Quote:
Originally Posted by skidman
Absolute nonsense. Any modeling, no matter if simple stochastic models or sophisticated numeric models are considered, involves multistep recalibration procedures with the most complete data sets available.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Catfish
Your ex president and his followers do. He said this numerous times, and around 50 percent in the US believe him.
The issue I have with people like you is that you form your opinion, deny all else and then look for arguments to support that view.
Science works exactly the other way round, and it has nothing to do with cherry picking.
You "know"? How so? From Fox News or the American thinker? Or from a reliable source?
No, this is called statistics, error analysys and error checking and correction, following logic and proven concepts.
Oh yes we have. Indeed we can thoroughly know and reconstruct how the climate was in the Perm or Carbon geological eras some 300 million years ago, using numerous methods. In some cases we can even reconstruct daily events, if not with an exact date within the entire scale. Just because you do not know it does not mean those methods do not exist.
Then there are the "creationists" of course, but i take it you are not one of them.
And again yes there are a lot of methods. In the more recent past, as long as you have trees with rings you can count (and add this to palynology), you have quite an exact timetabe to rely on, exact enough for one to 5 years. Even the numerous crises that befell older civilisations like in Sumer or during the bronze age can well be related to changes in climate, from corn rests to famines and such. There were ice ages and less harsh cold ages , mass migration, and it can all be proven by all kinds of methods.
If you want to get back to before human civilisation existed there are other methods.
Arrogance.. i fail to see where is arrogance in science. Maybe if the scientist is a fraud. In most cases, the latter will then not be scientists.
Monocultures and killing species in a number unheard of except from mass extinctions eras ago, may not necessarily end in more diversity.
What i find arrogant is to not understand the past, scientific methods, but tell the world "how things work". This is "arrogant", and dumb. And if mankind follows it it will be its end.
|
I'm just gonna respond to this by pointing out the single-minded, rigidly-formed *religious* response to any questioning of the data or of the way the data is used or interpreted.
Any scientist worth the title should continue to welcome questioning of the science, the production of ever more objective quality evidence, and refinement of their models. When those models are tested and found to not actually conform to reality, they need to be revised.
Instead, we get "burn her, she's a witch" in response.
I'll continue being a heretic when it comes to the cult of global warming.