Church Of Climatology

[XRQTR]

Originally Posted by trippytaka

And back on topic... the idea that because scientists are looking for recognition by their peers means they are driven by greed. Come on man, seriously. That's like saying that every sports star out there is training their **** day in, day out so they can get recognition. Or that every academic is researching and writing just for recognition and money. You'll find most people are driven by a passion. The passion for the subject (chosen vocation) and the idea that they can contribute and move it forward etc.

no need to quote it all, I'm sure you can read back if you need to

Sure, no prob dude, but do me a favor ye, the next time one of your or your families friends comes back from years of research away from their families and friends, immersed in everything that is what was, just do me this one little favor..........put someone elses name on it. When it finally gets published, if it gets published, put another scientists, or ebtter still put my name to it, a complete unknown in that world/field, then come back and tell us all how they reacted to seeing a name that wasn't theirs on their lifes work.

And before you go on about it being some kind of nonsensical request, it would go very nicely to proving my point, greed takes many shapes and forms. The greed/need for reward, which is commonly money but not necessarily as in these cases, and recognition is among the highest forms of greed known to man.

Originally Posted by tripytaka

I know, but they aren't able to change the data gathered by thousands of scientists over the last decade.

Excuse you??

Matey it was actually discussed within the emails themselves of how results were altered by omitting data that was relevant to showing "correct and true" outcomes. That data was replaced or removed or simply altered to show what they needed it to show in order to prove their theory.

Maybe you might like to actually read over some of them before you comment any further on that one.

But then again as it says in your sig, you are a journo, so conclusions based on your own theory are often better reading and serve your agenda far better than those based on fact.

[GK]

Just to throw in another variable in regards to computer modelling.

These models all assume the world is a gazillion years old. If the world was nowhere near that old, let's say 10-20 thousand, imagine what that would do to the "science" of the graphs going up and down in such "short" time periods.

If the world was far younger than popular science suggests, that would mean that the peaks and troughs in the data, such as ice-core samples and such would show the earth, and therefore humans etc, etc, are capable of sustaining much greater change that they would have us believe.

The computer modelling depends on so many variables, many of which are of course assumed, and not neccessarily fact.

Just something else to consider.

GK

[Cobra]

Originally Posted by GK

Just to throw in another variable in regards to computer modelling.

These models all assume the world is a gazillion years old. If the world was nowhere near that old, let's say 10-20 thousand, imagine what that would do to the "science" of the graphs going up and down in such "short" time periods.

If the world was far younger than popular science suggests, that would mean that the peaks and troughs in the data, such as ice-core samples and such would show the earth, and therefore humans etc, etc, are capable of sustaining much greater change that they would have us believe.

The computer modelling depends on so many variables, many of which are of course assumed, and not neccessarily fact.

Just something else to consider.

GK

Lets not bring religion into this shall we?

[|||]

Originally Posted by GK

Just to throw in another variable in regards to computer modelling.

These models all assume the world is a gazillion years old. If the world was nowhere near that old, let's say 10-20 thousand, imagine what that would do to the "science" of the graphs going up and down in such "short" time periods.

If the world was far younger than popular science suggests, that would mean that the peaks and troughs in the data, such as ice-core samples and such would show the earth, and therefore humans etc, etc, are capable of sustaining much greater change that they would have us believe.

The computer modelling depends on so many variables, many of which are of course assumed, and not neccessarily fact.

Just something else to consider.

GK

thats a good point. there's a growing number of people starting to question just how these "scientists" can say the earth is so old. if it turns out the earth is only thousands of years old then there will be a massive re-think of all this climate change baloney

[GK]

Originally Posted by Cobra

Lets not bring religion into this shall we?

I didn't mention religion, but in fact the whole debate on AGW is being fought with a tad more than a religious ferver would you agree?

I simply mentioned that not all people agree with the "accepted" billions age of the earth. I also suggested that such a thing, if true would throw out the modelling. I then concluded with a comment that the modelling is dependant upon so many variables that simply have to be accepted as fact. Just how is that a religious post?

