any tv for august games?

[tjreese]

In the 1920's, if you asked many well respected spiritualists, "Do spirits exist, and can we contact them?". The majority of them would answer "yes, of course". The answer was self-serving, of course. Just because a majority of any population "believe" something is true does not constitute a valid argument that the proposition IS true.

When people say "the vast majority of scientists believe man-made climate change is true", I get no assurance that the argument has any reasoning behind it. The vast majority may be sociologists, biologists, anthropologists, etc. Many who have no training in interpreting the raw data. Many of these scientists face derision and career damaging peer pressure to say anything else. The whole climate issue has become politicized, which severely damages true scientific debate

very well stated. My son in law that has a doctorate in biological statistics has stated many times that doctors, research people many times don't have the background to understand the data. I myself have had to keep from laughing when some doctors and veterinarians are surprised at some results. I recall a school in south bend when my daughter was in freshmen admissions discussing foreign language placement tests..and how that data was not used...but how they knew (faith) how a person might do. I also recall a supt of a school that handed me a article on using teacher aides in place of hiring more teachers and this person had no idea what was not said...and then there was the time in the Indiana Dept of Education proclamation on reduced lunches and learning in which I pointed out the false conclusions made by their own data and was accused of everything except being wrong. As I age and I gained a different digit yesterday it certainly appears to me that many people can't actually think. They can recite...they can memorize, but thinking is not a strength and there are more of them (thinkers) percentage wise if they are a Purdue grad.

 

[BoilerAndy]

I never said you were confused nor that I had an answer. I was merely pointing out that you were comparing the opinion of a journalist to an opinion shared by basically the entire scientific world.

You can believe what you like. I have no pony in this race.

Here is an important point. It is the journalists who are telling us what the entire scientific world believes. It absolutely is not true. Their agenda has seriously set science back in this field, and if/when the journalists are shown to be wrong, it will seriously hurt science's credibility in the eyes of the public. The worst part is that when there is a real crisis, people will say, "Ho hum. We've heard it before."

 

[proudopete]

In the 1920's, if you asked many well respected spiritualists, "Do spirits exist, and can we contact them?". The majority of them would answer "yes, of course". The answer was self-serving, of course. Just because a majority of any population "believe" something is true does not constitute a valid argument that the proposition IS true.

When people say "the vast majority of scientists believe man-made climate change is true", I get no assurance that the argument has any reasoning behind it. The vast majority may be sociologists, biologists, anthropologists, etc. Many who have no training in interpreting the raw data. Many of these scientists face derision and career damaging peer pressure to say anything else. The whole climate issue has become politicized, which severely damages true scientific debate

Except that's not how it works.

Every scientist in the world didn't get together and answer a questionnaire in the subject, nor did every scientist weigh in on every study.

Numerous studies in different areas over a long period of time have appeared to support the theory as a whole. That's how a concensus is formed. The geologist studies his field and presents his findings. The meteorologists do the same and so on. Studies are reviewed by peers and either supported or refuted.

There isn't just one huge conclusion that has been reached based on one study.

Do we seriously have engineers on here who don't understand scientific method?

 

[tjreese]

Except that's not how it works.

Every scientist in the world didn't get together and answer a questionnaire in the subject, nor did every scientist weigh in on every study.

Numerous studies in different areas over a long period of time have appeared to support the theory as a whole. That's how a concensus is formed. The geologist studies his field and presents his findings. The meteorologists do the same and so on. Studies are reviewed by peers and either supported or refuted.

There isn't just one huge conclusion that has been reached based on one study.

Do we seriously have engineers on here who don't understand scientific method?

the better question may be do we have people that don't understand that following the money and circular referencing that sometimes gets in play. Circular referencing is quite common in educational pedagogy. One leaves the trough and the other drinks from it later while both hold each other up as references. it wasn't too long ago efveryone was promoting the "wage" gap between sexes and yet we know ..or at least should, no matter what we read that every company under the sun would gather the extra 23% profit if women had the same skills and willing to work for 23% less. Still, you have some that buy it... I can't make this up...people believe this..or at least did

 

[mathboy]

Except that's not how it works.

Every scientist in the world didn't get together and answer a questionnaire in the subject, nor did every scientist weigh in on every study.

Numerous studies in different areas over a long period of time have appeared to support the theory as a whole. That's how a concensus is formed. The geologist studies his field and presents his findings. The meteorologists do the same and so on. Studies are reviewed by peers and either supported or refuted.

There isn't just one huge conclusion that has been reached based on one study.

Do we seriously have engineers on here who don't understand scientific method?

I am not debating the "scientific process", nor do I fail to understand how it works. I am expressing doubt that it has been applied rigorously to the issue of man-made climate change. note, I did not say "climate change". I said "man-made climate change". I have read enough of the debate to understand that the evidence is not conclusive on either side of this argument. I further find that any of the most strident supporters are self-serving in many ways and benefit from their position on this discussion.

Do we have engineers here that fail to question assumptions and unsupported conclusions?

 

[proudopete]

the better question may be do we have people that don't understand that following the money and circular referencing that sometimes gets in play. Circular referencing is quite common in educational pedagogy. One leaves the trough and the other drinks from it later while both hold each other up as references. it wasn't too long ago efveryone was promoting the "wage" gap between sexes and yet we know ..or at least should, no matter what we read that every company under the sun would gather the extra 23% profit if women had the same skills and willing to work for 23% less. Still, you have some that buy it... I can't make this up...people believe this..or at least did

If you want to circle reference something, perhaps take a gander at who would profit from increasing consumption levels to the point of oversaturarion of goods and dwindling reserves of non-renewable resources.
But we we're talking about your comparison of an observation by a journalist to that of a mountain of data collected by professionals in varying fields over a very long period of time.
I get that it's a political thing. As was said above, lack of integrity in the feild of journalism has hurt the scientific community by questioning its methods in an effort to win an election. It's disheartening to see so many people choose politics over common sense.
You mentioned the 70's. During the 70's, we had lead in gasoline, no seatbelt laws, and the use of tempered glass in vehicles wasn't mandiatory. Do you also believe those things are quackery? I'm thinking Carter, a democrat may have been behind them.

