Oddball
Unobtanium Member
BINGO!I didn't see your response. If I missed it and you're interested in discussion just show me where it is and I'll retract my statement. I'm just trying to separate the rhetoric from the real discussion. Again, if I'm wrong, I'm wrong. At least I'm never misunderstood.
Mike
Here ya go.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/182859-republicans-against-science-10.html#post4077634
I'm always open to learning and discussion. I can't say the same for certain people on this site, from both sides of the political spectrum. Oddball is unfortunately one of these people. He is never wrong and would like you to believe he is an expert on any topic he chimes in about. Rational discussion is just not possible with him hence why it may seem that when myself or others are talking to him that we are being partisan, because that's the only way he knows.
The most true interpretation of the situation as I see it is that there is not a "conspiracy". I think that is incidental but I think that 90% of the scientists are out to prove their point. There are stats on either side that point to that side being correct. Take the carbon outputs estimation.
You have numerous factors which are impossible to measure. We know they are impossible to measure and so we have to estimate what they are. How do we arrive at that number? The simple verion is this:
Total CO2 on the end date - Total CO2 on the first date = Excess CO2.
You have human activity, animals that breathe out CO2, C available in the atmosphere, Plants producing O2, Concentration of atoms necessary to make O2 and CO2 and heat.
We cannot possibly assign a % of input to these (as well as other variables) that is reliable. Not when there are millions and billions of each instance happening simultaneously. To say that we can is a shot in the dark at best.
So how do you do this? You take sample sizes of each occurence. THIS is where the manipulation takes place; intentional or otherwise. The expectation that you are going to arrive at a solid number is vain at best. Most of the research that comes out will be dependant on the specific values you assign in some variation of this model. Yes the statistical models are more complex than this, I know... but they are not likely more accurate than this.
Mike
Give that man a cheroot.