More Global Warming Bullshit

[Fairweather]

"The fact is, we just don't know. In fact, we never knew for sure, and now that we're even less sure than we were before we're just gonna change the input until our Commodore 64 coughs up the climate model we can sell down at the boutique. Basically, we're just gonna make shit up as we go..."

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7376301.stm

 

 

Edited May 9, 2008 by Fairweather

[ashw_justin]

Meanwhile this french computer model is still predicting hotness.

[Hugh Conway]

thank god gays can't marry

[kevbone]

thank god gays can't marry

 

 

What a hatefull statement.

[dt_3pin]

thank god gays can't marry

 

 

What a hatefull statement.

 

Unbelievable. Your posts are either brilliant trolling or you're a couple sandwichs short of a picnic.

[Bug]

Whaa Hoo!

I'm buyin a desil Hummer and belchin shit into the atmosphere.

An ifn any a them damn AY-Rabs tries ta stop me Ah'll blow is damnn head off.

[Fairweather]

Seriously, though...

 

 

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7376301.stm

 

 

[Hendershot]

riiiiight,

Let's come back to this thread 5 or 10 years later and see the results.

[mattp]

Fairweather:

what do you think that article is saying? Does your original post represent it well? Or are you simply saying, yet again, that the overwhelming conclusion of virtually everyone who has studied this issue is wrong?

[Fairweather]

Fairweather:

Or are you simply saying, yet again, that the overwhelming conclusion of virtually everyone who has studied this issue is wrong?

 

I don't believe this is the case. I don't think any so-called consensus exists, and data like this only strengthens the case for uncertainty. IMO, this story is about politically tainted scientists hedging their bets such that they can claim their data was correct no matter what the outcome.

[Fairweather]

riiiiight,

Let's come back to this thread 5 or 10 years later and see the results.

 

Well said. Unfortunately, there are people with agendas...and they aren't as patient as you are.

[mattp]

Dude, you are way out there on this one. I think even George Bush has acknowledged that any "debate" is over. Seriously: this is not some evil liberal plot to bring socialism to your doorstep and make you drink herbal tea. It is a real issue.

[Fairweather]

Dude, you are way out there on this one. I think even George Bush has acknowledged that any "debate" is over. Seriously: this is not some evil liberal plot to bring socialism to your doorstep and make you drink herbal tea. It is a real issue.

 

Content? G W Bush? His name is a weak leg upon which to state your case. Evolution? Settled science. Anthropogenic global warming? Not settled by a long shot. I'm surprised you can't see that you're running with a herd that doesn't even know where it is going.

[Hugh Conway]

I don't believe this is the case. I don't think any so-called consensus exists, and data like this only strengthens the case for uncertainty. IMO, this story is about politically tainted scientists hedging their bets such that they can claim their data was correct no matter what the outcome.

 

[hafilax]

It's a computer model of a chaotic system. Of course they're not going to claim that their results are 'the truth'. From what they have put into their model and based on their assumptions this is what they predict. There is a chance that the model is wrong but it seems to explain and predict a short term weather trend which will give way to the global warming trend once the cycle has completed. It in no way weakens the case for global warming which is a long term trend.

 

As for your conspiracy theory, far more scientists have come out saying that they were pressured by their funding agencies to keep quiet about research that has supported global warming.

 

What is the purpose of denying global warming? Do you want to maintain the status quo and continue the consumptive destruction of the earth? Even if global warming is a myth do you not believe that our current path will destroy all of the natural resources needed for life to survive on this planet?

[ZimZam]

Thank gays God can't marry.

[Fairweather]

It's a computer model of a chaotic system. Of course they're not going to claim that their results are 'the truth'. From what they have put into their model and based on their assumptions this is what they predict. There is a chance that the model is wrong but it seems to explain and predict a short term weather trend which will give way to the global warming trend once the cycle has completed. It in no way weakens the case for global warming which is a long term trend.

I'm not the one claiming it is settled science. Now it sounds like you aren't either? In any event, this new model clearly does weaken the the case for global warming--and is clearly an attempt to provide cover for poor data and/or interpretation thereof.

 

As for your conspiracy theory, far more scientists have come out saying that they were pressured by their funding agencies to keep quiet about research that has supported global warming.

Anecdote on both sides is available. How about some solid numbers to back up your claim?

 

What is the purpose of denying global warming? Do you want to maintain the status quo and continue the consumptive destruction of the earth? Even if global warming is a myth do you not believe that our current path will destroy all of the natural resources needed for life to survive on this planet?

I am all for drastic reduction in the consumption of oil, but there still isn't anything to replace it. The same folks who worship at the altar of global warming don't like nuclear either...or hydro...or... And so far, all that the biofuels crowd has accomplished is higher food prices and more third-world starvation. Well done. Edited May 10, 2008 by Fairweather

[Bug]

Damn them caulage boys n all ther damn crap.

 

[AlpineK]

Fairweather

 

Why don't you read through this summary report and then check back

 

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal

 

An Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

This summary, approved in detail at IPCC Plenary XXVII (Valencia, Spain, 12-17 November 2007), represents the

formally agreed statement of the IPCC concerning key findings and uncertainties contained in the Working Group

contributions to the Fourth Assessment Report.

 

This is the summary report and not the full thing.

 

Then again I'm sure Rush Limbaugh didn't aprove these findings.

[foraker]

His group's projection diverges from other computer models only for about 15-20 years; after that, the curves come back together and temperatures rise.

 

"In the long term, radiative forcing (the Earth's energy balance) dominates.

[Clavote]

"The fact is, we just don't know. In fact, we never knew for sure, and now that we're even less sure than we were before we're just gonna change the input until our Commodore 64 coughs up the climate model we can sell down at the boutique. Basically, we're just gonna make shit up as we go..."

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7376301.stm

 

 

I've just increased my carbon footprint. I was just informed that it's big.

[Winter]

"The scientists are all in on the giant conspiracy!"

 

"Liberals are a bunch of dogmatic conspiracy theorists!"

 

"This article clearly proves my point despite the fact that it says the exact opposite!"

 

"I'm DRUNK!"

 

[billcoe]

I can't believe that the debate over global warming ended so soon. Weathermen say it's gonna be 90 degrees next week, bet it starts up again!

 

Seems to me that instead of blowing this issue off until it's too late, we should AT LEAST take the easy baby steps immediately, EVEN if the science is later proven wrong instead of correct: using less fuel to go to the corner grocery store is a good time.

[kevbone]

So global warming cant be totally proven......FW, dont you think it would be wise to error on the side of caution? If you are right.....all is well. If the other side is right.....our kids, kids are gonna die because of our ignorance.....

[pink]

WtwGyxzxBDg