Statisticians reject global cooling

[OnePimpTiger]

Oh yeah I do. I was just making sure this is where you went before I posted this.

http://www.ornl.gov/info/press_relea...=mr20091021-00

That's a great paper, thanks for posting that.

The new approach suggests that the range of uncertainty in climate projections may be greater than previously assumed.

So the predicitons given are with less certainty than previously assumed.

The team computed uncertainty by comparing model outcomes with historical climate data from the period 2000-2007.

Weren't you saying a 10 year period wasn't enough to extrapolate valid date from?

[OnePimpTiger]

OPT where is your information against my claim?

It's completely befuddling how little attention you pay to anyone but yourself....

[drtom2005]

That's a great paper, thanks for posting that.



So the predicitons given are with less certainty than previously assumed.



Weren't you saying a 10 year period wasn't enough to extrapolate valid date from?

Yes I have, but the article was to prove that the scientists at Oak Ridge were not saying that fossil fuels did not have an effect. They were doing scenarios with more or less fossil fuels. This is the only reason I showed it.

[drtom2005]

It's completely befuddling how little attention you pay to anyone but yourself....

Well, you never answer my questions and get offended, so why should I listen to you?

Give me proof of your position and I will apologize.

[OnePimpTiger]

Yes I have, but the article was to prove that the scientists at Oak Ridge were not saying that fossil fuels did not have an effect. They were doing scenarios with more or less fossil fuels. This is the only reason I showed it.

But they don't evaluate the date properly, meaning their information is incorrect, and therefore they can't be considered real scientists. That's by your own standards...or do you apply a different set of standards to scientists that affirm your world view?

Well, you never answer my questions and get offended, so why should I listen to you?

Give me proof of your position and I will apologize.

Good dr, you're the only one who gives any value whatsoever to your apology.

[drtom2005]

But they don't evaluate the date properly, meaning their information is incorrect, and therefore they can't be considered real scientists. That's by your own standards...or do you apply a different set of standards to scientists that affirm your world view?



Good dr, you're the only one who gives any value whatsoever to your apology.

OPT you are misapplying the point of me posting the article like you always do. It was to show that what someone else was saying was maybe a misunderstanding, nothing more.

And the personal insults continue. Can not back up any of his preconceived notions with any evidence so he goes to the personal insults.

By the way, I know what you are doing and it is funny. Please continue.

[jaybird_1981]

Yes I have, but the article was to prove that the scientists at Oak Ridge were not saying that fossil fuels did not have an effect. They were doing scenarios with more or less fossil fuels. This is the only reason I showed it.

I guess those are the only scientist at Oak Ridge

[drtom2005]

I guess those are the only scientist at Oak Ridge

Do all of the scientists use a supercomputer to run climate simulations? Those were not the scientists you were talking to, really? You can not remeber their names. Oak Ridge does research on: Neutrons, biologic systems, energy, advance polymers/materials,national security, and supercomputing. Where you talking to someone who does research on neutrons about climate change?

[jaybird_1981]

Do all of the scientists use a supercomputer to run climate simulations? Those were not the scientists you were talking to, really? You can not remeber their names. Oak Ridge does research on: Neutrons, biologic systems, energy, advance polymers/materials,national security, and supercomputing. Where you talking to someone who does research on neutrons about climate change?

I talked to a wide base of peole and nit all of them were working on climate change my wife for instance is a physicist so her role was working in computational physics creating a GUI to be used by a spalatial analyzer or something.

I don't pretend to know everything about global warming and truth is it is one of my least favorite topics to argue about. I just found your lack of tolerance to others opinions distasteful.

[ensbergcollector]

there is no nuance to the following question:

do you believe that grant money might influence the stances and research put out by scientists?