Statisticians reject global cooling

[OnePimpTiger]

LOL. The scientist analyzed data in their field. By the way, you never answer my question fully.

The global cooling was for Mike and you. You gave me an article
that likely is analyzing data from 1998 onward. Once again, I wanted you to look to the information you were giving. The stuff you provided was attempting to say the earth was cooling. Maybe you were not smart enough to know what you were saying/implying. I know you like backtracking.

You are open to everyone's opinion though. You can not make decisions apparently. Your standard, not mine.

Oh I love that you can not think of an argument for yourself. You have to use the one I was using against the "supposed" scientists you were quoting.

So you didn't check the article as to when their analysis started? I thought you evaluated the information and found it was incorrect? Seems like that would be an important thing to analyze good dr. We never said the analysis was correct, we simply presented info showing there is not a definitive answer on "global warming." You're the one that said it was definitively incorrect, but apparently you didn't evaluate it properly...

And you know why I don't have an argument for or against "global warming?" Because I'm an insurance agent...I'm not a geologist, a climatologist, a meteorologist, or any other form of scientist. So you know what I do? I listen to people who are...I don't try to present my opinion as fact and cherry pick which information I'll believe and won't believe based on how much they agree with my opinion. And, despite your myopic world view, there is still much debate as to whether humans cause "global warming." So until there is a definitive consensus, I'll probably just leave it up to the experts instead of trying to pass myself off as one.

And you're exactly right. I'm not smart enough to know what I was saying, but you, as the all-knowing, infallible good dr, know exactly what I was implying. That being said, I have formulated a new theory on "global warming." I think the real cause is your ego. It has become so inflated from delusions of grandeur and a false sense of all-knowing that it is trapping CO2 and causing the Earth's temps to rise.

[drtom2005]

So you didn't check the article as to when their analysis started? I thought you evaluated the information and found it was incorrect? Seems like that would be an important thing to analyze good dr. We never said the analysis was correct, we simply presented info showing there is not a definitive answer on "global warming." You're the one that said it was definitively incorrect, but apparently you didn't evaluate it properly...

And you know why I don't have an argument for or against "global warming?" Because I'm an insurance agent...I'm not a geologist, a climatologist, a meteorologist, or any other form of scientist. So you know what I do? I listen to people who are...I don't try to present my opinion as fact and cherry pick which information I'll believe and won't believe based on how much they agree with my opinion. And, despite your myopic world view, there is still much debate as to whether humans cause "global warming." So until there is a definitive consensus, I'll probably just leave it up to the experts instead of trying to pass myself off as one.

And you're exactly right. I'm not smart enough to know what I was saying, but you, as the all-knowing, infallible good dr, know exactly what I was implying. That being said, I have formulated a new theory on "global warming." I think the real cause is your ego. It has become so inflated from delusions of grandeur and a false sense of all-knowing that it is trapping CO2 and causing the Earth's temps to rise.

LOL. Once again, unconfirmed general statements. No definitive answer on global warming. What does this mean?

I just wanted to point out your denial of the truth and I have succeeded.

Do not try it again. I will no let you do it.

[jaybird_1981]

LOL. Once again, unconfirmed general statements. No definitive answer on global warming. What does this mean?

It is pretty self explanatory what that means isn't it?

[OnePimpTiger]

I just wanted to point out your denial of the truth and I have succeeded.

...Danth’s Law...in your infinite wisdom, I'm sure you already know what that means.

[tutall]

LOL. Once again, unconfirmed general statements. No definitive answer on global warming. What does this mean?

I just wanted to point out your denial of the truth and I have succeeded.

Do not try it again. I will no let you do it.

I dont think there is denial of the truth.... There is no definitive answer anywhere that says global warming is happening and it is because of Humans.... It is impossible simply because we have not been studying the earth long enough to figure out patterns in the Earth. Would common sense tell you putting all the carbon in the air probably isnt a good thing... I guess you could say that but you saying global warming IS happening is just as much an opinion as OPT saying it isnt happening. Both of you can find studies to "Prove" your point but if you twist the numbers in your favor you can make any set of statistics fit what you are getting paid to make it fit.

[OnePimpTiger]

I dont think there is denial of the truth.... There is no definitive answer anywhere that says global warming is happening and it is because of Humans.... It is impossible simply because we have not been studying the earth long enough to figure out patterns in the Earth. Would common sense tell you putting all the carbon in the air probably isnt a good thing... I guess you could say that but you saying global warming IS happening is just as much an opinion as OPT saying it isnt happening. Both of you can find studies to "Prove" your point but if you twist the numbers in your favor you can make any set of statistics fit what you are getting paid to make it fit.

Again, I'm not saying it isn't happening, I've never said that. I'm saying the definitive answer on the subject has not been found. "Global warming" may be very real and completely man caused, but with plenty of evidence against it, I'm not ready to call the game yet, let alone spend billions of dollars on fixing it when we're not even sure we know the cause.

The good dr's inability to comprehend is infecting the rest of the forum...Heaven help us all!!

[drtom2005]

Again, I'm not saying it isn't happening, I've never said that. I'm saying the definitive answer on the subject has not been found. "Global warming" may be very real and completely man caused, but with plenty of evidence against it, I'm not ready to call the game yet, let alone spend billions of dollars on fixing it when we're not even sure we know the cause.

The good dr's inability to comprehend is infecting the rest of the forum...Heaven help us all!!

Denying the truth OPT and you have admitted you do not understand how to analzye articles. I do not tell you about the insurance industry which you have more knowledge about then me.

Backtracking once again I see.

Where is your evidence? You have already shown that you find faulty articles.

And I also like that you confuse confidence with arrogance. I know where the good scientific information points to. You do not. You have proven it.

Please call me arrogant again. I find it most humorous.

The Danth's Law thing was funny since you have never backed up anything you have claim with any good scientific evidence. I have won. You can continue to deny the truth but I am not surprised. You only look at evidence that supports your worldview. Projecting again as usual. Nothing new from you.

[drtom2005]

I dont think there is denial of the truth.... There is no definitive answer anywhere that says global warming is happening and it is because of Humans.... It is impossible simply because we have not been studying the earth long enough to figure out patterns in the Earth. Would common sense tell you putting all the carbon in the air probably isnt a good thing... I guess you could say that but you saying global warming IS happening is just as much an opinion as OPT saying it isnt happening. Both of you can find studies to "Prove" your point but if you twist the numbers in your favor you can make any set of statistics fit what you are getting paid to make it fit.

Articles please tutall. I was fine with your opinion when you stated it was
just opinion.

What good evidence do you have? Do you know what good evidence is?

[drtom2005]

It is pretty self explanatory what that means isn't it?

It was a rhetorical question since OPT can only see things his way. He will not admit his faults and will continue to hold to faulty beliefs. When I ask for information to correct my views, I am attacking him.

If he is right about anything, it should be easy for him to find evidence that will convince me. I will change my mind if it is convincing evidence from a scientific standard, not a general public standard.

[drtom2005]

so, anyone using 1998 as a starting point is wrong. so, who gets to decide what is a fair starting date? if you use one, you can argue for warming, if you use another you can argue for cooling. man, seems like there is a lot of uncertainty out there!

You apparently did not get the point of the article. The scientists who were blinded to what the information was about, stated that you can not make a trend on global temperatures with just ten years of data.

This is another example of thinking common sense applies to science. Is evoultion, germ theory, or the Big Bang common sense? No, they are not, but they have the evidence for their stated theories.

You can ignore it if you like.