View Full Version : East Anglia/CRU Puter Models...
Smiling Assassin27
12-16-2009, 08:09 AM
How much more data gathered is akin to this slovenly attempt? A scientific conclusion is only as good as its data, and data is only as good as the data collection system. How many more climate change conclusions rely on shoddy programming and elimination of select data for its conclusions? A debate is badly needed.
<object width="518" height="419"><param name="movie" value="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=GdaGkUIrDk" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=GdaGkUIrDk" allowfullscreen="true" width="518" height="419" /></object>
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
12-16-2009, 08:10 AM
http://www.bartcop.com/day-deny-o-meter.jpg
Smiling Assassin27
12-16-2009, 08:22 AM
Not applicable, dude. I'm no denier. Neither are 80% of those not agreeing with you and your shoddy science around here. What are you afraid of? Other than the Earth becoming a flaming ball of goo and polar bears littering the Arctic Ocean, I mean.
Somebody's not paying attention and resorting to knee jerk responses again...
Garcia Bronco
12-16-2009, 09:13 AM
Man made global warming is joke.
If the CRU analysis was so "shoddy" and "manipulated", then it would be very different than the analyses from NASA, JMA, and UAH.
It's not.
Therefore, unless you're willing to suppose a truly global, massive conspiracy, then what CRU has done is solid and correct.
And don't confuse the work CRU does - analysis of observed data and dendrochronology, with climate modeling. Two different things. CRU doesn't write climate models. Other institutions do.
Man made global warming is joke.
Your brain is a sick joke.
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
12-16-2009, 11:50 AM
I'm no denier.
ROFL!
Good one!
gyldenlove
12-16-2009, 01:21 PM
So how many billions of dollars are you willing to pay to have researches hire programmers to make their code? To make a piece of code that is commercial level costs anywhere from 1 million to 1 billion depending on what it has to do, no researches in the world has grants that will cover that, if all research code has to be that level then research is entirely dead.
Garcia Bronco
12-16-2009, 01:30 PM
Your brain is a sick joke.
I would expect that comment from a man who's existence depends on this farce.
Garcia Bronco
12-16-2009, 01:31 PM
So how many billions of dollars are you willing to pay to have researches hire programmers to make their code? To make a piece of code that is commercial level costs anywhere from 1 million to 1 billion depending on what it has to do, no researches in the world has grants that will cover that, if all research code has to be that level then research is entirely dead.
Maybe...maybe not.
At the end of the day its all database work.
Maybe...maybe not.
At the end of the day its all database work.
Yeah, right.
What do you know about MPP machines?
I would expect that comment from a man who's existence depends on this farce.
I would expect your comment from someone whose rectocranial inversion succeeded.
Bronx33
12-16-2009, 01:45 PM
How much more data gathered is akin to this slovenly attempt? A scientific conclusion is only as good as its data, and data is only as good as the data collection system. How many more climate change conclusions rely on shoddy programming and elimination of select data for its conclusions? A debate is badly needed.
<object width="518" height="419"><param name="movie" value="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=GdaGkUIrDk" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=GdaGkUIrDk" allowfullscreen="true" width="518" height="419" /></object>
Exactly now all we need is one scientist to stand up and debate their position and their data and not one that claims ( there is no debate the science has been proven) that statement right there is a farce if your data is good and you trust it ( then debate it) plain and simple. Some simply refuse to think those emails are nothing ( they are huge) and exposes scientists with an agenda.
Bronx33
12-16-2009, 01:50 PM
I would expect your comment from someone whose rectocranial inversion succeeded.
You know wags you discredit yourself and your cause with every childish comment that demeanor was evident in the emails when they talked behind eachothers backs like little school children and you also have the dreaded ( iam right and everybody else is wrong syndrome) not a good quality.
gyldenlove
12-16-2009, 02:07 PM
Exactly now all we need is one scientist to stand up and debate their position and their data and not one that claims ( there is no debate the science has been proven) that statement right there is a farce if your data is good and you trust it ( then debate it) plain and simple. Some simply refuse to think those emails are nothing ( they are huge) and exposes scientists with an agenda.
