James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    46,188
    1,074
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    And here we had an ice storm and the county is closed (although counties in your area tend to close for a lot less ice/snow than we do simply because they are unprepared for the event).

    You are taking this all too seriously ... the idea of a single day being "proof" is not what is offered in the threads JOKING about global warming. If you think that anyone who starts such a thread here is offering proof then you need to be schooled.

    The conversation that follows gets more technical and into the science involved but please ... don't get your panties in a twist because someone mentions "it is cold" and "global warming" in the same sentence.

    If you want a serious debate on global warming please find an appropriate forum on that type of science. This is a forum focusing on DBS. This sub forum is intended to be a fun place for those talking DBS to talk about other stuff - not a place for zealots to hang out to defend their scientific theories such as global warming.

    Chill out dude.
     
  14. Grentz

    Grentz New Member

    5,916
    1
    Jan 10, 2007
    BTW, I do not necessarily totally believe in global warming, I was just pointing out a fact about it in my previous post.
     
  15. James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    46,188
    1,074
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    Reflecting back on this post from February:
    Read the 800+ post thread on Global Warming that was closed last Christmas and say something that isn't covered in that thread.

    That is your challenge. Good luck.

    (If there isn't anything more to be said then perhaps we all need to get back to DBS?)
    (Also note Chris said 'maybe' ... there is no guarantee of further discussion.)
     
  16. txtommy

    txtommy Icon

    805
    0
    Dec 30, 2006
    This is so untrue. Where do you think the new virus comes from? There are not a million different flu virus' waiting for the one year they are ignored by the vaccine makers. It has been very common for a virus to come back in a new mutated form that old vaccines will no longer work against. It is the same principle as the super bacteria that have developed in hospitals that are mutated forms of bacteria that are immune to the antibiotics. It is the same as insects which this month can be killed by pesticides but the few who survive will come back as a stronger bug that is immune to the same pesticide. This is why we must constantly change the formulas for vaccines, antibiotics and pesticides. Evolution is the reason.

    If you chose not to believe that data can be obtained then there is no possibility that enough data can ever be collected to convince you. Apparently it will only be when all the ice is melted and water levels have flooded the streets when you might admit that something has changed.

    Very true. It is about weeding out the facts from the fiction. Facts versus faith. Proof or just belief? I believe in facts that can be demonstrated rather than fiction that cannot. This is what science is all about.
    I used to believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny until I became old enough to analyze the data. I used to believe in the tooth fairy, ghosts, goblins, demons, angels, the devil and god before lack of facts convinced me of their non-existence (but that's another topic).

    It takes no faith. If only faith were available, I would not believe in it. Volumes and volumes of data supports that global climate change is occurring. All facts are backed by data and not faith. Faith can never prove that anything is the truth.

    Accurately portray the past 4-5 billion years. I didn't say that. We do have lots of evidence that extends back millions of years to show that climates have changed. We know that areas of Alaska and Siberia where oil exists were once tropical with thick vegetation and dinosaurs. Knowing something about an era does not claim to know all about the era. This is also why most of what happened billions of years ago is still considered hypothesis and not theory. But we are learning more all the time and as more and more data is found the EDUCATED guesses slowly become theory.

    As long as you continue to use the term faith as being compatible with science, nothing can ever be proved. Scientists (other than bogus scientists) do not invent tests that only prove what they want to be true. True scientific tests will show if their hypothesis is correct but it can also show it to be wrong. The scientist accepts either result and then modifies his hypothesis. No one who creates facts to prove a preconception can be considered a scientist.
     
  17. James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    46,188
    1,074
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    So do you not know or are you refusing to answer the question? How many centuries and how accurate? I believe your answer to the question agrees with me that there is not a lot of accurate data to base the theory of global warming on.

    Faith is required to believe that the data you have says anything. You have faith ... the biggest lie of global warming is to deny that it is faith in the science.

    Then who invented a test to determine historical temperatures and why did they invent it? Did they invent their test out of curiosity or were they already working on global warming/climate change theories? How did they prove their test accurate? To what level can they guarantee accuracy? How can they make such a guarantee? Is there any guarantee at all?

    In the end the global warming/climate change scientists are finding what they want to find because the are not looking for anything else. And now that it appears that 'science' is moving toward the thought of 'cooling' instead of 'warming' they have changed the label to 'climate change'.

    Check with the people you are defending ... they may no longer be predicting all the ice melting and water filling the streets ... they may be predicting the next ice age. All subject to change to keep the funding levels as high as possible.
     
  18. Lord Vader

    Lord Vader Supreme Member DBSTalk Club

    8,761
    42
    Sep 20, 2004
    Galactic Empire
    Indeed, James. I certainly didn't start this thread to prove unequivocally the nonexistence of "Global Warming" solely due to colder than normal weather; rather, I started it to point out the silliness of believing GW exists in the manner that the alarmists believe it exists.

    I still maintain that perhaps the most sensible voice in this whole mess is by someone who has no political agenda, no axe to grind--John Coleman, the founder of The Weather Channel. Sadly, he was forced to leave his creation when TWC turned into something other than a meteorological entity and when it grew too political. Coleman not too long ago did a study that mirrored the time frame GW alarmists often use, and he did an excellent job of pointing out how the sun--not man, not cars, not cows--is the cause of the planet's temperature extremes. The stats he used to back up his claims were impressive, to say the least.
     
  19. jwd45244

    jwd45244 Hall Of Fame

    1,510
    0
    Aug 18, 2006
    Actually other than math nothing can be proved, only disproved. However, analyzing data, looking for trends, and extrapolating those trends is not science. It is statistics. Global Climate Change is a statistical effort not a scientific one. The statistics trending may in fact turn out to be right but it is not science. Science is about Observation, Hypothesis, Experimentation to disprove the Hypothesis, adjustment of the hypothesis. Repeatability. Repeatability. Repeatability.

    The Climate Models are Monte Carlo Simulations (one of a valid set of methods used in statistics). It is not science.
     
  20. Jason Nipp

    Jason Nipp Analog Geek in a Digital World Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Gold Club DBSTalk Club

    10,071
    3
    Jun 10, 2004
    Northern...
    OK, here's a picture that really shows how much snow we got.

    My neighbor has one of those annoying life-sized deer statues.... As you can see I nailed the ear with a golf ball this summer..... I have a range net in my back yard so I can practice, yes one got away from me.... But anyhow.... there is no photo trickery here.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page