You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #16: Let's not cloud the issue with the truth! [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Science Donate to DU
ElQueso Donating Member (1 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-15-09 10:05 AM
Response to Reply #6
16. Let's not cloud the issue with the truth!
This response is typical of people who try to refute real scientific evidence.

You say that Kooistra drew the conclusions he did from one guy visiting 3 of the 1221 weather stations to conclude that the weather stations are hopelessly flawed.

Read it again, dude. AFTER Watts (the meteorologist that you so quickly blow off) visited three sites himself, he organized a group called the Surface Stations Project who reviewed 70% (a huge number, scientifically valid) of the 1221 stations and found they found that 89% of the stations were not set up in accordance with the USHCN own standards. In many cases the temperature stations were set up close to heat sources for crying out loud!

Also, the thing about white-washed paint versus latex enamel. I wonder if you really understand how science is done? Watts (and again, not Kooistra) bought three stations to test. One he left plain wood (as a control), the other he white-washed (meticulously re-creating the formula of whitewash as it was used earlier in the century) and the other he used latex paint, which is the current standard. There was .3 maximum to .8 minimum emperature differences between the whitewashed and the latex versions. That's actual science dude!

How do you explain that NO MODEL ever created by climate change advocate "scientists" has EVER made an accurate prediction of temperature changes? Science says "make a prediction, test it, and if the tests confirm the prediction, it's possible that the theory closely models reality." Climate change scientists have never managed to make a theory that is verifiable.

But let's not let the facts get in the way of the truth, please!

As Kooistra aptly states at the end of his Analog article:

"What’s really ironic is that, if someone claims to see a flying saucer, which hurts no one and costs nothing, debunkers come out in force. But let a former vice-president claim environmental apocalypse is upon us, and suddenly we’re appropriating billions and changing our lifestyles."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Science Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC