It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Sudden rapid warming of the Earth - 5 million years ago

page: 7
38
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 10:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: superman2012

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: superman2012

Causation has been proven.


Link please.


Plenty of proof has been posted in the OP for climate change.


Huh?
Am I in the right thread?
This is what I see in the first post of this



So a sudden rise in Global temperature around 5 million years ago brought about a change to the landscape in the Nullabor area.
A sudden rise in Global temperature that could not be attributed to Man, and just part of a natural cycle that the Earth experiences.
Still, 'Man Made Global Warming' is an industry now, so maybe we should just ignore the evidence of Earth's natural history and continue to pay our green taxes like good citizens?





posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 10:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: superman2012

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: superman2012

All science is described in approximations and likelihoods because nothing is 100% proven in science. You are splitting hairs here over a misunderstanding of how science works.

I would love to see the look on your face if your Dr. told you that you "most likely" don't have cancer.


Irrelevant. Stop with the red herrings and fallacies.

Well, my point being you accept it point blank from one scientist, so why not another?



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 10:14 AM
link   
a reply to: superman2012

Oh I'm sorry. I'm posting in two climate change threads right now and I got mixed up.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 12-2-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 10:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: superman2012

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: superman2012

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: superman2012

All science is described in approximations and likelihoods because nothing is 100% proven in science. You are splitting hairs here over a misunderstanding of how science works.

I would love to see the look on your face if your Dr. told you that you "most likely" don't have cancer.


Irrelevant. Stop with the red herrings and fallacies.

Well, my point being you accept it point blank from one scientist, so why not another?


Which scientist would that be? How does his claims stand up to peer review?



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 10:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: superman2012

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: superman2012
a reply to: Krazysh0t


AGW Theory and Hypothesis
Ice core differences not used because it doesn't tow the line.

Scientists are in it for the money and once they proclaim something to be right, they will try to only show what they believe to be true (much like on ATS). If that means discounting evidence that doesn't support them, or that would throw a monkey wrench into their 100% certainty that they are correct, then that will happen sadly.


Ah yes, "the scientists are corrupt, but I refuse to post any data or evidence showing that is the case" argument.

Not corrupt, just fearful of losing jobs or funding. They are people too you know. They have families to look out for.
But, great refutation of my comment.


I'm just tired of debunking these tired talking points instead of actually discussing science. They are just a distraction and do nothing to lead credence to the skeptic camp outside of confirmation bias, smug satisfaction, and back patting.

Tired of debunking the ignoring of evidence to the contrary? Ignoring evidence in order to make your point, does nothing for your argument. Who's the one acting smug?



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 10:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: superman2012

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: superman2012

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: superman2012

All science is described in approximations and likelihoods because nothing is 100% proven in science. You are splitting hairs here over a misunderstanding of how science works.

I would love to see the look on your face if your Dr. told you that you "most likely" don't have cancer.


Irrelevant. Stop with the red herrings and fallacies.

Well, my point being you accept it point blank from one scientist, so why not another?


Which scientist would that be? How does his claims stand up to peer review?

Did you really forget the post already!?
Link



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 10:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: superman2012

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: superman2012

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: superman2012
a reply to: Krazysh0t


AGW Theory and Hypothesis
Ice core differences not used because it doesn't tow the line.

Scientists are in it for the money and once they proclaim something to be right, they will try to only show what they believe to be true (much like on ATS). If that means discounting evidence that doesn't support them, or that would throw a monkey wrench into their 100% certainty that they are correct, then that will happen sadly.


Ah yes, "the scientists are corrupt, but I refuse to post any data or evidence showing that is the case" argument.

Not corrupt, just fearful of losing jobs or funding. They are people too you know. They have families to look out for.
But, great refutation of my comment.


I'm just tired of debunking these tired talking points instead of actually discussing science. They are just a distraction and do nothing to lead credence to the skeptic camp outside of confirmation bias, smug satisfaction, and back patting.

Tired of debunking the ignoring of evidence to the contrary? Ignoring evidence in order to make your point, does nothing for your argument. Who's the one acting smug?


I'm not ignoring evidence. I review all evidence presented. I ignore fallacies and talking points that do nothing to verify or disconfirm the theory because they are just propaganda techniques to muddle the waters of the discussion.



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 10:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: superman2012

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: superman2012

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: superman2012

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: superman2012

All science is described in approximations and likelihoods because nothing is 100% proven in science. You are splitting hairs here over a misunderstanding of how science works.

I would love to see the look on your face if your Dr. told you that you "most likely" don't have cancer.


Irrelevant. Stop with the red herrings and fallacies.

Well, my point being you accept it point blank from one scientist, so why not another?


Which scientist would that be? How does his claims stand up to peer review?

Did you really forget the post already!?
Link


Margin of error


The margin of error is a statistic expressing the amount of random sampling error in a survey's results. It asserts a likelihood (not a certainty) that the result from a sample is close to the number one would get if the whole population had been queried. The likelihood of a result being "within the margin of error" is itself a probability, commonly 95%, though other values are sometimes used. The larger the margin of error, the less confidence one should have that the poll's reported results are close to the true figures; that is, the figures for the whole population. Margin of error applies whenever a population is incompletely sampled.