 

[tjreese]

If you want to circle reference something, perhaps take a gander at who would profit from increasing consumption levels to the point of oversaturarion of goods and dwindling reserves of non-renewable resources.
But we we're talking about your comparison of an observation by a journalist to that of a mountain of data collected by professionals in varying fields over a very long period of time.
I get that it's a political thing. As was said above, lack of integrity in the feild of journalism has hurt the scientific community by questioning its methods in an effort to win an election. It's disheartening to see so many people choose politics over common sense.
You mentioned the 70's. During the 70's, we had lead in gasoline, no seatbelt laws, and the use of tempered glass in vehicles wasn't mandiatory. Do you also believe those things are quackery? I'm thinking Carter, a democrat may have been behind them.

Well, in case it isn't clear. I'm skeptical. That doesn't mean I'm right. You may very well be right. here is the huge difference. You read something and assume it is true. I was that way when I was younger. You assume "professionals" are right and I have dealt with enough to know that in testing claims, regression and hypothesis in general ...MANY have no idea...NONE. I have had enough contentions with "professionals"...that I know "thought" may not be the strongest suit. I would be a fool to state I was right. As you say "many" believe it is true and in a general sense you want to believe those. however, I know things they assume that I cannot buy...no matter how many times it is repeated. Could they be right in their assumption..certainly. So. I'm skeptical , but admit I'm on the fence. It appears you jumped off the fence due to others, not what is known, not even perhaps the understandings of those assumption.

There is absolutely NOTHING I could show that would suggest you are wrong and wiht some background there is nothing I could be shown to say they are right. One thing that you keep repeating is that a "jounalist" is apparently who developed the global cooling back in the 70s and yet it was "science" that held the opinion that global cooling was taking place.

There are things we know. There are things we know we don't know. However, it is the things we don't know that we don't know that comes back to bite us.

Lastly, I do find you thinking "seatbelt" laws are good and outside of protection of children I consider the law a huge over reach. Children under an age of reason should have that protection. People "should" wear their seatbelts as it is for their own good and best interest, but the government giving a fine to an adult that chose to not have his or her belt on is wrong IMO. Not wrong in that an individual should wear a seatbelt, but wrong in that the government fines adults that choose not to protect themselves the best way possible. Your kinda pulling out the "Libertarian" side of some of my thoughts. Next, I'll be fined for not wearing safety glasses when I use a weed trimmer...

 

[gelesen]

Based on likes, there are more on the side against the concept of man-made climate change than there are for. Therefore the consensus is that man-made climate change is not real. Of course as noted above climate change does exist , has always existed and will continue to exist and there is nothing we can do about it.

 

[SnowLeopard]

h

very well stated. My son in law that has a doctorate in biological statistics has stated many times that doctors, research people many times don't have the background to understand the data. I myself have had to keep from laughing when some doctors and veterinarians are surprised at some results. I recall a school in south bend when my daughter was in freshmen admissions discussing foreign language placement tests..and how that data was not used...but how they knew (faith) how a person might do. I also recall a supt of a school that handed me a article on using teacher aides in place of hiring more teachers and this person had no idea what was not said...and then there was the time in the Indiana Dept of Education proclamation on reduced lunches and learning in which I pointed out the false conclusions made by their own data and was accused of everything except being wrong. As I age and I gained a different digit yesterday it certainly appears to me that many people can't actually think. They can recite...they can memorize, but thinking is not a strength and there are more of them (thinkers) percentage wise if they are a Purdue grad.

happy birthday!

 

[tjreese]

h


happy birthday!

Thank you

 

[proudopete]

Well, in case it isn't clear. I'm skeptical. That doesn't mean I'm right. You may very well be right. here is the huge difference. You read something and assume it is true. I was that way when I was younger. You assume "professionals" are right and I have dealt with enough to know that in testing claims, regression and hypothesis in general ...MANY have no idea...NONE. I have had enough contentions with "professionals"...that I know "thought" may not be the strongest suit. I would be a fool to state I was right. As you say "many" believe it is true and in a general sense you want to believe those. however, I know things they assume that I cannot buy...no matter how many times it is repeated. Could they be right in their assumption..certainly. So. I'm skeptical , but admit I'm on the fence. It appears you jumped off the fence due to others, not what is known, not even perhaps the understandings of those assumption.

There is absolutely NOTHING I could show that would suggest you are wrong and wiht some background there is nothing I could be shown to say they are right. One thing that you keep repeating is that a "jounalist" is apparently who developed the global cooling back in the 70s and yet it was "science" that held the opinion that global cooling was taking place.

There are things we know. There are things we know we don't know. However, it is the things we don't know that we don't know that comes back to bite us.

Lastly, I do find you thinking "seatbelt" laws are good and outside of protection of children I consider the law a huge over reach. Children under an age of reason should have that protection. People "should" wear their seatbelts as it is for their own good and best interest, but the government giving a fine to an adult that chose to not have his or her belt on is wrong IMO. Not wrong in that an individual should wear a seatbelt, but wrong in that the government fines adults that choose not to protect themselves the best way possible. Your kinda pulling out the "Libertarian" side of some of my thoughts. Next, I'll be fined for not wearing safety glasses when I use a weed trimmer...

First off, you did repeat a political talking that is current. You then used a cooling trend that has only been used as evidence to refute the theory that the climate change we see is at least partially due to mans actions. Sure science supports the cooling trend, it really happened. If you took the time to research the issue, you would find that science has chimed in on the reasons it happened. It might open your eyes, perhaps not.
I don't care to be right on this. I am just baffled at how you can start with a hoax that is being perpetrated by a political ideology, then moved on to a conspiracy theory that someone is profiting from spreading falsehoods and that explains the concensus and finally that experts can't know everything so their opinions may be wrong.
The problem here is it ain't something I read that causes my disbelief. The fact that people who studied science at Purdue and still think that this concensus was just a bunch of opinions. There is actual data, a bunch of it, once recent study compared 12,000 different papers from between 1991 and 2011 and found that 97% of the ones that considered the subject agreed that man has had an affect. The Doran study in 2009 surveyed 3146 earth scientists and asked the question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" (Doran 2009). More than 90% of participants had Ph.D.s, and 7% had master’s degrees. Overall, 82% of the scientists answered yes. However, what are most interesting are responses compared to the level of expertise in climate science. Of scientists who were non-climatologists and didn't publish research, 77% answered yes. In contrast, 97.5% of climatologists who actively publish research on climate change responded yes.
We rely on experts to know the things we ourselves don't have the time to know as we can't know everything. There is a huge amount of experts who have all stated man is causing these changes on top of the normal cycle of the planet. If you believe that we can tell when different periods had extreme weather changes, then you may want to check out what these people say about how the speed and extremity of these changes is obvious in the last decade.
I am not going to list every study and the qualifications of each group involved in the studies. The mere fact that the data is so overwhelming in agreement with the science community and that there are so many experts who agree due to different variables that support the overall data, and knowing you understand the odds of that much data and professional integrity on the line being wrong, I am pretty sure your opinion is once again, one of a political stance rather than an educated observation.