GK

[MO]

Originally Posted by GK

I didn't mention religion, but in fact the whole debate on AGW is being fought with a tad more than a religious ferver would you agree?

I simply mentioned that not all people agree with the "accepted" billions age of the earth. I also suggested that such a thing, if true would throw out the modelling. I then concluded with a comment that the modelling is dependant upon so many variables that simply have to be accepted as fact. Just how is that a religious post?

GK

^^+1 just how is it a religious post....please explain.

[Auslandau]

Originally Posted by GK

I didn't mention religion, but in fact the whole debate on AGW is being fought with a tad more than a religious ferver would you agree?

I simply mentioned that not all people agree with the "accepted" billions age of the earth. I also suggested that such a thing, if true would throw out the modelling. I then concluded with a comment that the modelling is dependant upon so many variables that simply have to be accepted as fact. Just how is that a religious post?

GK

If you believe what you just wrote about the earth isn't how ever millions of years old but only in the thousands, then that can only be derived from a religious belief.

There are similarities to the the theory of Climate Change and Religion .... alot of it is based on faith and belief with most not knowing the absolute facts but would prefer to either listen to the parts they want to hear or just go along with the trend, one way or another ... the same as religion ... hence the title of the thread. So there is a similarity ..... but lets not get into the religious discussion side of things please.



| [/url] |

[MO]

I saw it as a 'what if type of scenario' maybe not to well worded but I didn't think for an instant anything else.

[xy500]

Originally Posted by |||

thats a good point. there's a growing number of people starting to question just how these "scientists" can say the earth is so old. if it turns out the earth is only thousands of years old then there will be a massive re-think of all this climate change baloney

too right, its unbeleivable the methods used to measure the age of rocks.
the outputs are along the lines of; oh thats 50 millions years old, plus or minus 100 million years.
When the error margin is bigger than the result, you've got to ask how you base our understanding of the world on these measurements.

[Auslandau]

OK .... to run with this line then as you will find that estimations are not that broad ... in fact, they can be quite accurate.

These are undisputed facts that are based on actual scientific proven tests that can prove unconditionally. ..... cannot be denied by the most basic of scientist ..... based on actual tangible evidence and proof from the past. Its not a belief or faith or anything else that can be interpreted any other way, .... its an actual. But of course there is always those that believe the world is flat ......

A little bit different to trying to predict the out come of the future based on information that is put into a computer, that can be manipulated by the person entering this data, deciding what data should or shouldn't be included and can be interpreted depending on the desired outcome! Climatology falls into this bracket .... cannot be written down as a proven, unconditionally based fact that cannot be argued. It is not an actual! ..... apart from those of course who still believe the world is flat ....



| [/url] |

[xy500]

Originally Posted by auslandau

OK .... to run with this line then as you will find that estimations are not that broad ... in fact, they can be quite accurate.

when it comes to radio carbon dating, you may be happily surprised, that yes, massive margins of error are common.
How many radio carbon dating tests have you done?

[|||]

once climate change turns out to be nothing more than another y2k bug scare the pressure will be on the so called experts to fess up to what else they have fabricated over the years. for too long we have taken the advice of these experts without any real proof. lets see some public debates on climate change and the age of the planet & see how the experts stack up.

[MO]

Don't like your chances of that happening,they'll all duck for cover and still try to feed us with bs.
Would be good if it did though.

[|||]

Originally Posted by MO

Don't like your chances of that happening,they'll all duck for cover and still try to feed us with bs.
Would be good if it did though.

yeah

once their funding is on the line they may sing a different tune. i think a lot of scientific "facts" would vanish once they aren't funded by the taxpayer

[Auslandau]

Originally Posted by xy500

when it comes to radio carbon dating, you may be happily surprised, that yes, massive margins of error are common.
How many radio carbon dating tests have you done?

Of course there will be errors but not to the extent as mentioned above .... I have never driven a Bugatti Veyron either but I can confidently inform you that it is a bloody fast car that costs a packet and would be a hoot to drive. Brain surgery can cure many things I believe but I haven't performed one as of late. Please, no one else have an opinion unless you have first hand experience? Can't wait for the discussion on Nuclear Power vs Coal Power ..... be very quiet indeed.