Margin of error is often used in non-survey contexts to indicate observational error in reporting measured quantities. In astronomy, for example, the convention is to report the margin of error as, for example, 4.2421(16) light-years (the distance to Proxima Centauri), with the number in parentheses indicating the expected range of values in the matching digits preceding; in this case, 4.2421(16) is equivalent to 4.2421 ± 0.0016.[1] The latter notation, with the "±", is more commonly seen in most other science and engineering fields.



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 10:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: superman2012

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: superman2012

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: superman2012
a reply to: Krazysh0t


AGW Theory and Hypothesis
Ice core differences not used because it doesn't tow the line.

Scientists are in it for the money and once they proclaim something to be right, they will try to only show what they believe to be true (much like on ATS). If that means discounting evidence that doesn't support them, or that would throw a monkey wrench into their 100% certainty that they are correct, then that will happen sadly.


Ah yes, "the scientists are corrupt, but I refuse to post any data or evidence showing that is the case" argument.

Not corrupt, just fearful of losing jobs or funding. They are people too you know. They have families to look out for.
But, great refutation of my comment.


I'm just tired of debunking these tired talking points instead of actually discussing science. They are just a distraction and do nothing to lead credence to the skeptic camp outside of confirmation bias, smug satisfaction, and back patting.

Tired of debunking the ignoring of evidence to the contrary? Ignoring evidence in order to make your point, does nothing for your argument. Who's the one acting smug?


I'm not ignoring evidence. I review all evidence presented. I ignore fallacies and talking points that do nothing to verify or disconfirm the theory because they are just propaganda techniques to muddle the waters of the discussion.


Gotcha! You can't refute it, or didn't know about it( because really, why research the side contrary to your viewpoint?) so you discount it. Makes sense and proves my point. Thanks



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 10:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: superman2012

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: superman2012

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: superman2012

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: superman2012

All science is described in approximations and likelihoods because nothing is 100% proven in science. You are splitting hairs here over a misunderstanding of how science works.

I would love to see the look on your face if your Dr. told you that you "most likely" don't have cancer.


Irrelevant. Stop with the red herrings and fallacies.

Well, my point being you accept it point blank from one scientist, so why not another?


Which scientist would that be? How does his claims stand up to peer review?

Did you really forget the post already!?
Link


Margin of error


The margin of error is a statistic expressing the amount of random sampling error in a survey's results. It asserts a likelihood (not a certainty) that the result from a sample is close to the number one would get if the whole population had been queried. The likelihood of a result being "within the margin of error" is itself a probability, commonly 95%, though other values are sometimes used. The larger the margin of error, the less confidence one should have that the poll's reported results are close to the true figures; that is, the figures for the whole population. Margin of error applies whenever a population is incompletely sampled.

Margin of error is often used in non-survey contexts to indicate observational error in reporting measured quantities. In astronomy, for example, the convention is to report the margin of error as, for example, 4.2421(16) light-years (the distance to Proxima Centauri), with the number in parentheses indicating the expected range of values in the matching digits preceding; in this case, 4.2421(16) is equivalent to 4.2421 ± 0.0016.[1] The latter notation, with the "±", is more commonly seen in most other science and engineering fields.

What in heaven's name, are you posting this for?!?

My point was not margin of errors.



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 10:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: superman2012

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: superman2012

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: superman2012

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: superman2012
a reply to: Krazysh0t


AGW Theory and Hypothesis
Ice core differences not used because it doesn't tow the line.

Scientists are in it for the money and once they proclaim something to be right, they will try to only show what they believe to be true (much like on ATS). If that means discounting evidence that doesn't support them, or that would throw a monkey wrench into their 100% certainty that they are correct, then that will happen sadly.


Ah yes, "the scientists are corrupt, but I refuse to post any data or evidence showing that is the case" argument.

Not corrupt, just fearful of losing jobs or funding. They are people too you know. They have families to look out for.
But, great refutation of my comment.


I'm just tired of debunking these tired talking points instead of actually discussing science. They are just a distraction and do nothing to lead credence to the skeptic camp outside of confirmation bias, smug satisfaction, and back patting.

Tired of debunking the ignoring of evidence to the contrary? Ignoring evidence in order to make your point, does nothing for your argument. Who's the one acting smug?


I'm not ignoring evidence. I review all evidence presented. I ignore fallacies and talking points that do nothing to verify or disconfirm the theory because they are just propaganda techniques to muddle the waters of the discussion.


Gotcha! You can't refute it, or didn't know about it( because really, why research the side contrary to your viewpoint?) so you discount it. Makes sense and proves my point. Thanks


Refute what? What do you want me to refute? Your two links you posted? One from Anthony Watts and another a propaganda website?

What about actual scientific studies? Where are they?



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 10:24 AM
link   
a reply to: superman2012

Because you are being either willingly obtuse about how science works or you actually don't know. In any case, margin of error explains why nothing in science is 100% confirmed.