Conspiracies are fun and alll, but at some point an educated observation is going to need data. I am just confused as to how a fellow scientist could just ignore it and buy into propaganda.

 

[tjreese]

First off, you did repeat a political talking that is current. You then used a cooling trend that has only been used as evidence to refute the theory that the climate change we see is at least partially due to mans actions. Sure science supports the cooling trend, it really happened. If you took the time to research the issue, you would find that science has chimed in on the reasons it happened. It might open your eyes, perhaps not.
I don't care to be right on this. I am just baffled at how you can start with a hoax that is being perpetrated by a political ideology, then moved on to a conspiracy theory that someone is profiting from spreading falsehoods and that explains the concensus and finally that experts can't know everything so their opinions may be wrong.
The problem here is it ain't something I read that causes my disbelief. The fact that people who studied science at Purdue and still think that this concensus was just a bunch of opinions. There is actual data, a bunch of it, once recent study compared 12,000 different papers from between 1991 and 2011 and found that 97% of the ones that considered the subject agreed that man has had an affect. The Doran study in 2009 surveyed 3146 earth scientists and asked the question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" (Doran 2009). More than 90% of participants had Ph.D.s, and 7% had master’s degrees. Overall, 82% of the scientists answered yes. However, what are most interesting are responses compared to the level of expertise in climate science. Of scientists who were non-climatologists and didn't publish research, 77% answered yes. In contrast, 97.5% of climatologists who actively publish research on climate change responded yes.
We rely on experts to know the things we ourselves don't have the time to know as we can't know everything. There is a huge amount of experts who have all stated man is causing these changes on top of the normal cycle of the planet. If you believe that we can tell when different periods had extreme weather changes, then you may want to check out what these people say about how the speed and extremity of these changes is obvious in the last decade.
I am not going to list every study and the qualifications of each group involved in the studies. The mere fact that the data is so overwhelming in agreement with the science community and that there are so many experts who agree due to different variables that support the overall data, and knowing you understand the odds of that much data and professional integrity on the line being wrong, I am pretty sure your opinion is once again, one of a political stance rather than an educated observation.

Conspiracies are fun and alll, but at some point an educated observation is going to need data. I am just confused as to how a fellow scientist could just ignore it and buy into propaganda.

No conspiracy at all...the opinion back then was that cooling was in the future..
back in the 70s. Never have said their hypothesis were wrong...just like I can't tell you that carbon dating is or is not accurate. If you understood measurement error and regression then you would know questions exist for reasonable people...and thinking whatever you want to believe by reasonable people might be different. All you read I g of others opinions may be right on target, but to deny the statistical questions that are not answered I cannot do. You see, I admit the science leaves many questions and you feel it is settled because people that you think should know have guided you down their path. 20 years from now...if we are both alive...we will not know. I understand that and you don't...all none of this is to say your opinion is wrong. None of this has anything to do with conspiracy theories or other stawmen

 

[Purdue Grad in Texas]

h


happy birthday!

Ditto. Happy belated birthday, TJ! You've now gained another credit.....

"Annihilation Jim; total, complete, absolute, annihilation"

 

[tjreese]

Ditto. Happy belated birthday, TJ! You've now gained another credit.....

"Annihilation Jim; total, complete, absolute, annihilation"

Thank you as well. I'm still verticle and so that is good

 

[BoilerAndy]

the better question may be do we have people that don't understand that following the money and circular referencing that sometimes gets in play. Circular referencing is quite common in educational pedagogy. One leaves the trough and the other drinks from it later while both hold each other up as references. it wasn't too long ago efveryone was promoting the "wage" gap between sexes and yet we know ..or at least should, no matter what we read that every company under the sun would gather the extra 23% profit if women had the same skills and willing to work for 23% less. Still, you have some that buy it... I can't make this up...people believe this..or at least did

I had a scientific colleague at a Fortune 500 company quit his job because he had applied for and received a huge grant to study increasing CO2 levels in the oceans. This fellow was known more for his efforts at career-building than scientific rigor. Whenever I see the phrase "follow the money", I think of him. As long as man-made climate change proponents can keep this a front-page crisis, the money will keep flowing.

 

[nagemj02]

Maybe a network will pick up the games at the last minute, such as CBSSports.

 

[Dryfly88]

Maybe a network will pick up the games at the last minute, such as CBSSports.

Damn it Nage, quit trying to get the thread back on topic. We've got a real basketball discussion going on here can't you see that?

 

[proudopete]

No conspiracy at all...the opinion back then was that cooling was in the future..
back in the 70s. Never have said their hypothesis were wrong...just like I can't tell you that carbon dating is or is not accurate. If you understood measurement error and regression then you would know questions exist for reasonable people...and thinking whatever you want to believe by reasonable people might be different. All you read I g of others opinions may be right on target, but to deny the statistical questions that are not answered I cannot do. You see, I admit the science leaves many questions and you feel it is settled because people that you think should know have guided you down their path. 20 years from now...if we are both alive...we will not know. I understand that and you don't...all none of this is to say your opinion is wrong. None of this has anything to do with conspiracy theories or other stawmen

Once again, the scientific community didn't think the planet would fill in the future. The cooling trend was explain as glacier water entering the jet stream from polar ice cap melt off, another sign of claimed change. The opinion that the earth was cooling was that of a reporter, not a scientist.
If you want to follow the money. Perhaps look at who would profit from the remove also of regulations that are meant to protect the environment and the humans who live on it. Perhaps take a drive down Markland and enjoy the nice solar panel farm and then think about why it is there. That's what happens when regulations aren't in place. A huge chunk of land, 40 years after the plant there was closed and torn down, the only thing that is deemed able to live there are solar panels.
I like how you infer that I don't ask questions. I did, I took the time to do the research and I have presented data. You have only presented a GOP talking point, a conspiracy theory and finally a statement that conveys skepticism as intelligence. It's okay to be skeptical, but it's not to be a skeptic without taking the time to assure the data supports it. In this case it does and it overwhelming. You should maybe check some of it out.

