Global warming LIES

buy blankets

from JoeUser Forums

Smoothseas provided a link to Frontline to prove his point on Global warming. This is what I found.

Okay all you people that want to destroy nations to save the Earth read this!

I have a copy of the real IPCC report on Global Climate Change. I will quote from it when needed. I also have a report from Frontline a PBS television propaganda network. I will quote from them as well seeing as some people here think that they tell us the truth.

Starting with Frontline;

FRONTLINE correspondent Deborah Amos reports:

In February 2007, the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that the science on global warming is "unequivocal" and asserted with 90 percent confidence that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2) from human activities, primarily from the burning of fossil fuels, have been the main cause.

The IPCC Report:

It is very likely that the current atmospheric concentrations of CO2 (379 ppm) and CH4 (1,774 ppb) exceed by far the natural range of the last 650 kyr. Ice core data indicate that CO2 varied within a range of 180 to 300 ppm and CH4 within 320 to 790 ppb over this period. Over the same period, antarctic temperature and CO2 concentrations covary, indicating a close relationship between climate and the carbon cycle.

• It is very likely that glacial-interglacial CO2 variations have strongly amplified climate variations, but it is unlikely that CO2 variations have triggered the end of glacial periods. Antarctic temperature started to rise several centuries before atmospheric CO2 during past glacial terminations.

• It is likely that earlier periods with higher than present atmospheric CO2 concentrations were warmer than present. This is the case both for climate states over millions of years (e.g., in the Pliocene, about 5 to 3 Ma) and for warm events lasting a few hundred thousand years (i.e., the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, 55 Ma). In each of these two cases, warming was likely strongly amplified at high northern latitudes relative to lower latitudes.

My words;

If you notice the report itself says there is "close agreement" not a consensus. The word "likely" is used not definitely, it is not stated as fact but as a guess. You have now read a part if the IPCC report the same as the reporter. Does this read as unequivocal to you? Does it sound like they have 90% certainty that anything will happen? If you go to the report you will see that I change none of the wording the word "likely" was italicized by the authors not by me. This was done to stress that it is not fact, it is not a consensus, and it is not a certainty, it could happen, and is likely to happen if everything in their model is accurate and correct. The fact that they use at least 5 different models just to get them up to a level of likely is more than suspect, and to say anything more definite than “likely” would be non-scientific. You see this is the actual report not the hype from people that desire to ruin the world. There in no scientific conclusion, it is the conclusion of the reporter that we are told.

Keep this in mind, the best computers used to model the weather today can’t predict with any certainty more than four days in advance, yet we are to believe that the five or more models used to predict the weather 100 years from now is accurate.

The IPCC Report:

All models assessed here, for all the non-mitigation scenarios considered, project increases in global mean surface air temperature (SAT) continuing over the 21st century, driven mainly by increases in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations, with the warming proportional to the associated radiative forcing. There is close agreement of globally averaged SAT multi-model mean warming for the early 21st century for concentrations derived from the three non-mitigated IPCC

Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES: B1, A1B and

A2) scenarios (including only anthropogenic forcing) run by the AOGCMs (warming averaged for 2011 to 2030 compared to 1980 to 1999 is between +0.64°C and +0.69°C, with a range of only 0.05°C).

My words;

Yes, you read correctly. The big warming that is going to kill us all is a grand total of 0.05°C by 2030, and for the kicker that is the part that is caused by man if we don’t stop burning fossil fuels. So if we do stop burning all fossil fuels right this minute we will be 0.05°C cooler in the year 2030. WOW global warming is killing us and we didn’t even know it. Five one-thousandths of a degree, and to get us that cool all we have to do is stop burning all fossil fuels world wide. Get rid of cars, buss trains and air planes, walk to work, don’t use coal fired power plants, or oil fueled power plants. In short we have to go back to 1500’s but not burn anything for heat or light. Is that worth being 0.05°C cooler?

This is from LiveScience.com, and it also is from a couple of months ago;

" hasn’t warmed as much over the last century as climate models had originally predicted, a new study finds.  Climate change's effects on are of particular interest because of the substantial amount of water locked up in its ice sheets. Should that water begin to melt, sea levels around the globe could rise and inundate low-lying coastal areas."