Who would you debate it with? Glenn Beck?
Bronx33
12-16-2009, 02:17 PM
Who would you debate it with? Glenn Beck?
A repected honest climate scientist that respects science will do just fine.
You know wags you discredit yourself and your cause with every childish comment that demeanor was evident in the emails when they talked behind eachothers backs like little school children and you also have the dreaded ( iam right and everybody else is wrong syndrome) not a good quality.
You're not entitled to anything better, since you're resolutely ignorant of the science.
You're the denialists' beeatch, and to you, their **** is chocolate.
A repected honest climate scientist that respects science will do just fine.
You have a choice of a several hundred.
Can you name 20?
Bronx33
12-16-2009, 02:42 PM
You have a choice of a several hundred.
Can you name 20?
not you :spit:
Bronx33
12-16-2009, 02:46 PM
You're not entitled to anything better, since you're resolutely ignorant of the science.
You're the denialists' beeatch, and to you, their **** is chocolate.
Again i never denied anything and i have stated that numerous times i guess you're too busy running around like a child to rationally comprehend previous posts, again.......................... all i want is honest debate with climate scientists to prove their findings and the dats sets used ( simple enough ehhh) and it doesn't required being a scientists to want that ( it's my ****ing tax dollars at stake)
all i want is honest debate with climate scientists to prove their findings and the dats sets used ( simple enough ehhh) and it doesn't required being a scientists to want that ( it's my ****ing tax dollars at stake)
I've already pointed you to numerous sources that show that the science behind manmade global warming is correct.
Have you visited a single one of them? Sorry, none come as board books.
You're the one running around in circles. You keep demanding this and that, and when it's given to you, you ignore it. Why?
Bronx33
12-16-2009, 03:17 PM
I've already pointed you to numerous sources that show that the science behind manmade global warming is correct.
Have you visited a single one of them? Sorry, none come as board books.
You're the one running around in circles. You keep demanding this and that, and when it's given to you, you ignore it. Why?
I have seen your articals ( they all say the same thing ok) i would expect nothing else from you, i have pointed out tainted data and emails supporting that ( by the scientists themselves) i don't think it could be anymore clearer but sadly that doesn't even phase you i don't think you even want to try ( and i know why), i also understand that you don't agree with my position ( and i don't care) the fact is there are inconsistancies that need to be cleared up and as a tax payer deserve it ( end of story) now stfu and hand over the data.
I have seen your articals ( they all say the same thing ok) i would expect nothing else from you, i have pointed out tainted data and emails supporting that ( by the scientists themselves) i don't think it could be anymore clearer but sadly that doesn't even phase you i don't think you even want to try ( and i know why), i also understand that you don't agree with my position ( and i don't care) the fact is there are inconsistancies that need to be cleared up and as a tax payer deserve it ( end of story) now stfu and hand over the data.
The data hasn't been tainted.
But you wouldn't know that, because you've not looked at anything other than denialist blogs and op-ed pieces.
Science scares the **** out of you, and it shows.
Fedaykin
12-16-2009, 04:12 PM
Your brain is a sick joke.
Actually, it's more like a homeopathic "medicine".
Bronx33
12-16-2009, 04:36 PM
The data hasn't been tainted.
But you wouldn't know that, because you've not looked at anything other than denialist blogs and op-ed pieces.
Science scares the **** out of you, and it shows.
The emails say otherwise. :thumbsup: and no iam not scared ( i just want another opinion) if thats ok with you.
The emails say otherwise. :thumbsup: and no iam not scared ( i just want another opinion) if thats ok with you.
What emails show "tainted" data?
You do realize that if CRU was screwing the data, then their results would be different than NASA, UAH, and JMA, don't you?
Since CRU's analyses are confirmed by other independent groups, then no data manipulation by CRU has taken place.
Got that? Geezus.