|
|
Post by sandypine on Jun 28, 2023 14:18:42 GMT
It is an aside that has been stated several times on here and the continual rejection of 'one-off anomalies' that pile up in the global warmists dustbins actually raises questions as regards the veracity of the hypothesis. The whole point of having a hypothesis is that when you crunch the numbers it proves the hypothesis. So far there are anomalies all over the place that are either unexplained or correction factored away so as not to cause a problem. No way to settle science. Its because the anomalies do not alter the trend, but are misrepresented as doing so. A scientist may state that flies lay approximately a thousand eggs, that someone knows of a fly that only laid only one egg does not make the first statement a lie. Nor does it mean it would be more accurate to say flies lay between 1 and 1,000 eggs. Such games serve only one purpose to mislead. But that is not what has happened. A blip in the trend, of a multitude of results, both upwards and then downwards indicates that the direct link between CO2 and temperature was not working. This is the very basis of the hypothesis and the graph that was constructed was the end result of all the figures and numbers crunched and did not show exactly what was expected, best to find out why, not hide the result. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jun 28, 2023 14:35:46 GMT
If trimming the evidence to fit your hypothesis is such a well respected part of the scientific method, why the need to hide the emails describing what happened? Indeed I don't approve, but in the end this wasn't suppressed. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jun 28, 2023 14:41:32 GMT
Its because the anomalies do not alter the trend, but are misrepresented as doing so. A scientist may state that flies lay approximately a thousand eggs, that someone knows of a fly that only laid only one egg does not make the first statement a lie. Nor does it mean it would be more accurate to say flies lay between 1 and 1,000 eggs. Such games serve only one purpose to mislead. But that is not what has happened. A blip in the trend, of a multitude of results, both upwards and then downwards indicates that the direct link between CO2 and temperature was not working. This is the very basis of the hypothesis and the graph that was constructed was the end result of all the figures and numbers crunched and did not show exactly what was expected, best to find out why, not hide the result. No it doesn't. In this case it showed a flaw in data collection during a world war. The temperature did not get colder the measuring changed as explained. If you wished to prove the temperature actually dropped you need to show that it dropped in just the American method of collecting temperatures. You might go further and compare it to other temperatures taken around the world at the time to see if they also varied downwards. But you wont because all you do is find an anomaly and say "See". You're not really interested in the science just casting doubt. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jun 28, 2023 15:56:23 GMT
If trimming the evidence to fit your hypothesis is such a well respected part of the scientific method, why the need to hide the emails describing what happened? Indeed I don't approve, but in the end this wasn't suppressed. We wouldn't have heard about if it was successfully suppressed |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Jun 28, 2023 17:08:36 GMT
So, as we have ascertained that the countryside is cooler than the city, which our esteemed zany points out because large areas of building hold the heat, how will being over populated and building large amounts of housing in green belt areas lower global warming? When our eminent scientist Zany points out it will make it worse? Now I have spoken. Your eminent scientist Zany can also do some maths. Perhaps you can too. Start with how much of the planet is urbanised, when you have that percent, work out what percentage more of the planet we need to be urbanised to build a million homes in the UK. I think you'll find the result is somewhere around diddly squat. I think you will find Einstein I am very good at maths, but nevertheless the UN has done them for me by the sustainable amount of land needed for each person then you can work out England is already way over the amount of population needed to sustain its population via land versus population. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jun 28, 2023 17:20:41 GMT
Indeed I don't approve, but in the end this wasn't suppressed. We wouldn't have heard about if it was successfully suppressed Indeed. Its almost as if all the climatologists of the world are part of a conspiracy. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Jun 28, 2023 17:24:30 GMT
We wouldn't have heard about if it was successfully suppressed Indeed. Its almost as if all the climatologists of the world are part of a conspiracy. Well the ones you pay heed too are....Have you ever thought about listening to real ones? |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jun 28, 2023 17:27:52 GMT
Your eminent scientist Zany can also do some maths. Perhaps you can too. Start with how much of the planet is urbanised, when you have that percent, work out what percentage more of the planet we need to be urbanised to build a million homes in the UK. I think you'll find the result is somewhere around diddly squat. I think you will find Einstein I am very good at maths, but nevertheless the UN has done them for me by the sustainable amount of land needed for each person then you can work out England is already way over the amount of population needed to sustain its population via land versus population. Well as you're so good Turin, you can work out that climate change is global and the UK is very small. So building houses here and the corresponding heat trapped will effect climate change by diddly squat. Of course as you are a scientist as well you know that trapping heat in towns has virtually no effect on climate change anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jun 28, 2023 17:29:17 GMT
Indeed. Its almost as if all the climatologists of the world are part of a conspiracy. Well the ones you pay heed too are....Have you ever thought about listening to real ones? Pay heed to? You mean lead, hadn't you heard I head NASA and the IPCC. |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Jun 28, 2023 17:30:31 GMT
I think you will find Einstein I am very good at maths, but nevertheless the UN has done them for me by the sustainable amount of land needed for each person then you can work out England is already way over the amount of population needed to sustain its population via land versus population. Well as you're so good Turin, you can work out that climate change is global and the UK is very small. So building houses here and the corresponding heat trapped will effect climate change by diddly squat. Of course as you are a scientist as well you know that trapping heat in towns has virtually no effect on climate change anyway. I feel you are backtracking on being caught out Einstein. So I thought I would give you another conundrum factual not like yours of course. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Jun 28, 2023 17:31:42 GMT
Well the ones you pay heed too are....Have you ever thought about listening to real ones? Pay heed to? You mean lead, hadn't you heard I head NASA and the IPCC. Well yeah....So your point is what exactly? |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jun 28, 2023 17:41:56 GMT
Well as you're so good Turin, you can work out that climate change is global and the UK is very small. So building houses here and the corresponding heat trapped will effect climate change by diddly squat. Of course as you are a scientist as well you know that trapping heat in towns has virtually no effect on climate change anyway. I feel you are backtracking on being caught out Einstein. So I thought I would give you another conundrum factual not like yours of course. Nope. You got it wrong, now you are scrabbling around. Would have been better to just fess up straight away. You stated that trees cool the atmosphere by photosynthesis. You were wrong. You stated that urbanisation causes global warming, you are wrong again. The difference between us is that I didn't try to make you look a fool for your mistake. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jun 28, 2023 17:42:51 GMT
Pay heed to? You mean lead, hadn't you heard I head NASA and the IPCC. Well yeah....So your point is what exactly? I don't pay heed to them, I instruct them. When I'm not too busy running the EU. |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Jun 28, 2023 17:43:16 GMT
I feel you are backtracking on being caught out Einstein. So I thought I would give you another conundrum factual not like yours of course. Nope. You got it wrong, now you are scrabbling around. Would have been better to just fess up straight away. You stated that trees cool the atmosphere by photosynthesis. You were wrong. You stated that urbanisation causes global warming, you are wrong again. The difference between us is that I didn't try to make you look a fool for your mistake. You always say that when you have been caught out, it is a pattern you follow. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Jun 28, 2023 17:48:54 GMT
Well yeah....So your point is what exactly? I don't pay heed to them, I instruct them. When I'm not too busy running the EU. Well no wonder they have got it so wrong.....Maybe your bit of seaweed hung over you back door is due replacing.
You are on about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that was founded in Switzerald and a 100% record of getting it wrong.
Oh and NASSA read and weep...
Fact Check-NASA did not announce that climate change is only driven by variations to Earth’s orbital position relative to the sun....
NASA has announced that CO-2 emissions have zero to do with climate change. It is solely caused by earth's changing positioning as it orbits around the sun.
|
|