 

[proudopete]

Here's a little help on your research if you choose to be informed. 192 countries and thousands of professionals who work in that field, not some physicist or psychiatrist, all agree. In fact the only group who disagrees outside of North Korea, is the GOP.

Follow the money indeed.

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

 

[SIBoiler2]

Damn it Nage, quit trying to get the thread back on topic. We've got a real basketball discussion going on here can't you see that?

If you don't think basketball has caused climate change you definitely haven't paid attention to the greenhouse effect of Lonzo Ball's oral spewage!

 

[JohnnyDoeBoiler]

With regard to clime change... Yes, it happens all the time, over long periods. We know that is a provable fact. Tree rings, geology, etc. have made a irrefutable record of these changes. In fact, it has been warmer recently. There were vineyards in England around 700-1000 AD. Can't grow grapes there now Too cold.

The historical data many people use to prove or disprove certain theories has been "adjusted" by scientists who believe very strongly in man-made climate change. Are their "adjustments" valid? I don't know, but I am suspicious. Do I trust Al Gore? Inconveniently, not a chance in Hell. I am not ready to be a denier yet, but I sure look at these claims with a hard eye.

I think the issue has gotten to the point that issues like abortion has gotten to. You are either pro-climate change or a total nutjob...heaven forbid it could be a combination of both factors which is likely the issue when you look at both in detail.

 

[BoilerAndy]

From the Washington Post:

The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulafft, at Bergen, Norway.

Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.

Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.


Excerpts from The Monthly Weather Review:

The Arctic seems to be warming up. Reports from fisherman, seal hunters, and explorers who sail the seas about Spitzbergen and the eastern Arctic, all point to a radical change in climatic conditions, and hitherto underheard-of high temperatures in that part of the earth’s surface.

In August ... the Norwegian Department of Commerce sent an expedition to Spitzbergen and Bear Island under the leadership of Dr. Adolf Hoel, lecturer on geology at the University of Christiania. Its purpose was to survey and chart the lands adjacent to the Norwegian mines on those islands, take soundings of the adjacent waters, and make other oceanographic investigations.

Dr. Hoel reports that he made a section of the Gulf Stream at 81° north latitude and took soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters. These show the Gulf Stream very warm, and it could be traced as a surface current till beyond the 81st parallel. The warmth of the waters makes it probable that the favorable ice conditions will continue for some time.

In connection with Dr. Hoel’s report, it is of interest to note the unusually warm summer in Arctic Norway and the observations of Capt. Martin Ingebrigsten, who has sailed the eastern Arctic for 54 years past.

Many old landmarks are so changed as to be unrecognizable. Where formerly great masses of ice were found, there are now often moraines, accumulations of earth and stones. At many points where glaciers formerly extended far into the sea they have entirely disappeared.

Both of these reports were published in 1922. No one today can attribute these reported observations to man's activities.

The "scientific consensus" claim and the methodology used to determine consensus have been challenged by credible scientists. Some of the challengers are on the list of so-called supporters of the human-induced warming theory. In many cases, when a paper was reviewed that supports the notion that the climate is warming, it was "inferred" by the authors reporting "97% agreement" that the scientist also supported the man-made theory.

When politics are involved, omitted, altered, and falsified data are powerful weapons in pushing the agenda.

 

[tjreese]

Damn it Nage, quit trying to get the thread back on topic. We've got a real basketball discussion going on here can't you see that?

yes, ask a question on basketball to help him. I'm game and knew this was a no winner. How about...what happens to the ball screen O if the ref start to allow more physical D on the perimeter?

 

[tjreese]

From the Washington Post:

The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulafft, at Bergen, Norway.

Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.

Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.


Excerpts from The Monthly Weather Review:

The Arctic seems to be warming up. Reports from fisherman, seal hunters, and explorers who sail the seas about Spitzbergen and the eastern Arctic, all point to a radical change in climatic conditions, and hitherto underheard-of high temperatures in that part of the earth’s surface.

In August ... the Norwegian Department of Commerce sent an expedition to Spitzbergen and Bear Island under the leadership of Dr. Adolf Hoel, lecturer on geology at the University of Christiania. Its purpose was to survey and chart the lands adjacent to the Norwegian mines on those islands, take soundings of the adjacent waters, and make other oceanographic investigations.

Dr. Hoel reports that he made a section of the Gulf Stream at 81° north latitude and took soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters. These show the Gulf Stream very warm, and it could be traced as a surface current till beyond the 81st parallel. The warmth of the waters makes it probable that the favorable ice conditions will continue for some time.

In connection with Dr. Hoel’s report, it is of interest to note the unusually warm summer in Arctic Norway and the observations of Capt. Martin Ingebrigsten, who has sailed the eastern Arctic for 54 years past.

Many old landmarks are so changed as to be unrecognizable. Where formerly great masses of ice were found, there are now often moraines, accumulations of earth and stones. At many points where glaciers formerly extended far into the sea they have entirely disappeared.

Both of these reports were published in 1922. No one today can attribute these reported observations to man's activities.

The "scientific consensus" claim and the methodology used to determine consensus have been challenged by credible scientists. Some of the challengers are on the list of so-called supporters of the human-induced warming theory. In many cases, when a paper was reviewed that supports the notion that the climate is warming, it was "inferred" by the authors reporting "97% agreement" that the scientist also supported the man-made theory.

When politics are involved, omitted, altered, and falsified data are powerful weapons in pushing the agenda.

yeah, but that Washington Post that loves Trump and the GOP wrote that.

 

[tjreese]

Here's a little help on your research if you choose to be informed. 192 countries and thousands of professionals who work in that field, not some physicist or psychiatrist, all agree. In fact the only group who disagrees outside of North Korea, is the GOP.

