Anatomy of a Deep State

[smilesammich 10,727]

3 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

University of Michigan.  Sustainable Engineering, Systems Engineering, Energy Systems Engineering if I remember the names correctly.  There was also some classes around Fuel Cell technology and one regarding the electrochemistry of the fuel cell system.  I do not remember the specific names of those courses off hand. 

and these classes focused on climate change?* when did you take these classes?*

 

*hopefully this isn't treading on tos violation. since when do posts get removed for 'treading' on tos provision - what does that even mean?

[Dashinka 25,854]

Just now, smilesammich said:

and these classes focused on climate change?* when did you take these classes?*

 

*hopefully this isn't treading on tos violation. since when do posts get removed for 'treading' on tos provision - what does that even mean?

I took them three years ago, and the first two I mentioned extensively used climate change models.  Beyond that, I have been keeping up with the state of the modeling since then, and not much has changed.

[Teddy B 17,252]

3 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

and these classes focused on climate change?* when did you take these classes?*

 

*hopefully this isn't treading on tos violation. since when do posts get removed for 'treading' on tos provision - what does that even mean?

My post got removed for asking that question.

[smilesammich 10,727]

Just now, Bill & Katya said:

I took them three years ago, and the first two I mentioned extensively used climate change models.  Beyond that, I have been keeping up with the state of the modeling since then, and not much has changed.

i fail to see the connection between your classes and science deniers. but whatever. we'll leave the paris deal and be in the company of syria and nicaragua.

anyway..terribly sorry to have cracked a joke in your direction, but i best leave the discussion since i'm clearly out of line. as leftists are. have a great day.

[smilesammich 10,727]

2 minutes ago, Teddy B said:

My post got removed for asking that question.

crazy leftists. oh, wait. my bad.

[IAMX 3,055]

42 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

I took them three years ago, and the first two I mentioned extensively used climate change models.  Beyond that, I have been keeping up with the state of the modeling since then, and not much has changed.

They're just as inaccurate as ever. If the models were as accurate as the left try and portray relative to their oft cited "consensus", there wouldn't be so many conflicting models (and yet all wholly inaccurate) within the very same scientific community. It's clear we don't have that much a grasp on climate as a whole yet, but the debate is apparently over. #Religion

 

Edited May 31, 2017 by IAMX

[smilesammich 10,727]

https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm

 

Quote

Skeptics argue that we should wait till climate models are completely certain before we act on reducing CO2 emissions. If we waited for 100% certainty, we would never act. Models are in a constant state of development to include more processes, rely on fewer approximations and increase their resolution as computer power develops. The complex and non-linear nature of climate means there will always be a process of refinement and improvement. The main point is we now know enough to act. Models have evolved to the point where they successfully predict long-term trends and are now developing the ability to predict more chaotic, short-term changes. Multiple lines of evidence, both modeled and empirical, tell us global temperatures will change 3°C with a doubling of CO2 (Knutti & Hegerl 2008).

 

[jg121783 3,921]

2 hours ago, smilesammich said:

i fail to see the connection between your classes and science deniers. but whatever. we'll leave the paris deal and be in the company of syria and nicaragua.

anyway..terribly sorry to have cracked a joke in your direction, but i best leave the discussion since i'm clearly out of line. as leftists are. have a great day.

And China. The world's biggest polluter who always seems to get a pass in these "climate" deals. Man made global warming is nothing more than a cult where the people at the top profit masively off schemes like carbon credits and their cult followers eat it up.

[smilesammich 10,727]

3 minutes ago, jg121783 said:

And China. 

you might want to double check that..

[Dashinka 25,854]

 

2 hours ago, smilesammich said:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm

 

 

So the alternative is to believe them at their word.  What if they are wrong?

[smilesammich 10,727]

7 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

 

So the alternative is to believe them at their word.  What if they are wrong?

scientific consensus isn't something i feel comfortable challenging. mostly because i'm not a scientist.

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

but let me guess, obama leftovers @ nasa?

[Dashinka 25,854]

52 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

scientific consensus isn't something i feel comfortable challenging. mostly because i'm not a scientist.

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

but let me guess, obama leftovers @ nasa?

I tend to be more skeptical especially when I read things like this.

 

"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities."

 

This is such a highly qualified statement that is basically opinion of one group that think alike.  It would be like saying 97% of registered Democrats think the Russians stole the election from Hillary.  They may be right, but then again, they may be wrong.  I know in my job, the basic expression is "show me the raw data" and not data that has been combed over and manipulated by the very same group. 

 

 

[smilesammich 10,727]

33 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

I tend to be more skeptical especially when I read things like this.

 

"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities."

 

This is such a highly qualified statement that is basically opinion of one group that think alike.  It would be like saying 97% of registered Democrats think the Russians stole the election from Hillary.  They may be right, but then again, they may be wrong.  I know in my job, the basic expression is "show me the raw data" and not data that has been combed over and manipulated by the very same group. 

 

 

no, it wouldn't at all be like '97% of registered democrats think the russians stole the election from hillary' because this has nothing to do with politics or opinion. why do you keep making these unrelated comparisons? what it is, is ""Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities."

in my opinion, the reason you're skeptical is that you think the nasa statement is political. you think this is about democrats and republicans 'winning' or 'losing' on policy. i'm a total skeptic, but i don't believe that scientists are manipulating data to support a particular politician or political policy. 

oh and, peer reviewed scientific journals..that's where you get your raw data. read them. power to ya. all that stuff is way over my head because i'm not a scientist - are you? are you actively publishing your findings?

 

 

Edited May 31, 2017 by smilesammich

[Dashinka 25,854]

1 hour ago, smilesammich said:

no, it wouldn't at all be like '97% of registered democrats think the russians stole the election from hillary' because this has nothing to do with politics or opinion. why do you keep making these unrelated comparisons? what it is, is ""Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities."

in my opinion, the reason you're skeptical is that you think the nasa statement is political. you think this is about democrats and republicans 'winning' or 'losing' on policy. i'm a total skeptic, but i don't believe that scientists are manipulating data to support a particular politician or political policy. 

oh and, peer reviewed scientific journals..that's where you get your raw data. read them. power to ya. all that stuff is way over my head because i'm not a scientist - are you? are you actively publishing your findings?

 

 

I was using a comparison that seemed apt, but what I am talking about is using qualifying words like "actively publishing", and "extremely likely", so are there climate scientists that aren't actively publishing that also disagree?  It is not political at all, just scientific skepticism.

[smilesammich 10,727]

1 hour ago, Bill & Katya said:

I was using a comparison that seemed apt, but what I am talking about is using qualifying words like "actively publishing", and "extremely likely", so are there climate scientists that aren't actively publishing that also disagree?  It is not political at all, just scientific skepticism.

so you would prefer nasa didn't specify they are looking at those actively publishing? seems necessary info. 'extremely likely' is hardly qualifying either, more a broad description of their findings. it only appears qualifying if you assume nasa is pushing a political agenda.