Yet another article on global warming

[Manseed]

Originally Posted by Gryeyes

...

Even with all of those tools the sample size is still a very small fraction of a percent.

[Gryeyes]

Originally Posted by Manseed

Even with all of those tools the sample size is still a very small fraction of a percent.

For someone who cant read a paragraph and absorb the information it contains you are awfully certain of yourself.

[Manseed]

Originally Posted by Gryeyes

For someone who cant read a paragraph and absorb the information it contains you are awfully certain of yourself.

I read it. Then I read wikipedia. Tell me where I'm wrong.

[Gryeyes]

Originally Posted by Manseed

I read it. Then I read wikipedia. Tell me where I'm wrong.

Pretty sad when someone cant even comprehend a wikipedia level of knowledge before responding.

[Manseed]

Originally Posted by Gryeyes

Pretty sad when someone cant even comprehend a wikipedia level of knowledge before responding.

Pretty sad when you can't actually argue against what I'm saying beyond "You're wrong."

I was actually interested in how that science worked, but of course it is silly to question anything like that, right? I very well might be wrong, as you might be, because neither of us are scientists. I'd like to know why I'm wrong.

Wikipedia says that they have accurate data 800k years back. After that the accuracy 'sharply declines.' I'd love to hear how 800,000 is more than a fraction of a percent of 4,500,000,000.

[Snugglebear]

Originally Posted by Manseed

Pretty sad when you can't actually argue against what I'm saying beyond "You're wrong."

I was actually interested in how that science worked, but of course it is silly to question anything like that, right? I very well might be wrong, as you might be, because neither of us are scientists. I'd like to know why I'm wrong.

Wikipedia says that they have accurate data 800k years back. After that the accuracy 'sharply declines.' I'd love to hear how 800,000 is more than a fraction of a percent of 4,500,000,000.

I don't know if this is accurate, but there may have been a large bang 13.7 billion years ago.

[Manseed]

Originally Posted by Snugglebear

I don't know if this is accurate, but there may have been a large bang 13.7 billion years ago.

Absolutely. Are you saying that because we can tell what happened in the universe almost 14 billion years ago we should be able to tell what happened on earth 4 billion years ago?

We can see a lot of things that happened on earth billions of years ago, but they can only get accurate climate data 800k years back.

[Gryeyes]

Originally Posted by Manseed

Pretty sad when you can't actually argue against what I'm saying beyond "You're wrong."

I was actually interested in how that science worked, but of course it is silly to question anything like that, right? I very well might be wrong, as you might be, because neither of us are scientists. I'd like to know why I'm wrong.

I cant tell if you are kidding or not.

So at first by your "understanding" climatology was based on 30 years of observation and that "meterologists" are just as qualified to voice an opinion about global warming (jesus fuck).

Then after having that explained multiple times you are now asserting that 800,000 years of data on the climate isnt a big enough sample base? Claiming that "accuracy declines" passed that point like thats a valid basis to disreguard the other evidence which extends back millions?
When you just were arguing for fucking weathermen being a valid source of information?

Its not that you are right or wrong so much as that you are a fucking idiot who doesn't even read let alone understand what he responds to.

[Manseed]

Originally Posted by Gryeyes

I cant tell if you are kidding or not.

So at first by your "understanding" climatology was based on 30 years of observation and that "meterologists" are just as qualified to voice an opinion about global warming (jesus fuck).

Then after having that explained multiple times you are now asserting that 800,000 years of data on the climate isnt a big enough sample base? Claiming that "accuracy declines" passed that point like thats a valid basis to disreguard the other evidence which extends back millions?
When you just were arguing for fucking weathermen being a valid source of information?

Its not that you are right or wrong so much as that you are a fucking idiot who doesn't even read let alone understand what he responds to.

This is like your 5th reply without actually saying anything more than "You're wrong." Again, like I've said, I'd love to know why I'm wrong. Just don't fucking reply if you don't actually have anything to say.

I was actually humbly asking what the reasoning behind this was. But you get so god damned offended that someone could possibly question your agenda that all you can do is call me an idiot.

[Gryeyes]

The answer to your original question was contained in the fucking post you quoted and responded to. Hence why i fucking quoted it for your dumbass. Wrong about what? you cant form a coherent opinion to be wrong about it.

[voodoochile78]

Why is a 30 year sample being used to create theory against a 4.5 billion year old earth? I took statistics in college, and I'm sure that this is way above my head, but I remember needing a sample size a little larger than a fraction of a percent.

I'd love to hear how 800,000 is more than a fraction of a percent of 4,500,000,000

Way to move the goal posts

[voodoochile78]

Also, if you took stats in college then you'd know about the central limit theorem and the law of large numbers, and wouldn't be so hung up on sample size as a fraction of total population.

[Manseed]

Originally Posted by voodoochile78

Way to move the goal posts

I misunderstood. Better?

Didn't think I had to make an open statement admitting that I misunderstood something. I thought that my next post made that clear.

[Gryeyes]

Originally Posted by Gryeyes

Its not that you are right or wrong so much as that you are a fucking idiot who doesn't even read let alone understand what he responds to.

...

haha edited "wrong" to "misunderstood" hahaha

[Manseed]

I can't believe I got sucked into a page of debate consisting of "You're wrong" and "No I'm not". I'm done responding to you.