AND of course there is arguments in the world of carbon dating and its accuracy but is still and has been regarded as the most efficient way for dating ........ but this is going off in a different tangent.

Science has always been made to prove itself, one way or the other, unlike Climate Change, I haven't seen any one come out and say in black and white, to shut either side up ... "Here is the proof".



| [/url] |

[XRQTR]

Originally Posted by |||

once climate change turns out to be nothing more than another y2k bug scare the pressure will be on the so called experts to fess up to what else they have fabricated over the years. for too long we have taken the advice of these experts without any real proof. lets see some public debates on climate change and the age of the planet & see how the experts stack up.

It would be like the WMDs in Iraq:

"Our data at the time showed the existence and therefore justified the means, however in hindsight when all is clearer no one can say we did a bad thing by ridding ourselves of a menace"

Only in this case it will be the recycling that has come of it since the beginning back in the 90s, as well as cleaner energies that have been utuilised more and more. They will put a positive spin on it somehow.

I mean anyone that was involved in the invasion of Iraq should be put on trial for war crimes, unless you can show that the region has become more stable than what it was, but again that's another issue, I used it to show the way in which the spin doctors could turn it around to advantage them.

Basically in any war there will be collateral damage, how much depends on the resistance shown by the population, this is an acceptable scenario.

[Cobra]

Originally Posted by auslandau

If you believe what you just wrote about the earth isn't how ever millions of years old but only in the thousands, then that can only be derived from a religious belief.

There are similarities to the the theory of Climate Change and Religion .... alot of it is based on faith and belief with most not knowing the absolute facts but would prefer to either listen to the parts they want to hear or just go along with the trend, one way or another ... the same as religion ... hence the title of the thread. So there is a similarity ..... but lets not get into the religious discussion side of things please.

Thank you. It was exactly what I was referring to. I certainly don't think that carbon dating methods are fool proof, but to suggest the earth is only 10 to 20k years is the same as believing it's flat. I know GK didn't even suggest it was in a factual way, but rather a hypothetical way, I just couldn't help but see the connection to religion when that is the exact time frame that religious apologists say that the earth has been in existence for.

[xy500]

Originally Posted by auslandau

Of course there will be errors but not to the extent as mentioned above .... I have never driven a Bugatti Veyron either but I can confidently inform you that it is a bloody fast car that costs a packet and would be a hoot to drive. Brain surgery can cure many things I believe but I haven't performed one as of late. Please, no one else have an opinion unless you have first hand experience? Can't wait for the discussion on Nuclear Power vs Coal Power ..... be very quiet indeed.

AND of course there is arguments in the world of carbon dating and its accuracy but is still and has been regarded as the most efficient way for dating ........ but this is going off in a different tangent.

Science has always been made to prove itself, one way or the other, unlike Climate Change, I haven't seen any one come out and say in black and white, to shut either side up ... "Here is the proof".

It doesn't matter if you won't listen, it doesn't change the fact of the matter that there still is massive margins of error in carbon dating, usually 10 to 100 times more than the result.
it only becomes accurate when all associated assumptions are true (if ever) and the sample is around a billion years or more old.
But people like you and everyone will continue believing the results because "its the most efficient way of dating the earth".

[Auslandau]

Originally Posted by xy500

It doesn't matter if you won't listen, it doesn't change the fact of the matter that there still is massive margins of error in carbon dating, usually 10 to 100 times more than the result.
it only becomes accurate when all associated assumptions are true (if ever) and the sample is around a billion years or more old.
But people like you and everyone will continue believing the results because "its the most efficient way of dating the earth".

Obviously everything is a lie, the world is flat, we have been here for about 10,000 years (my great great great grandpa shared brontosaurus burgers with Fred and Barney) and in a nutshell people are stupid and have not acquired any knowledge in there collective lifetime ...... but man made climate change is real and can be reversed by mankind (read below) because some nutters who have vested interest say so. Which is it ...... my head is spinning.

