Kitinä

Elppis kirjoitti:

aasi kirjoitti:Pilluriipuksia

Noi muuten näyttää vähän samalta, kuin jos kääntäisit etanan ylösalaisin?

NuoriD kirjoitti:

Elppis kirjoitti:

aasi kirjoitti:Pilluriipuksia

Noi muuten näyttää vähän samalta, kuin jos kääntäisit etanan ylösalaisin?

Entä haju?

NuoriD kirjoitti:

Elppis kirjoitti:

aasi kirjoitti:Pilluriipuksia

Noi muuten näyttää vähän samalta, kuin jos kääntäisit etanan ylösalaisin?

Entä haju?

exPertti kirjoitti:Miltä nyt riippuva silakka haisee?

Elppis kirjoitti:

exPertti kirjoitti:Miltä nyt riippuva silakka haisee?

Sulla on epähygieninen nainen.

Dr. Bob Carter kirjoitti:In an Australian variation of this, Greg Combet, assistant to climate Minister Penny Wong, earlier this year asserted with blatant inaccuracy that “we use only peer reviewed science and our opposition doesn’t”. Other IPCC sycophants phrase it slightly differently, such as: “if you climate sceptics had a scientific point of view it would have been published in reputable, peer-reviewed journals“.

Statements such as these all reflect a fundamental lack of understanding about the way that science works.

If you accept at face value questions and comments like the ones enumerated above, you fall into a carefully laid climate alarmist trap. For the question “why are there no papers in peer-reviewed journals that disprove the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming” is predicated, as is all related IPCC writing, on faulty science logic; specifically, it erects a wrong null hypothesis.

Scientists erect hypotheses to test based upon the fundamental science assumption of parsimony, or simplicity, sometimes grandly referred to as Occam’s Razor. That is to say, in seeking to explain matters of observation or experiment, a primary underlying principle is that the simplest explanation be sought; extraneous or complicating factors of interpretation, such as “extraterrestrials did it”, are only invoked when substantive evidence exists for such a complication.

Concerning the climate change that we observe around us today – which, importantly, is occurring at similar rates and magnitudes to that known to have occurred throughout the historical and geological past – the simplest (and therefore null) hypothesis, is that “the climate change observed today is natural unless and until evidence accrues otherwise”.

In regard to which, first, no such evidence has emerged. And, second, like any null hypothesis, that about modern climate change is there to be tested, as it has been. There are literally tens of thousands of peer-reviewed papers in major scientific journals that contain observations, data, experiments and theoretical reasoning that are consistent with the null hypothesis, which has therefore yet to be falsified (but, of course, one day might be).

To give a clue how hard that task is, note that since 1988 (when the IPCC was created) western nations have spent more than $100 billion, and employed thousands of scientists, in attempts to measure the human signal in the global temperature record. The search has failed. Though no scientist doubts that humans influence climate at local level – causing both warmings (urban heat island effect) and coolings (land-use changes) – no definitive evidence has yet been discovered that a human influence is measurable, let alone dangerous, at global level. Rather, the human signal is lost in the noise of natural climate variation.

...

Jyrki73 kirjoitti:http://www.iltasanomat.fi/uutiset/ulkom ... id=1745769
Sukelluspaatti joka pinnalla ollessaan kulkee jopa 80km/h
Milloinkahan näitä löytyy Suomesta?

Page 33 kirjoitti:The argument makes arguments in support of intelligent design sound rigorous by comparison. It constitutes a rejection of scientific logic, while widely put forward as being ‘demanded’ by science

Page 48 kirjoitti:We see that for models, the uncertainty in radiative fluxes makes it impossible to pin down the precise sensitivity because they are so close to unstable ‘regeneration.’ This, however, is not the case for the actual climate system where the sensitivity is about 0.5C for a doubling of CO2. From the brief SST record, we see that fluctuations of that magnitude occur all the time.

Page 49 kirjoitti:What we see is that the very foundation of the issue of global warming is wrong.

Bluntly kirjoitti:Sukkahousut, pyh. Pekonia!

Cory Doctorow kirjoitti:Technology is making file sharing easier and easier. It will take more than unfair laws and harsh punishments to stop it