By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Trump: 'Nobody Really Knows' If Climate Change Is Real

Gourmet on 15 December 2016
MDMAlliance said:
Gourmet said:

Nice projection, pal. My father is japanese. His works were based on publications on the highest awarded venues, and were simply voided one day, because the fraudulent author tried to sell out a fossil collection from a MUSEUM and got caught by the police which forced the community to expose the (huge) fraud. Most publications did not even report it, some wrote a small note. Scientists don't double check if the writer looks reputable or if it fits their agenda. "Not really knowing" is the right way to look at things like this.

Don't see how that's projection.  Do you even know what it means?  There's zero reason for me to believe you.

English is my third language. There is zero reason for you to deny what I say while you could just look it up.



Around the Network
MDMAlliance on 15 December 2016
Gourmet said:
MDMAlliance said:

Don't see how that's projection.  Do you even know what it means?  There's zero reason for me to believe you.

English is my third language. There is zero reason for you to deny what I say while you could just look it up.

Look what up?  Look up "Climate Change isn't real" and click on links that say "GodTrumpsScience" or "RealScienceHere" or something like that?  



Normchacho on 15 December 2016

Alright, he just has to spend the rest of his life on a low lying island in the south Pacific. I'm sure he'll be fine.



Bet with Adamblaziken:

I bet that on launch the Nintendo Switch will have no built in in-game voice chat. He bets that it will. The winner gets six months of avatar control over the other user.

Gourmet on 15 December 2016
IsawYoshi said:
Gourmet said:

Nice projection, pal. My father is japanese. His works were based on publications on the highest awarded venues, and were simply voided one day, because the fraudulent author tried to sell out a fossil collection from a MUSEUM and got caught by the police which forced the community to expose the (huge) fraud. Most publications did not even report it, some wrote a small note. Scientists don't double check if the writer looks reputable or if it fits their agenda. "Not really knowing" is the right way to look at things like this.

...if that's what your father told you then yeah, I get why he might think climate change isn't a real problem. Even first grade students (university level) have to ensure they are using correct sources.

 

Other than that I don't see how this has any relevance. 

Yo right kiddo, never say wikipedia is your source, but someone who calls himself scientist? Pfft, that shure is enough for you to get that awesome grade!



Gourmet on 15 December 2016
MDMAlliance said:
Gourmet said:

English is my third language. There is zero reason for you to deny what I say while you could just look it up.

Look what up?  Look up "Climate Change isn't real" and click on links that say "GodTrumpsScience" or "RealScienceHere" or something like that?  

Reiner protsch. Has your brain short circuited?



Around the Network
IsawYoshi on 15 December 2016
Gourmet said:
IsawYoshi said:

...if that's what your father told you then yeah, I get why he might think climate change isn't a real problem. Even first grade students (university level) have to ensure they are using correct sources.

 

Other than that I don't see how this has any relevance. 

Yo right kiddo, never say wikipedia is your source, but someone who calls himself scientist? Pfft, that shure is enough for you to get that awesome grade!

Stop putting words in my mouth. Personally I love wikipedia. It's great! If you know how to use it that is. And that is to be critical. Anyone can write that shit.

 

I would however generaly trust scientists though. Because while I'm only 99% sure wikipedia is written by someone who's not my neighbour I'm 100% certain the scientist isn't. 

 

But no matter, wikipedia is actually siting these fine scientist of ours! Who needs to choose between the two then eh? :D 

"Scientific understanding of global warming is increasing. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reported in 2014 that scientists were more than 95% certain that global warming is mostly being caused by human (anthropogenic) activities, "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

 

How about that eh? ^_^

 

 

Nevertheless, I'm noticing you are jumping right over all that I said in my first post. Have you got anything to repute what I said? Wikipedia to back it up maybe, since that seems like your go to source? Once again, I don't mind since they are siting correct information on this. 



MDMAlliance on 15 December 2016
Gourmet said:
MDMAlliance said:

Look what up?  Look up "Climate Change isn't real" and click on links that say "GodTrumpsScience" or "RealScienceHere" or something like that?  

Reiner protsch. Has your brain short circuited?

What does that have to do with anything?  What does it prove?  



Gourmet on 15 December 2016
MDMAlliance said:
Gourmet said:

Reiner protsch. Has your brain short circuited?

What does that have to do with anything?  What does it prove?  

Hey kid why are you talking to me? I on't give one crap to proof you any! Why have you to be so entitled? I'm here to say ehat I know and that I did if you want some other info go get it yourself!



MDMAlliance on 15 December 2016
the-pi-guy said:
Gourmet said:

Reiner protsch. Has your brain short circuited?

How does a scientist being exposed as a fraud, mean that climate change might also be a fraud?  

In fact, it should be shown as more evidence.  A private collection of bones were found to be fraudalent, and yet the public air that everyone has access to, should be even easier to fact check.  So it should have a higher probability of being shown to be false, than the bones.  

That's what I was thinking.  I don't get what this guy's thought process is.  It seems only related to trying to prove his father is who he says he is.  Though that makes little sense to do since anyone can just come up with some name of a scientist who made fraudulent work and try to connect someone else to it.  

I also am wondering how an anthropologists work is used for a biologist. 



DragonRouge on 15 December 2016
fatslob-:O said:

You insist that we CAN possibly measure a global average but the physicist says otherwise, me on the other hand thinks you're going about it at a very simplistic way ... 

The problem with your said methodology is that you can only measure a single point in space with a thermometer and you can only calculate the average with respect to time in that one point ... 

How would you even think about measure the average temperature with respect to an AREA (surfaces & volumes) and TIME ? 

If we attempted using your said methodology and created an aggregate of specifically collected data then there'd be lot's of serious discontinuities in the data that would preclude it from ever claiming that it accurately captures the temperature of the earth when that is not true since testing is done with geographical bias with higher population areas ... 

The other problem with the methodology is that it would only work if Earth is in an equilibrium but that is never the case too ... 

Infra-red sensors in satelites could be able to sweep large areas of the globe, I'm not claiming that's how it is done it's just an idea I had.