More total and abject irrelevance. Look, I'm not trying to get on your case. You contribute here on this thread. I'm just disagreeing that the weighting that might exist in certain grant procedures is enough to invalidate the fundamental finding that humans are the primary cause of the warming that is most definitely going on. There are too many disparate fields of science involved for them to be coordinated between the fields, the various science organizations (which are not unified) and across all countries. Also, scientists who promote false results tend to get found out over time, especially if they are found to have done so with purpose. It's a risk to careers. Even if grants were let based on someone's opinion as to whether it might lead to a specific desired result it does not mean that the results will be forced in that direction. So, for example we find cases such as studies of hurricanes and other severe weather events showing results that were counter to what was believed by certain leading climate change proponents. If there was any weighting in the grant process for weather events, it certainly didn't help those folks.
play along along Ill show you the difference between false and skewed. What is the correct temperature at your location?
Instead of playing question games, why not just state a point clearly and directly? You know, like scientists can do.
because its more difficult for people to argue against their own answers and subsequent underlying logic. Thats typically why a leftist flat out refuses to answer fact based questions. They know their own answers will conflict with their emotional based argument. Thats why someone like me doesnt fear giving honest answers but the left avoids them at all cost. For example...if Al Gore believes GW is real why does he fly around on jets and heat multiple mansions and swimming pools when he isnt even there? Now answer my question or go away defeated.
True. That explains why you'll never give a straight answer, and always try to deflect with meaningless questions instead. You're clearly projecting your own nature on to the rational people. Given how you run from every direct question, that's very clearly a false statement. Because Al Gore is a bad, bad man. Why did you think that was a tough question? Answer that, or go away defeated. Then, after that, answer these simple questions. What is the correct temperature at your location? What point are you driving at with your "What is the correct temperature at your location?" question? Did you even have a point, or were you just looking for reasons to rage about how stupid liberals are for not giving the answer you wanted to a rather vague and meaningless question?
wow...calm down. PF isnt worth blowing a vein. If you cant answer my question then simply move along. Id rather use my time speaking with people who challenge me.
You just told everyone, very loudly, that you always answer direct questions, being how only cowardly liberals will refuse to do so. So, I asked a few simple direct questions, and you ran. Are you saying you're a cowardly liberal? Since that obviously can't be the case, it must be a little oversight on your part, and I should give you another chance. What is the correct temperature at your location? What point are you driving at with your "What is the correct temperature at your location?" question? Did you even have a point, or were you just looking for reasons to rage about how stupid liberals are for not giving the answer you wanted to a rather vague and meaningless question?
You won't answer your own question. That would be fine if you'd then make a point and explain why your question can't be answered sensibly. But you won't do that either. Instead, you're just declaring how awful the liberals are for not answering the question that you won't answer. See the problem? Rest assured that everyone else does.
Last I heard, Earth is only ~4.5 billion years old, and I never heard anyone hypothesize that it began as a snowball.
By looking at a thermometer. Exactly what point are you trying to make with this chain of questioning? Be very specific. Define any term you use precisely. And since I answered your question and asked a new one first, you are obligated to answer my question fully, and I don't have to answer any of yours until you do. That's your very petulant and childish standard, so you're bound by it.
was your thermometer calibrated? And is there a serial number on your thermometer? If so what is the first letter of the serial number and when was it purchased and where. I dont have the proper equipment at my current location to give you the correct temperature, rather than give you skewed results, Id rather wait until I have the proper measuring equipment and calibration equipment before I could ever send out data as "correct". If you do not want the correct temperature, I can give you qualitative results, just let me know. Being a global warming study of grave importance its best we both do good science and not sloppy science...surely you agree.
So by your logical standard here, I shouldn't cook dinner, because I can't be positive the oven thermometer is perfectly calibrated. That illustrates how illogical your "absolute perfection or nothing!" standard is, and why rational people reject it. Data does not have to be perfect to be useful. Demanding absolute perfection means you'll throw away almost all opportunities to get useful data, and rational people understand how foolish that is. Deliberately refusing to get useful data, as you advocate here, would be the sloppiest science imaginable, so obviously I reject it. I do know why you're so actively hostile to taking data. The data debunks your religious beliefs, and you know it. You figure if we just stop taking all data, your cult will be able to survive.
you are scientifically incorrect. I clearly asked you if you want qualitative data. You then equate quantitative data as needing to be perfect. Sorry, yes your data needs to be defensible and not guesswork when someone is paying you for correct data. But hey thanks for proving my point in far less posts than I thought. Lefties think guesswork data is ok...me...I require data to pass stringent guidelines before it can be used.
And NOAA weather stations are calibrated annually, and constantly cross-checked with nearby stations to ensure accuracy, hence they're very obviously giving qualitative data. So, just what are you babbling about? Oh, I get it. Your cult didn't tell you about the strict calibration, and since you only know what your cult tells you, you had no idea of how the real world works. Take this as a lesson to do some independent research next time, instead of mindlessly believing what your cult tells you.