Follow the money indeed.

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

I'm going to try this, but in a different way for you because you have absolutely no idea what I am saying. However, I like some money going to Nasa but not as much now since I'm no longer renting to some engineers there. If 99.9% of the all people in science you believed said there was NO change whatsoever in the climate of the earth and that the earth would continue to have no change the next 20...50 years I would be skeptical. You see...anyone that states such a premise has some assumptions made that I'm skeptical...no matter what they say. Every single "scientist" that believes one way or the other...and states some futuristic thought assumes things I can't. Consequently...as I stated MANY times this is not settled science. As I also have stated YOU can be correct in your beliefs and I would be a fool to say you were 100% wrong. By the same token ...it makes no difference to me who says what...assumptions are made in order to violate statistical rules. Without any violations of statistics, the traditional confidence level for null hypothesis testing is 95%...meaning it is harder to prove change than not...that is just how the math shakes out. If you went into multiple regression and modeling trying to determine the various varables that created the model...whether you used a forward stepwise or a backward stepwise...I believe the significant level is 85%. A lack of precision or repeatability in your measurments makes it even harder to show signifiance and yet I have personally seen "statistical" signifiance that was insignificant in real life. You want to kneel at the alter of those you consider the experts and that is fine...you "could" be right...have always stated that.

I would be much farther on the road if you can tell me how old the earth is and knowing the earth has experienced hot and cold times...how many years make up PI and what quadrant we are in. Things like this are interesting to me. You see about 17 years ago many...many of those in the economic fields...experts in their fields were making predictions outside the data on the Dow...going to 30,000 and even some thinking 50,000. We know what happened in 2000. I probably lost 40-50 thousand myself. Anyway, I have never tried to tell you that you were wrong...just that I'm skeptical and as I stated above that skepticism would exist is someone said there would be absolutely no change in the climate in 50 years or whatever. Still, there would probably be an economic boom in the farming community if a 1 degree prolonged the growing season...

 

[nagemj02]

yes, ask a question on basketball to help him. I'm game and knew this was a no winner. How about...what happens to the ball screen O if the ref start to allow more physical D on the perimeter?

It would likely stifle the offense to a degree.

Maybe we'll get TV information for the games in the next week or so.

 

[tjreese]

It would likely stifle the offense to a degree.

Maybe we'll get TV information for the games in the next week or so.

No question. When you bring two offensive players together and one has the ball...you bring the D with you and it allows a double team..if allowed to guard.

If you see a offensive guard go behind a player with the ball...even if not stopping, that too puts teh D in great position to double...but the rules today increase the O and so those things are not as effective as years ago when you could play much more physical D on the perimeter. One little emphasis on a rule and all of a sudden some strategies are not as effective...

 

[BoilerAndy]

I'm going to try this, but in a different way for you because you have absolutely no idea what I am saying. However, I like some money going to Nasa but not as much now since I'm no longer renting to some engineers there. If 99.9% of the all people in science you believed said there was NO change whatsoever in the climate of the earth and that the earth would continue to have no change the next 20...50 years I would be skeptical. You see...anyone that states such a premise has some assumptions made that I'm skeptical...no matter what they say. Every single "scientist" that believes one way or the other...and states some futuristic thought assumes things I can't. Consequently...as I stated MANY times this is not settled science. As I also have stated YOU can be correct in your beliefs and I would be a fool to say you were 100% wrong. By the same token ...it makes no difference to me who says what...assumptions are made in order to violate statistical rules. Without any violations of statistics, the traditional confidence level for null hypothesis testing is 95%...meaning it is harder to prove change than not...that is just how the math shakes out. If you went into multiple regression and modeling trying to determine the various varables that created the model...whether you used a forward stepwise or a backward stepwise...I believe the significant level is 85%. A lack of precision or repeatability in your measurments makes it even harder to show signifiance and yet I have personally seen "statistical" signifiance that was insignificant in real life. You want to kneel at the alter of those you consider the experts and that is fine...you "could" be right...have always stated that.

I would be much farther on the road if you can tell me how old the earth is and knowing the earth has experienced hot and cold times...how many years make up PI and what quadrant we are in. Things like this are interesting to me. You see about 17 years ago many...many of those in the economic fields...experts in their fields were making predictions outside the data on the Dow...going to 30,000 and even some thinking 50,000. We know what happened in 2000. I probably lost 40-50 thousand myself. Anyway, I have never tried to tell you that you were wrong...just that I'm skeptical and as I stated above that skepticism would exist is someone said there would be absolutely no change in the climate in 50 years or whatever. Still, there would probably be an economic boom in the farming community if a 1 degree prolonged the growing season...

My long career has included a great deal of mathematical modelling of physical and chemical processes. In no other field but meteorology do scientists claim that they can accurately predict outcomes well outside of their data set. Since their predictions are time-based, and considering the age of the earth, their data set is extremely small. And they are making predictions about processes that they can't understand or accurately predict for the next few weeks or months. Now, they will acknowledge that the short-term variability in the data is difficult to predict, but claim they are much better at predicting the long-term, global trends. They say it, but have yet to demonstrate it. The reason they changed their mantra from "global warming" to "climate change" was because they kept missing the mark of projected temperature increases.

If the media and politicians would get out of the way, scientists could have an honest debate and figure this out.

 

[tjreese]

My long career has included a great deal of mathematical modelling of physical and chemical processes. In no other field but meteorology do scientists claim that they can accurately predict outcomes well outside of their data set. Since their predictions are time-based, and considering the age of the earth, their data set is extremely small. And they are making predictions about processes that they can't understand or accurately predict for the next few weeks or months. Now, they will acknowledge that the short-term variability in the data is difficult to predict, but claim they are much better at predicting the long-term, global trends. They say it, but have yet to demonstrate it. The reason they changed their mantra from "global warming" to "climate change" was because they kept missing the mark of projected temperature increases.

If the media and politicians would get out of the way, scientists could have an honest debate and figure this out.

I think you and I have some similar understandings. I actually smiled reading what you typed knowing you connected some dots I left out there. In my ignorance I wonder if your work experienced a lot of interactions.

