Global Warming > FORUM > 85239.com Maricopa Arizona (AZ)

Subject: Global Warming

You are not authorized to post a reply.

Page 2 of 2

Author

Messages

Veritas

Posts:250

07/30/2007 5:33 PM	Alert
Are you Horshack or Vinny? Maybe Epstein? With regards to the assertion that "now we think the model's predictions are accurate" ... NO! You are the one that thinks that! I am just using your crummy model against your argument. We need a tongue-in-cheek emoticon here. With regard to the experiment, the idea is that an arithmetic average is forcing a distribution to be uniform with respect to only one distinction. If there are multiple distinctions and/or (more importantly) large variances between the singular distinction, we start to lose a degree of certitude as well as a degree or more of freedom in the measure that is being estimated.

Bob Floppypants User is Offline

Posts:9

07/30/2007 5:34 PM	Alert
Given the numerous problems with Global Warming theory, one can only conclude that it is a religion whose god is the Earth itself and whose messiah is Al Gore. It is a crutch for those who have no purpose in life and feel the need to elevate themselves above other people and spew a rhetoric that attempts to make you look evil if you even dare to disagree. If these people had the power, they'd probably kill and torture more people than the Inquisition did. I am not surprised when scientists fail to separate their personal beliefs from the meaning of their practice. Not to start something, but isn't this what you're doing, Veritas? Just a thought...

Bob Floppypants User is Offline

Posts:9

07/30/2007 5:41 PM	Alert
If there are multiple distinctions and/or (more importantly) large variances between the singular distinction, we start to lose a degree of certitude as well as a degree or more of freedom in the measure that is being estimated. However, with a model you're trying to describe the data as best as possible with as few variables as possible. Sure, breaking the average temperature up into, say, each individual weather station and pumping that into the model may give you something marginally more accurate, but the amount of additional variance it accounts for might not be enough to warrant adding all those variables.

Veritas

Posts:250

07/30/2007 5:47 PM	Alert
The goal with that opening salvo was for the shock value ... most of the content in the main forum heading of "religion" (under which this global warming debate is flourishing) is casting theism in a light that is equally silly. Basically, I was trying to illustrate absurdity by being absurd ... perhaps I should have qualified that sooner. With regard to my personal beliefs interfering with the "meaning of my practice" as a scientist ... I'm not sure of the connection, but I think that I can sort of see why you might think so, given your belief set and the inference that you drew from the quote herein. Communication is a very difficult thing.

alanf

Posts:1462

07/31/2007 9:52 AM	Alert
Posted By Veritas on 07/30/2007 2:26 PM alanf, yes ... at one time she did; but that was the 70's and one should not be surprised by that. Have you been standing in the sun too long, or are the gases in your head just having too much trouble escaping the prominent hole in it? Maybe the ozone hole is actually in your head? You cannot win the war of personal jabs with me ... give up now and add something meaningful here, or just go away and start your own discussion on how to look stupid in public. You are correct Veritas. You own me when it comes to geeky science jabs about ozone holes in my skull. I surrender humbly to your great scientific dorkiness.

Veritas

Posts:250

You are not authorized to post a reply.

Page 2 of 2