Like I said, you CLEARLY care about a side of this debate because you are clearly biased against climate change.
edit on 12-2-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 11:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: superman2012

Because you are being either willingly obtuse about how science works or you actually don't know. In any case, margin of error explains why nothing in science is 100% confirmed.

Like I said, you CLEARLY care about a side of this debate because you are clearly biased against climate change.

Wrong again.
My point wasn't about margin of errors, it was about the climate change fanatics embracing and changing the wording to make it seem like EVERY climate scientist supports this theory.

As stated earlier, there is no 100% proof either way, so I don't care which side is right, the only side I KNOW is wrong, are the chicken littles screaming that the sky is falling without 100% proof.

Does that mean we shouldn't care about and respect our planet? No. Only that I don't jump in with people when they tell me to be afraid without proving it.



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 11:21 AM
link   
a reply to: superman2012

It's been proven countless times over. Pretty much every country has now accepted climate change as real. The only holdouts are the oil industry, their organizations they fund to promote this propaganda (like heritage and heartland) and all their useful idiots who repeat this stuff without seriously looking into it.

Hell that damn snow storm that broke records that hit us at the end of January is proof of climate change. We get a giant snowstorm that breaks records (a prediction that climate scientists attribute to the rising CO2 levels) THEN it warms up immediately after it stops snowing for the next few weeks giving enough time for the snow to drastically melt. That isn't normal.
edit on 12-2-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 11:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: superman2012

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: superman2012

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: superman2012

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: superman2012
a reply to: Krazysh0t


AGW Theory and Hypothesis
Ice core differences not used because it doesn't tow the line.

Scientists are in it for the money and once they proclaim something to be right, they will try to only show what they believe to be true (much like on ATS). If that means discounting evidence that doesn't support them, or that would throw a monkey wrench into their 100% certainty that they are correct, then that will happen sadly.


Ah yes, "the scientists are corrupt, but I refuse to post any data or evidence showing that is the case" argument.

Not corrupt, just fearful of losing jobs or funding. They are people too you know. They have families to look out for.
But, great refutation of my comment.


I'm just tired of debunking these tired talking points instead of actually discussing science. They are just a distraction and do nothing to lead credence to the skeptic camp outside of confirmation bias, smug satisfaction, and back patting.

Tired of debunking the ignoring of evidence to the contrary? Ignoring evidence in order to make your point, does nothing for your argument. Who's the one acting smug?


I'm not ignoring evidence. I review all evidence presented. I ignore fallacies and talking points that do nothing to verify or disconfirm the theory because they are just propaganda techniques to muddle the waters of the discussion.


Gotcha! You can't refute it, or didn't know about it( because really, why research the side contrary to your viewpoint?) so you discount it. Makes sense and proves my point. Thanks


Refute what? What do you want me to refute? Your two links you posted? One from Anthony Watts and another a propaganda website?

What about actual scientific studies? Where are they?

Both sides can be considered propaganda sites as there is not 100% proof either way...
If you are looking for the studies, or the papers that they are talking about, copy and paste where it says "et al" into google, or click with you left button on the mouse on the hyperlinks.



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 11:24 AM
link   
a reply to: superman2012

The only source I'd entertain would be Anthony Watts since he has a good understanding of what he is talking about. Though he did support and push the Climategate narrative (which was debunked six times over), so I doubt his credibility as well.



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 11:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: superman2012

It's been proven countless times over. Pretty much every country has now accepted climate change as real. The only holdouts are the oil industry, their organizations they fund to promote this propaganda (like heritage and heartland) and all their useful idiots who repeat this stuff without seriously looking into it.

Hell that damn snow storm that broke records that hit us at the end of January is proof of climate change. We get a giant snowstorm that breaks records (a prediction that climate scientists attribute to the rising CO2 levels) THEN it warms up immediately after it stops snowing for the next few weeks giving enough time for the snow to drastically melt. That isn't normal.

Climate change is real! I have never said it isn't! What is in question is whether man is the cause of global warming, as I stated much much earlier.
Was I hit with a snow storm that broke records? Nope. Who are you to say it isn't normal? Normal for you? Normal for everyone else? Normal this decade? Normal this century? Normal this millennia? Normal over the last million year? Normal over the last billion year? How far back does the cycle start? What were the temperatures? How was the sun activity? Volcanic activity? How accurate are ice core samples? Same accuracy everywhere?

See? You cannot say, with 100% proof, that man is causing global warming. There isn't enough data. There is quite a bit of correlation, but, that does not equal causation.



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 11:30 AM
link   
a reply to: superman2012

Mostly because you stick your head in the sand. Check this out:
The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic
edit on 12-2-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 11:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: superman2012

The only source I'd entertain would be Anthony Watts since he has a good understanding of what he is talking about. Though he did support and push the Climategate narrative (which was debunked six times over), so I doubt his credibility as well.

So I did give you a site from that guy, and you dismissed it without reading it and now you are dismissing him because of his credibility in your eyes?



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 11:32 AM
link   
a reply to: superman2012

I've read Anthony Watts' site before. You aren't the first one to link that to me. Why do you think I knew who he was?
edit on 12-2-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
38
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join