"The new study, detailed in the April 5 2008 issue of the journal Geophysical Research Letters, marks the first time that researchers have been able to give a progress report on Antarctic climate model projections by comparing climate records to model simulations. ... Information about 's harsh weather patterns has traditionally been limited, but temperature records from ice cores and ground weather stations have recently been constructed, giving scientists the missing information they needed."

"This is a really important exercise for these climate models," said study leader Andrew Monaghan of the for Atmospheric Research in .  

“Monaghan and his team found that while climate models projected temperature increases of 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit (0.75 degrees Celsius) over the past century, temperatures were observed to have risen by only 0.4 F (0.2 C),"

"This is showing us that, over the past century, most of has not undergone the fairly dramatic warming that has affected the rest of the globe," Monaghan said.  It hasn't affected the rest of the globe, either.  "The gap between prediction and reality seemed to be caused by the models overestimating the amount of water vapor in the Antarctic atmosphere. 

My Words;

Well wait a minute those are the same estimates used to model our weather 100 years from now! Seeing as they are off by a full degree could it mean that instead of 0.05C it will really only go up 0.00005C because of man?

My point is that we should wait to get all the facts in, assess those facts and then make a plan to do something if we are able to do anything. 30 years ago they wanted to melt the ice caps to protect the world from the next ice age. Now they want to save the ice caps to protect us from droning, and heat stroke.

Is the planet getting hotter? Yes, it is. Is man the reason the planet is getting hotter. Not according to the IPCC or any published reports from credible scientists. What has happened with the IPCC report is that people read it and tell you what it means. This is why I posted excerpts for you to read yourself. The fact the that the IPCC has had to publicly admit that the Earth has been in a 10 year cooling period NASA has published that the ten hottest years in the last century were in the 20’s the 30’s. Oh yeah and the melting ice that we are supposed to fear. It seems that the ice in the last two years had come back to where it was before the panic started and is getting thicker.

Notice that the temp has been a lot cooler this summer? I live in and it seems that way to me. No science to back it up just what I have noticed. It might be cooler only in my city and the rest of the state is suffering that 0.05C global warming. Hard to tell cause my thermometer does not register more that tenths of a degree.

31,075 views 38 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Can't wait to see what the global warming religion will say to this. My guess is that they won't say much and pray to the global warming god that it will go away.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
Five one-thousandths of a degree,
End of quote


Five one hudredths.

I especially like the part:
“Monaghan and his team found that while climate models projected temperature increases of 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit (0.75 degrees Celsius) over the past century, temperatures were observed to have risen by only 0.4 F (0.2 C),"
End of quote


This means the models are off by a factor of 250%! They are misisng the mark with the best models so far created by a factor of 250%! I understand about the need to give positive affirmation to stupid students that cant achieve, but apparently Algore and the new religion has decided to try the same stunt on the world population.

It is clear that even the best models (and computers of today) are not accurate enough to even predict the weather at your picnic next weekend. Much less what is going to happen 20, 30 or 100 years from now.
Galactic Civilizations IV
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
It is clear that even the best models (and computers of today) are not accurate enough to even predict the weather at your picnic next weekend. Much less what is going to happen 20, 30 or 100 years from now.
End of quote


Right! Based on these inaccurate models we are supposed to change our way of life, and wreck our economy just to save us from something that they are not sure will happen. It is a hoax, to get us to destroy our economy and to destroy the capitalist system. I can’t see any other reasons for this.

This means the models are off by a factor of 250%!
End of quote


This is a minor issue in their minds.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
I don't care if it IS true. I live in an inland state, and I'm used to it being hotter than Hades.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
Please explain what you mean.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
Maybe I'm reading from a different report, but after a very quick skim through it, the one I got from a quick search says:

"Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations"

Meanwhile the unequivocal bit no doubt comes from this:
"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global mean sea level"

while 90% is probably referring to the initial quoted comment and/or this:
"The understanding of anthropogenic warming and cooling influences on climate has improved since the Third Assessment Report (TAR), leading to very high confidence7 that the globally averaged net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming"
(very high confidence is at least a 90% chance of being correct, while very likely is also defined as being 90%+ chance of being correct; As a side note likely is 66%+)
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations"
End of quote