 

[proudopete]

I'm going to try this, but in a different way for you because you have absolutely no idea what I am saying. However, I like some money going to Nasa but not as much now since I'm no longer renting to some engineers there. If 99.9% of the all people in science you believed said there was NO change whatsoever in the climate of the earth and that the earth would continue to have no change the next 20...50 years I would be skeptical. You see...anyone that states such a premise has some assumptions made that I'm skeptical...no matter what they say. Every single "scientist" that believes one way or the other...and states some futuristic thought assumes things I can't. Consequently...as I stated MANY times this is not settled science. As I also have stated YOU can be correct in your beliefs and I would be a fool to say you were 100% wrong. By the same token ...it makes no difference to me who says what...assumptions are made in order to violate statistical rules. Without any violations of statistics, the traditional confidence level for null hypothesis testing is 95%...meaning it is harder to prove change than not...that is just how the math shakes out. If you went into multiple regression and modeling trying to determine the various varables that created the model...whether you used a forward stepwise or a backward stepwise...I believe the significant level is 85%. A lack of precision or repeatability in your measurments makes it even harder to show signifiance and yet I have personally seen "statistical" signifiance that was insignificant in real life. You want to kneel at the alter of those you consider the experts and that is fine...you "could" be right...have always stated that.

I would be much farther on the road if you can tell me how old the earth is and knowing the earth has experienced hot and cold times...how many years make up PI and what quadrant we are in. Things like this are interesting to me. You see about 17 years ago many...many of those in the economic fields...experts in their fields were making predictions outside the data on the Dow...going to 30,000 and even some thinking 50,000. We know what happened in 2000. I probably lost 40-50 thousand myself. Anyway, I have never tried to tell you that you were wrong...just that I'm skeptical and as I stated above that skepticism would exist is someone said there would be absolutely no change in the climate in 50 years or whatever. Still, there would probably be an economic boom in the farming community if a 1 degree prolonged the growing season...

I think you misunderstand what I am saying. Not all scientists agree with mans affect in climate change. That's what we are discussing, right? It's common knowledge that the earth changes due to other stimuli whether it be normal evelotion of catostophic events. How do we know this? From the exact same data that you are refuting by saying there is a chance they are wrong. The 97% number comes from scientists who work in the field, not scientist who work in other fields. I don't care what a computer scientist thinks about climate change, why would I as his opinion wouldn't be an educated one. These people, the ones trained in the field, have been asked at numerous global and national climate meetings to look at studies on the subject and share their opinions based on their knowledge and their own findings or data.
Like I said, you believe what you like. The empirical data is quite large both from studies and I'm sure your own personal experience. I highly doubt you disageee that the release of carcinogens from burning fossil fuels is dangerous and perhaps deadly to humans. I also doubt you refute the fact that we burn a lot more today than we did even back in the 70's. I am not sure if you are disputing the fact that measurements show we are adding more of these carcinogens to the atmosphere than would normally occur, or if you are just ignoring that data? But that data, collected over time, has shown we are and at the rate of growth we have seen in the last few decades, it is unsustainable and will cause irreparable harm. It's real whether you believe it to be or not. If it wasn't, what harm is there in furthering the advanacent of using renewables as it is the fastest growing market in the world. China see this, India see this, they have chosen to take part and profit from it, why can't we? Why would we want to be on an island all alone while the rest of the world buys and sells the one thing we alone don't believe in? Having less carbon in the air ain't going to damage anything. Why fight it? I think we know the answer and it's politics that are driven by huge corporations that favor being able to do exactly what happened right there in Kokomo so many years ago.

The problem I have is the willful ignorance on the matter and to be honest, the price we will pay in the long run if they are right and we don't make changes is a lot more than if we do make changes and they were wrong.

To be honest, it reminds me of the folks trying to convince the population that alternating current in our homes would kill us all. It's not based on fact and is a fear tactic used to persuade those who choose to not know for themselves that it's serious enough for them to act and cast their ballot for the party that somehow sees something no one else sees, yet is unwilling to share their data. In every reply to my comments that you shared, not one piece of data had been provided other than there's a chance they could be wrong and your own personal experiences with scientists who were wrong. I am not sure how that convinces you that they are all wrong unless you want to believe that to be true so badly that you choose to ignore any other data??

But I would like it say happy birthday. I was in Kokomo yesterday and I can understand why that area is upset right now. But the industrial revolution started dying off a long time ago and making a choice to adjust doesn't seem to be an option in an area so afraid of change. It's sad to see it embrace going back in time indtesd of moving forward as the one of the few areas we still lead the world in is technology and innovation. Right now that market is ripe for expansion here at home where it will provide more and more good jobs and it grows. Opting out of this field, one we lead in none the less, during this time of record growth and opportunity seems illogical to say the least. There are a lot of good jobs held by people who have put their life's work into the innovation, that will suffer from this. It will destroy jobs, not produce them. But when you see who is behind the push back, it makes perfect sense. It's just disheartening to see so many people choosing politics over common sense. Its not like the signs of damage we have done isn't all around us for all to see, as it is. I sure hope having that extra Supreme Court justice was worth it. I doubt the history books rememberer it that way however.

 

[BoilerAndy]

The 97% number comes from scientists who work in the field, not scientist who work in other fields. I don't care what a computer scientist thinks about climate change, why would I as his opinion wouldn't be an educated one. These people, the ones trained in the field, have been asked at numerous global and national climate meetings to look at studies on the subject and share their opinions based on their knowledge and their own findings or data.

This is where the thinking is so wrong in more ways than one.

The "97% of climatologists" number is a proven hoax.

And of course you must absolutely include the opinions of statisticians and scientists who use the scientific method to develop models. If a climatologist who is NOT an expert at statistics or at modeling (and very few are) uses poor methodology or over-interprets his data, the experts in those fields have a right to call him out. In every technical industry, expert statisticians are used by scientists and engineers to make sure the data is being properly evaluated. Several of the models in question use multivariate modelling techniques. Very few climatologists would claim to be experts in these techniques. So when a true expert calls out a poor application of the methodology, don't dismiss it.

Al Gore won a Nobel Prize for presenting a PowerPoint slideshow on global warming. Previously he received a "D" in the only science class he took in college. Yet he is seen as more credible than Ph.D. scientists with real expertise who have real data and facts making them skeptical about his claims. This is where we currently are in this debate. So when you dismiss skeptics as being "willfully ignorant", then you are part of the problem, not the solution. There is NOTHING scientific about refusing to examine the data from a different perspective, especially when a scientist presents that perspective.