I have chosen which side of the fence I sit on only at this moment in time and until proven otherwise ...... here I will comfortably sit.



| [/url] |

[GK]

I know of scientists who have sent rock samples (fossils) that have recently formed (yes, they can form quite quickly if the conditions are right) and they've been carbon dated at exactly what they should be = a few hundred thousand years old, even though they were less than 100 years old!

Carbon dating and dating of rock layer formations works on circular reasoning. The layers date the fossils and the fossils date the layers. The rocks found in the layers, even when carbon dated, match up exactly. That's what circular reasoning does, validate the presupposition that's staunchly held.

It's just that a huge amount of people hold to the conventions of the way the layers and fossils are dated. That's hard to turn around in someone's mind, if that's the view that's been held for a lifetime!

GK

[MO]

Guys, maybe we should bring our view back to the topic.

[|||]

Originally Posted by MO

Guys, maybe we should bring our view back to the topic.

it wandered a bit but i think the logic is sound. if these fat cat scientists have manufactured global warming for their own gain, what else have they pulled over our eyes? the age of the planet may be just the tip of the iceberg in this global fraud

[BHDOGS]

Your right the age of the planet is there really a moon or is it a giant white circular blanket they've put up in the sky, what about starts just led lights carefully placed those tricky scientists and there fat cat money grubbing ways apox on them and all the cures and technologies they've invented back to the days of the catholic church and the pope i say, i always had my suspicions that Charles Darwin was an alien placed here by Scientology to drum up stories about life evolving on this planet and possibly other planets to further there alien believing agenda! viva la revolution or perhaps there just saying what they believe like myself that climate change is real or everybody else here that it isnt maybe there is no grand conspiracy maybe there just saying what they believe.

[snappy]

climate change is real

well show us the proof why do you believe its real ?

[BHDOGS]

i believe it because i know crap all about the science behind it so i choose to believe one side of scientists over another ill be man enough to say i dont understand it but unlike the other pre-eminent scientist on aff who watch alot of you tube vids they choose to believe another side of the story im afraid only time will tell whose right.

[GK]

But we don't have time, the world is heating to hell as we speak (or rather type)! LOL!

GK

[MO]

@bhdogs,you're at it again..sigh..yes climate change is real,the climate is always changing its the nature of the beast. Where the problem lies is whether we caused it or not. Now here is the fun part can you change the direction of the wind,the temperature,the rise and fall of the tides? Can you make it rain?

Of course the answer to all above is no. So where the hell do these scientists get off saying we must stop the temperature rising anymore than x degrees.
How about you read auslandau's sig.

[xy500]

Originally Posted by MO

@bhdogs,you're at it again..sigh..yes climate change is real,the climate is always changing its the nature of the beast. Where the problem lies is whether we caused it or not. Now here is the fun part can you change the direction of the wind,the temperature,the rise and fall of the tides? Can you make it rain?

Of course the answer to all above is no. So where the hell do these scientists get off saying we must stop the temperature rising anymore than x degrees.
How about you read auslandau's sig.

the funny thing is, you can make it rain, under certain conditions using a silver compound powder as a nucleating medium.

[gtfpv]

Originally Posted by xy500

the funny thing is, you can make it rain, under certain conditions using a silver compound powder as a nucleating medium.

POST A VIDEO OF YOURSELF DOING THIS PLEASE ????? :

POST IT ON YOUTUBE !! you'll get heaps of hits , TITLE IT -- "THE WORLDS BIGGEST _ _ ck _ _ _ IDIOT".

[naddis01]

Originally Posted by gtfpv

POST A VIDEO OF YOURSELF DOING THIS PLEASE ????? :

POST IT ON YOUTUBE !! you'll get heaps of hits , TITLE IT -- "THE WORLDS BIGGEST _ _ ck _ _ _ IDIOT".

You do know that there are trials of cloud seeding going on in the Snowy mountains?

http://www.cmar.csiro.au/e-print/open/holper_2001c.htm

As xy500 said, in certain weather conditions.