Good point! Thanks!
The problem with this quote is that prior to the mid 20th century we were in a cooling trend and even the IPCC has admitted that the last 10 years the Earth has been getting cooler not warmer as predicted by the study. Suggesting that the Earth has gotten as hot as it is going to get for a while and will cool down a bit. Solar climatologists are warning that we are looking at some cooling because of the Sun’s activity or lack of it. The third and fourth TAR study contradicts the observed warming and cooling of the Earth, just maybe the models are wrong. Speaking of models one of the modelers for that study has publically stated that if CO2 is the cause for the warming he has not been able to find it.

"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global mean sea level"
End of quote


Again you went to the heart of their argument and found another mistake they made. Well not a mistake they observed it they just attributed the warming to man rather than nature. Since the cooling trend started the ice is no longer melting but building. The rest of the quote has also fallen by the wayside. Since we have not changed our use of fuels or cut our emissions and the Earth has stopped warming and started cooling it would suggest that the report was wrong, and the cause for our climate is the Sun rather than man.

Third Assessment Report (TAR), leading to very high confidence7 that the globally averaged net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming"
End of quote


This is the part that really burns me up. there are not global records for the 1750’s through 1975. Sea captains would write in their logs what the temperature was at a given point in place and time during the voyage. Big nations would do the same in their towns and cities. Where are the records for L.A. in 1750? How about Alaska? China? Sorry don’t have them so it is not world wide it is all the data they could collect at the time from maybe a quarter of the world. We have not been able to do global monitoring of the temperature until 1995 and even that is spotty.

(very high confidence is at least a 90% chance of being correct, while very likely is also defined as being 90%+ chance of being correct; As a side note likely is 66%+)
End of quote


Right! good point thanks again.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
Since the cooling trend started the ice is no longer melting but building. The rest of the quote has also fallen by the wayside. Since we have not changed our use of fuels or cut our emissions and the Earth has stopped warming and started cooling it would suggest that the report was wrong, and the cause for our climate is the Sun rather than man
End of quote


Well presumably there are a number of different factors, some of which can lead to an increase in temperatures, others a decrease. Therefore the fact that overall temperatures fall doesn't mean that factors expected to cause them to rise have no impact, it could just mean that the factors contributing to a fall outweigh those contributing to a rise (that is, greenhouse gases could mean that the temperature hasn't fallen as much as it would have without them, hence they've had a warming impact). I'm no expert on causes for global temperature changes though, so this is just speculation on my part.
That said though, it's worth noting that (as the report itself mentions) "Eleven of the last twelve years (1995-2006) rank among the twelve warmest years in the instrumental record of global surface temperature (since 1850)". So it will be interesting to see that if there is a fall in temperatures (with so many different places saying different things it's hard for me to determine just what the changes have been! Hopefully a basic graph I found is fairly reliable though, showing a peak in 2007 and then a fall in 2008), whether such a fall is sustained, or more of a 'blip' during an upwards cycle.

This is the part that really burns me up. there are not global records for the 1750’s through 1975. Sea captains would write in their logs what the temperature was at a given point in place and time during the voyage. Big nations would do the same in their towns and cities. Where are the records for L.A. in 1750? How about Alaska? China? Sorry don’t have them so it is not world wide it is all the data they could collect at the time from maybe a quarter of the world
End of quote

But some data is better than nothing. The decreased reliability of it would of course increase the scope for error and lead to wider confidence intervals, but it can be used to provide guidelines at the very least. Furthermore since it is mentioned that there is "high confidence [of warming from human activities] since 1750", it follows that you could similarly say there is high confidence from say the 1975's, if you were unhappy about relying too much on data collected prior to that point.

Regardless the report could probably be spun whichever way was desired given some of it's content; you could mention the unequivocal and 90% parts if you wanted a damning verdict on the effects of global warming (e.g. Frontline), or you could go to the 'only 50% likely attributable' parts contained in one of the tables in the report if you wanted to show the high level of uncertainty in some of the areas (for example the likelihood of a human contribution to trends such as an increase in heatwaves, heavy rainfall, cyclones etc. is only deemed 50%+).
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
Well presumably there are a number of different factors, some of which can lead to an increase in temperatures, others a decrease.
End of quote


Well, you should read my other articles about global warming where I explain how the Sun is the cause not man. You see the different factors you mention are covered.