Many people refer to the global warming crowd as a religious cult. Their beliefs are sacred. Disagree and you are either unenlightened, willfully ignorant, or evil.

 

[proudopete]

This is where the thinking is so wrong in more ways than one.

The "97% of climatologists" number is a proven hoax.

And of course you must absolutely include the opinions of statisticians and scientists who use the scientific method to develop models. If a climatologist who is NOT an expert at statistics or at modeling (and very few are) uses poor methodology or over-interprets his data, the experts in those fields have a right to call him out. In every technical industry, expert statisticians are used by scientists and engineers to make sure the data is being properly evaluated. Several of the models in question use multivariate modelling techniques. Very few climatologists would claim to be experts in these techniques. So when a true expert calls out a poor application of the methodology, don't dismiss it.

Al Gore won a Nobel Prize for presenting a PowerPoint slideshow on global warming. Previously he received a "D" in the only science class he took in college. Yet he is seen as more credible than Ph.D. scientists with real expertise who have real data and facts making them skeptical about his claims. This is where we currently are in this debate. So when you dismiss skeptics as being "willfully ignorant", then you are part of the problem, not the solution. There is NOTHING scientific about refusing to examine the data from a different perspective, especially when a scientist presents that perspective.

Many people refer to the global warming crowd as a religious cult. Their beliefs are sacred. Disagree and you are either unenlightened, willfully ignorant, or evil.

You say the 97% number is a hoax, show me how you came to that conclusion. I have already shared in this thread where that number comes from, it is no hoax.
I am all for looking at data from all perspectives. There hasn't been a single alternate perspective offered here to refute the data other than, they could be wrong and people who aren't qualified are making judgements on the data. Give me some data and explain to me this other perspective. Anyone can SAY anything. Show me.

 

[Dryfly88]

I sure hope a recruit or his parents don't read this thread. They will think PU is full of weird fans who can't tell the difference between basketball and climate. It could be devastating to our recruiting efforts. Please, for the sake of the program stop now.

 

[punaj]

I sure hope a recruit or his parents don't read this thread. They will think PU is full of weird fans who can't tell the difference between basketball and climate. It could be devastating to our recruiting efforts. Please, for the sake of the program stop now.

Maybe the OP can rename this thread: "OT: Climate Change..." - I keep coming back to it looking for game/tv times.

 

[proudopete]

I suppose we could talk about some zone defense.

Climate change seems to really have some serious doubters. Strange that NASA has so many Purdue grads and yet some Purdue grads think NASA is unqualified to make observations concerning our planet and weather.

I don't think the game will be televised nationally. Perhaps they will be however. I am not qualified to make that call at the moment.

We may know more tomorrrow.

 

[tjreese]

I sure hope a recruit or his parents don't read this thread. They will think PU is full of weird fans who can't tell the difference between basketball and climate. It could be devastating to our recruiting efforts. Please, for the sake of the program stop now.

Maybe the OP can rename this thread: "OT: Climate Change..." - I keep coming back to it looking for game/tv times.

Guys, I understand and that is why all of my "responsive" posts always left the door open that either side could be right. Andy understands using the data and all the data that is not available. I started to try again to correct some things but will honor your requests and not respond to climate change specifically. However the following comments were made that generally were an attempt to define me and my approach that are simply wrong and will clarify these and then try not to respond more effectively than before.

"But the industrial revolution started dying off a long time ago and making a choice to adjust doesn't seem to be an option in an area so afraid of change"

"It's sad to see it embrace going back in time indtesd of moving forward as the one of the few areas we still lead the world in is technology and innovation. Right now that market is But the industrial revolution started dying off a long time ago and making a choice to adjust doesn't seem to be an option in an area so afraid of change ripe for expansion here at home where it will provide more and more good jobs and it grows. "

"
I sure hope having that extra Supreme Court justice was worth it. I doubt the history books rememberer it that way however."

Thirty years ago I was pretty damn good with statistical studies using SAS. Today, I am not...I've slept and have not continued my work. Consequently to those that are current (and that is a limited group) I'm not well versed, but to those that never were knowledgeable in those fields I'm probably well ahead of their understandings and through the years know the conclusions drawn from those that don't understand what data may or may not say...and this covers sooooooooo many professionals in various areas. Been there done that.

I don't know whether the snippets quoted were an attempt to suggest that another reason like being afraid of change or not caring about the earth and the future of those I love...or only caring about 1 more supreme court justice or whatever deflection attempt was made to discredit my sincerity in my stance for obvious reasons to me but are oblivious to understanding modeling, and are conflcting with those things I truly enjoy and not sure how the two were placed together other than possibly a red herring approach.

Let me just say that there have been various posts where it was esay to read that I enjoyed Design of Experiments and statistics in general. When one likes this and is drawn to usage of such ti should be obvious to the most casual observer that "change" is ALWAYS an interest. Why study anything if change is not of interest? Think about that.

Now, I'm more than happy to engage in basketball discussion and think my history will suggest I'm active in this regard. Still when a person has passion (and I personally love and respect passion in any area or side) and questions are posed towards me I try to respect that passion whether it is addressing the various zones in what they may do or may not do, climate change or any basketball area..shooting..whatever. So, I wanted to clear a few things about being backward or afraid of change and the conflicting data with me. ProudPurdue believes he knows. I'm not there to pick a side due what is not there...Andy understands. So, let's talk basketball...I'm game.

 

[proudopete]

Guys, I understand and that is why all of my "responsive" posts always left the door open that either side could be right. Andy understands using the data and all the data that is not available. I started to try again to correct some things but will honor your requests and not respond to climate change specifically. However the following comments were made that generally were an attempt to define me and my approach that are simply wrong and will clarify these and then try not to respond more effectively than before.

"But the industrial revolution started dying off a long time ago and making a choice to adjust doesn't seem to be an option in an area so afraid of change"

"It's sad to see it embrace going back in time indtesd of moving forward as the one of the few areas we still lead the world in is technology and innovation. Right now that market is But the industrial revolution started dying off a long time ago and making a choice to adjust doesn't seem to be an option in an area so afraid of change ripe for expansion here at home where it will provide more and more good jobs and it grows. "

"
I sure hope having that extra Supreme Court justice was worth it. I doubt the history books rememberer it that way however."

