Thread: Climategate
View Single Post
Old 02-26-2010, 04:41 AM   #597
Billy Tallent
Draft Pick
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zuluking View Post
You are nothing if not true to form.

To paraphrase you in previous posts: Did you actually read the whole thing?

If we were having an actual discussion, I could talk about things like statistical significance and sample size. I could point out that the article title is misleading and that it is not the scientific consensus.

I could also point out recent papers that have shown that climate does not change in a linear fashion. Paleoclimate data shows that previous periods of warming featured intervals of 15-20 years of stability, followed by periods of rapid change.

I could talk about another paper that argues that so much of the Arctic ice cap has melted, that it has released a flood of icy meltwater into the North Atlantic, kickstarting convective cooling, and altering weather systems such that we can expect a cooling period of a decade, followed by accelerated warming.

But we're not having an actual discussion.

You refuse to engage and you have demonstrated yourself to be scientifically illiterate. You don't understand the basic scientific process, thinking, or analysis, nevermind the studies you attempt to attack. You don't understand the difference between journalism and scientific literature, or the inherrent biases in journalism discussing science.

This is obvious to anyone with a high level of scientific training who has read your posts.

Under normal circumstances, this would be fine, if you wanted to have an actual discussion - maybe to learn something. But you don't. You just want to sound like you know what you're talking about and slander the scientific profession.

Feel free to keep making my point for me.

Let me know if you change your mind.
Billy Tallent is offline   Reply With Quote