One of the scientists that designed the models used for warming forecasts states that there is no evidence of man made global warming. They have been looking for it for years and if CO2 was the reason there would be hot spots in our atmosphere of CO2 and they have not been found where the models said they should be.

"Eleven of the last twelve years (1995-2006) rank among the twelve warmest years in the instrumental record of global surface temperature (since 1850)".
End of quote


August 10, 2007 According to this Daily Tech blog entry, they have discovered a flaw in the NASA study that reported 1998 as the warmest year on record. In response, one of the NASA scientists who did the study admitted they screwed up, and the newly-corrected data now shows that 1934 is the warmest year on record, and five of the ten warmest years on record occurred before World War II.
“Global warming” has to be the one of the few topics where large groups of people blindly accept the results of studies often without independent confirmation or even peer review. Hopefully this revelation will result in a serious attempt at peer-review of popularly-accepted (I’m looking at you, Al Gore) climate studies.

What this means is that people are still running around screaming the hottest year on record for a mistake that was corrected and the correction published and ignored by the people screaming. If five of the hottest years on record occurred prior to WWII then we went into a cooling trend that lasted from the mid 40’s to the mid 70’s and started warming again, it would seem that we are in a cycle not an anomaly.

But some data is better than nothing.
End of quote


I disagree here. If you take data during a heat wave then normal temperatures for the area will seem cooler than what you thought was normal, if you take data during a cooling trend then normal appear warmer than normal. Basing temperatures off of the 1850 is not good because we were in a mini ice age. The year without summer was in 1815 I think. The mini ice age or below what is thought to be normal temps started just after Columbus discovered America and we did not fully come out of it until the early 1900’s.

Keep in mind that Global temperatures are normally much higher than they are today. Proof of that is the little island called Greenland. They used to plant grapes there when the Vikings were running things and was originally called Vineland. About a decade later the snows came and we have not been able to sample grapes from there since. So we won’t have man made climate change until we have palm trees flourishing in Iceland again. Or wait a minute maybe that is the norm and we are in a natural cycle of which man has only seen the cool parts of it. The temperature records are in fossils from around the world show a much higher temp than we enjoy today. Sure there were once tropical plants in what we now call Antarctica but don’t pay attention to that, it is the oil companies that are trying to fool you.

Regardless the report could probably be spun whichever way was desired given some of it's content; you could mention the unequivocal and 90% parts if you wanted a damning verdict on the effects of global warming (e.g. Frontline), or you could go to the 'only 50% likely attributable' parts contained in one of the tables in the report if you wanted to show the high level of uncertainty in some of the areas (for example the likelihood of a human contribution to trends such as an increase in heatwaves, heavy rainfall, cyclones etc. is only deemed 50%+).
End of quote


Or you can do the research yourself and see that the IPCC report is flawed by assumptions never checked or challenged by the authors. Paleo records show the climate changing long before man was dominant on the planet. It shows a cycle that has not been broken or changed in the last 2 million years. We had an ice age before that. Then all of a sudden we have four reports that say different and no peer review, no scientific challenges. And any debate is always prefaced with deniers of global climate change are in the tank for big oil. Then there is my favorite line, “the debate is over, man made climate change is real”. But there never was a debate to begin with. As soon as the results were questioned the questioners were attacked, belittled, and vilified. This is not spin it is a hoax.
Reply #10 from PolMach Forums Top


All models assessed here, for all the non-mitigation scenarios considered, project increases in global mean surface air temperature (SAT) continuing over the 21st century, driven mainly by increases in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations, with the warming proportional to the associated radiative forcing. There is close agreement of globally averaged SAT multi-model mean warming for the early 21st century for concentrations derived from the three non-mitigated IPCC
Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES: B1, A1B and
A2) scenarios (including only anthropogenic forcing) run by the AOGCMs (warming averaged for 2011 to 2030 compared to 1980 to 1999 is between +0.64°C and +0.69°C, with a range of only 0.05°C).
End of quote

Could you please post the page and the section of the report that this quote is from? Thanks.

Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
Could you please post the page and the section of the report that this quote is from? Thanks.
End of quote


I could but I won’t because it is better if you read all four reports to keep it in context. I don’t like to cut and paste as much as I had in this article. I only wanted to wet the appetite to get people to actually read what they were defending, rather than the hype from the news media and religious zealots.

Reply #12 from PolMach Forums Top

Quoting Paladin77,

Could you please post the page and the section of the report that this quote is from? Thanks.I could but I won’t because it is better if you read all four reports to keep it in context. I don’t like to cut and paste as much as I had in this article. I only wanted to wet the appetite to get people to actually read what they were defending, rather than the hype from the news media and religious zealots.
End of Paladin77's quote
Your prerogative. Of course, there's a reason that page numbers are given with citations, it adds a certain level of credibility to the citation because it can actually be checked. But it doesn't matter, I found which chapter and working group it was in.

Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
See, it worked. It was not hard and you can say you saw it your self and agree or disagree with me.
Reply #14 from PolMach Forums Top

Quoting Paladin77,

See, it worked. It was not hard and you can say you saw it your self and agree or disagree with me.
End of Paladin77's quote
Yes, in a manner. I already had downloaded a copy a while ago and perused it.

By the way, you've misinterpreted that section. It says that the average temperature over the period 2011 to 2030 will be 0.64 to 0.69 degrees warmer than the average temperature over 1980 to 1999. The 0.05 is the range in the predictions.

Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
By the way, you've misinterpreted that section. It says that the average temperature over the period 2011 to 2030 will be 0.64 to 0.69 degrees warmer than the average temperature over 1980 to 1999. The 0.05 is the range in the predictions.
End of quote


You are correct, thank you for catching it. So we are looking at 7 tenths of a degree rise between 2011 and 2030 plus or minus .05th of a degree. Okay. And the current predictions from the solar sciences tell of a 2 degree drop over the next ten years. The solar climatologists have been predicting the weather for about 10 years with good result and they have not been challenged by any within or without the community. This IPCC report has been challenged since it came out.

If the solar climatologists are correct then the IPCC report is still off but instead of 0.05C as you say I misstated, they will be off by 1.3C, no wait I was mistaken again they are off by 2.69 degrees because instead of warming the Earth is cooling by that much.

If both are correct the net effect will be 1.30 degrees cooler than the IPCC predicted. The point is still valid that their data is flawed because they discount and or minimize the output from the Sun and throw all the weight on man as the cause. The results are based on cherry picked data rather than all data available. Though they go through the data history they failed to account for the warming trend since the big ice age and instead concentrate only on the time period from the end of the last mini ice age to the present.

They are ignoring a billion and a half years of data and only paying attention to the last 158 years of a planet that we know has weather cycles of 30,000 years. They discount or ignore greenhouse gases that can not be attributed to man. Water vapor is the largest greenhouse gas, it is produced by evaporation of lakes and streams rivers and oceans. The next largest green house gas is methane, this was touted by the press as our fault till a study came out that animals produce more of it than man does. Then methane was not the target any more. Sulfur dioxide is the next largest greenhouse gas. And they attacked man for producing it with coal burning. Then it was pointed out that volcanoes produce more of it in one eruption than man does in a single year, and there are between 25 and 56 eruptions a day on the planet, releasing sulfur dioxide, and carbon dioxide in the millions of tons each volcano. All they have is carbon dioxide as the “main” contributor of this so called man made global warming/climate change.

One of the modelers for this report came out last month and admitted his model predicted there would be hot spots of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere if that were the cause of global warming. The results of his study found no hot spots after years of looking.

NASA whom I trust admitted to making a mistake in their data when they posted that 10 hottest years on record, saying that most of them happened in the latter half of the last century when in fact the majority of hottest years on record occurred prior to WWII or the first half of the century. I respect NASA because the spotted the mistake and published the correction as soon as they found it. The IPCC report has had to admit mistakes but only after the mistakes were found out by other scientists, and after they vilified those scientists, then checked their data and oops yup our data was flawed but only here. Well they have done that only here thing too many times for them to have any credibility.