Thirty years ago I was pretty damn good with statistical studies using SAS. Today, I am not...I've slept and have not continued my work. Consequently to those that are current (and that is a limited group) I'm not well versed, but to those that never were knowledgeable in those fields I'm probably well ahead of their understandings and through the years know the conclusions drawn from those that don't understand what data may or may not say...and this covers sooooooooo many professionals in various areas. Been there done that.

I don't know whether the snippets quoted were an attempt to suggest that another reason like being afraid of change or not caring about the earth and the future of those I love...or only caring about 1 more supreme court justice or whatever deflection attempt was made to discredit my sincerity in my stance for obvious reasons to me but are oblivious to understanding modeling, and are conflcting with those things I truly enjoy and not sure how the two were placed together other than possibly a red herring approach.

Let me just say that there have been various posts where it was esay to read that I enjoyed Design of Experiments and statistics in general. When one likes this and is drawn to usage of such ti should be obvious to the most casual observer that "change" is ALWAYS an interest. Why study anything if change is not of interest? Think about that.

Now, I'm more than happy to engage in basketball discussion and think my history will suggest I'm active in this regard. Still when a person has passion (and I personally love and respect passion in any area or side) and questions are posed towards me I try to respect that passion whether it is addressing the various zones in what they may do or may not do, climate change or any basketball area..shooting..whatever. So, I wanted to clear a few things about being backward or afraid of change and the conflicting data with me. ProudPurdue believes he knows. I'm not there to pick a side due what is not there...Andy understands. So, let's talk basketball...I'm game.

You have done nothing but deflect while changing your reasons for believing as you do, without once sharing any data. One would think that if you feel something is false, especially something with such wide support by highly respected professionals, that you would want to share your data so those of us in the dark would have the opportunity to know.

You keep saying you understand stats and data interpretation, yet if so many professionals are in support, what would the odds be that there are all wrong? I Qeustion your sincerity because you literally haven't given me anything but your own opinion and experience as to your beliefs.

I am over it however. I don't need to "win" a debate on this board with someone who questions thousands of trained professional from across the globe because they knew a guy who was less than professional. That's not data, that's just another variable that holds little weight when compared to the mountain of data collected by thousands of experts. I can assure you that NASA doesn't just Willy Nilly support an issue like this. Their credibility is on the line and much of the data collected comes from them and agencies across the globe that they partner with in various projects. You quite literally are questioning the entire agency and it's highly trained professionals on an outlier chance that all of them are in on a conspiracy that Brietbart is cycling around. Call me crazy, but that's not sound reasoning.

 

[Boilerman1973]

, when is the exhibition game at Carmel what day what time and do you have to buy a ticket ahead of time or can you pay at the door?

 

[Mandeville LA]

You have done nothing but deflect while changing your reasons for believing as you do, without once sharing any data. One would think that if you feel something is false, especially something with such wide support by highly respected professionals, that you would want to share your data so those of us in the dark would have the opportunity to know.

You keep saying you understand stats and data interpretation, yet if so many professionals are in support, what would the odds be that there are all wrong? I Qeustion your sincerity because you literally haven't given me anything but your own opinion and experience as to your beliefs.

I am over it however. I don't need to "win" a debate on this board with someone who questions thousands of trained professional from across the globe because they knew a guy who was less than professional. That's not data, that's just another variable that holds little weight when compared to the mountain of data collected by thousands of experts. I can assure you that NASA doesn't just Willy Nilly support an issue like this. Their credibility is on the line and much of the data collected comes from them and agencies across the globe that they partner with in various projects. You quite literally are questioning the entire agency and it's highly trained professionals on an outlier chance that all of them are in on a conspiracy that Brietbart is cycling around. Call me crazy, but that's not sound reasoning.

I was in this conversation at the start because I find it interesting, but jumped out when tjreese and other started explaining this debate better than I could have done myself. In the last few days NASA has stated that world-wide ocean levels have been falling for the last 24 months. That is confusing! As the old saying goes numbers are like your brother in law, they will lie if they need too.

You act as if tjreese has stated that he has analyzed all of the available climate date and came to a different conclusion than the so called experts. I don't think he has said that. I feel the same way as he when it comes to this subject. Why is up to people that feel the way I do to bring supportive data? I am sure I could if I wanted to search the net.

I don't say this to be mean but you are acting like a stereotypical left wing progressive, or whatever that group wants to be called these days. meaning if you don't believe what I believe I am going to talk louder, demand facts (even though you can not provide undisputed facts that support your argument), point to group think type people as the wholly grail. You get my point.

Al Gore is a a carrier politician that has reportedly made hundreds of millions of dollars by trying to make himself the front man of man made global warming. I don't want this to turn into a book explaining why this bothers me so much, so I will stop there with that clown. There is a money and power trail miles long behind some of the crap that has gone on surrounding global warming. BTW, I did not believe the Ozone was disappearing ether. But that did not stop a few people from making huge amounts by outlawing CFC's used in refrigerants and propellants in spry cans. My logic then was that one medium sized volcanic eruption put 100 million times the amount of chlorine into the atmosphere than the world was producing CFC's at the time. Once the the hole in the ozone started to close it was all over with. Nothing to see here folks.

All I am trying to say is that there is enough evidence that numbers have been cooked to get the outcome some wanted to make people like me very skeptical. Like others, I am not afraid to say I may be wrong in my line of thinking, but until someone can show why I am wrong I will continue to believe what I believe.

 

[mathboy]

Google "climate change". The first page shows science based arguments in support of both sides of this argument. No need to link/copy/quote stuff here. We are not going to "prove" anything in this forum. The truth is that both positions are unproven theory at this point. Any statistical data is so faint, so manipulated, and so biased that they only wave a position from a distance.

Proud, you are pretty strident about your belief in man-made climate change. I respect that, but I would ask you to use the same consideration of other's positions. I read in your postings a strong thread of disrespect and annoyance when any one might question the reality of man-made change. It should not be treated as a religion! Like any scientific theory, it must be under open scrutiny and question at all times.