You have such an infantile understanding of a large subject, you seem to think that an entire field of study boils down to what one Berkeley lab had to say
I've got enough data stored in the "literature" printed on plain white sheets of computer paper stacked in my basement to prove climate change extrapolated from historical data.

sounds to me like your 'literature' is youtube videos

It's actually based on several graduate level environmental chemistry classes.

Thing is, if you took all the historical satellite data and corrected it such that the temperature wasn't changing you would have more or less destroyed global warming because satellite data is the gold standard for global temperature measurements. You can have all the "historical data" you want, but when the gold standard says no warming, and you know there are more artifacts that skew the ground based data than the satellite data, for which you have corrected the artifacts, then no warming.

Of course global warming is happening so the proven right correction was the one that showed global warming.




Just like that debate though, I'm offering to review the up-to-date literature and you're stuck on 25 year old data written for the general public. You're basically just "BUT MY HISTORICAL PRECEDENT", and I'm offering to show the more recent results which analyze the artifacts of that data. You're refusing to hear it though. Oh well.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on May 24 2018 07:08am

lol 'historical satellite data' They shouldn't have let you graduate.

You know satellite data goes back to like 1970 right?

That's far enough back to say "historical satellite data".

We use water level recordings from the 1840s, with the main gages since the 1920s, and reconstructed data looking back millenia. That's historic data.

The reconstructed data aren't as direct of temperature measurements as modern satellite data. They are based on other factors that typically correlate with CO2 level, or some other factor, that can then be related back to temperature. As such there are greater complicating factors and more artifacts than modern satellite data. A lot of the historical data is also interpreted using the relationships constructed from modern temperature data derived from satellite measurements.

If the modern satellite data showed no warming, then there's no modern warming, and it also throws a wrench into all of our other historically derived temperature data.




Anyway, this is getting off topic, and I really don't care about getting into hypotheticals about global warming.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on May 24 2018 07:29am

i don't understand the contention with IQ tests unless you overvalue IQ as some objective measure of intelligence in all facets. IQ tests a specific set of traits that are preferable for many walks of life. EQ has already proven more advantageous in many job setting situations, and the world is increasingly going that way. but i don't understand the contention, unless its from an SJW perspective. Black people weren't given the tool of math and science education, by-and-large, until 100 or so years after many of their white counterparts. of course a test for math and science type thinking will show they lag behind. if someone draws conclusions that blacks are less deserving of jobs that's potentially problematic. are they a math/science field that would validate that? even in math/science fields can EQ make up for a lower IQ? where do blacks score in EQ compared to whites? how much less important is IQ in an era of instant answers via google, a little? a lot?

I don't think blacks should be hired less based on IQ scores generally of blacks. But if a math/science field has a test for employment that essentially mirrors the IQ test because their field is highly applicable is it racism at play if we have less black people hired compared to their population%? I think there's a legitimate argument for the IQ test being outdated for most fields, because internet.

The funny thing is, I never even said what specific conclusions I have contention with. I just said "racist conclusions". I let them draw the line to what the "racist conclusions" were.

I just let Goom project the problems he knows he has into the conversation.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on May 24 2018 07:32am

vaguely calling someone a racist does tend to cause people to not want to be called racist. it's the most clever thing the liberals have come up with in a decade, shame it's gaining immunity faster than antibiotics due to it's overuse.

I tend to think of it more as the conservatives who went batshit over reading the declaration of independence because they thought Trump was the tyrant.

Says more about the person who takes offense than the writer.