Comments trickytank has made

  • sick

    those agriculture officials are sick.

    And so what if they didn't know any difference? Those antibiotics and hormones can seep into the environment and effect the natural fauna and flora. According to the Post-Gazette article the hormone rBST has caused an increase in the rate of udder infection in cows.

    Maybe we don't want to provide for the sick, bullying, money-hungry chemical companies?

    I'm glad that hormone is banned here in Australia. On Pennsylvania bans hormone- and antibiotic-free labels on dairy products posted 2 years ago 21 Responses

  • another case of looking at small amounts of data

    and even if they are what about the other temperature records. What's more, it's hard to tell without a good 30 year record the overall trend. (We do tend to get mini-cycles that are periodic over several years.)

    Alot of those arguments in that article seem rather weak. I'll comment on that page. On 'Global warming stopped in 1998'--Only if you flagrantly cherry pick posted 2 years, 5 months ago 170 Responses

  • Nice temp

    In response to ed68wood, I haven't got a heater or air conditioner here. Maybe people are becoming too wussy these days.

    In response to the last post by jabailo, What about the fact that we are having more violent weather? Isn't this something that has been predicted? On 'The scientists aren't even sure' -- No scientist ever is posted 2 years, 5 months ago 33 Responses

  • Chaos

    That's correct! Chaos does not imply that we can't make any general predictions. On 'Chaotic systems are not predictable'--Sure, but who says climate is chaotic? posted 2 years, 5 months ago 13 Responses

  • Null hypothesis is subjective.

    Nice post Beck.

    The null hypothesis is not an objective test. It's construction is subjective. We will get a consistent answer from the same data.

    There are also some who believe the null hypothesis is not a good test in general and underestimates both the benefits and consequences of medicines we use. On 'The null hypothesis says warming is natural'--An inappropriate test, and one that would fail anyway posted 2 years, 5 months ago 4 Responses

  • the facts are open

    Even still, Scientists are willing to give the facts. It's just unfortunate that this is something you cannot expect to understand it all straight away. (Just like it would take a while to explain how the human body works.)On 'Global warming is a hoax'--I wish James Inhofe were just a hoax ... posted 2 years, 5 months ago 12 Responses

  • Other articles

    Is this person really that selfish to only care about how the weather affects them? (what about future humans)

    But with the warmer temperatures comes more violent weather.

    Also we rely on many other organisms to adapt to the new climate for us to survive. From our crops, to livestock and trees, without these we will not have much of a chance of survival. We can't expect our food supply to be able to keep up.

    Also our body cells normally operate within about one degree, so relative to this we have already experienced a large amount of change. This has also meant many insects in third world countries are populating new areas and spreading diseases which were once more rare. On The problem is not how high the temperature may go, but how fast it is changing posted 2 years, 5 months ago 14 Responses

  • Re: Andrill?

    That doesn't say anything about the rate of the climate change.

    Scientists would agree that climate change is a normal phenomenon, and is ongoing. What is not normal though, is our rate of climate change. On 'One hundred years is not enough'--Yes it is posted 2 years, 5 months ago 18 Responses