The solar system is getting warmer, we have empirical data to prove this but why use that information when we can just skew the numbers and blame it all on man? The ice is melting it is all mans fault! Don’t pay any attention to the fact that ice is melting on Mars as well.

Now based on this flawed data the environmentalists want us to shut down the economy, put people out of work and kill the most prosperous nation in the world all to save the planet, on a hunch that the data might be correct if you use only 3 or 4 of the 50 scenarios they created. Even the with the flawed data they had to exclude most of the scenarios just to be able to ‘prove’ that man is the cause of this global climate change.

So you are correct I made a mistake in my argument. Lucky for me it did not affect the argument or the point I was making in the argument. I suspect that you are a global cooling denier on the payroll of the oil lobby. :LOL: Had to throw that in.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top

One of the modelers for this report came out last month and admitted his model predicted there would be hot spots of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere if that were the cause of global warming. The results of his study found no hot spots after years of looking.
End of quote

I think this is the link to that admission.  Correct me if I'm wrong.

Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top

No edit button again.  The link is the word "this" BTW - isn't obvious without underlining.

+1 Loading…
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top

I think this is the link to that admission. Correct me if I'm wrong.
End of quote

 

That is teh admission but not what i read. Thanks for adding it. I read his findings but not the article. His article is a lot easier to understand. Thank you so much!

Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top

Smoothseas provided a link to Frontline to prove his point on Global warming
End of quote

Actually I provided that link to disprove your misinformation about the subject not to prove my point of view. My point of view actually lies somewhere in the middle of both extremes.

Okay all you people that want to destroy nations to save the Earth read this!
End of quote

Much of the strength of the U.S economy has been attributed to it being at the forefront of new technologies. Green tech looks to me to be a great way to keep that happening so try not to be too persueded by the words of politicians who happen to represent states that are rich in oil and gas resources.

Keep this in mind, the best computers used to model the weather today can’t predict with any certainty more than four days in advance, yet we are to believe that the five or more models used to predict the weather 100 years from now is accurate.
End of quote

You dont even seem to understand the difference between weather and climate.

 

Oh yeah and the melting ice that we are supposed to fear. It seems that the ice in the last two years had come back to where it was before the panic started and is getting thicker
End of quote

Go to Alaska Iceland or Antarctica and you will see with your own eyes how incorrect this statement is

Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top

You dont even seem to understand the difference between weather and climate.
End of quote

Sure I do, The problem is tha weather is easier than climate to predict. Look at the alminacs of the past. they had the general weather down to a science. Climates change and it was not until the 70's did we start to understand the climate and some of the things we have learned we still don't understand. For instance plate tectonics were not understood until after WWII finding out that they cause climate change was not until the 80's. Since the plates caused the last ice age due to the change in the atlantic conveyer system (not understood until the 90's) we are still learning what goes where and how they interact. To say we can tell what will happen 100 years from now as any more than a wild assed guess is false.

Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top

Look at the alminacs of the past. they had the general weather down to a science
End of quote

Incorrect. Almanacs used long term statistics to predict weather and were very inaccurate compared to todays standards......Now we use modelling.

Climates change and it was not until the 70's did we start to understand the climate
End of quote

Incorrect again. We knew a lot about climate before the 70's. Not nearly as much as we know today particualarly in regards to climate change but if everyone prescribed to your brand of thinking we would know very little.

 

To say we can tell what will happen 100 years from now as any more than a wild assed guess is false.
End of quote

Of course its a guess. Scientific guesses do however tend to become more accurate over time. Take a look at peak oil production. There were guesses made 50 years ago that seem to be quite accurate. Not to say climate change theory will come close to that but I am sure over time it will become fairly accurate in its forecasts.

It amazes me how people take information that is used to modify the models used for climate change science and try to explain it off as disproving something when it in fact it doesnt do that.

 

Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top

It amazes me how people take information that is used to modify the models used for climate change science and try to explain it off as disproving something when it in fact it doesnt do that.
End of quote

Climate change occurs.  I can't imagine anyone with an ounce of intelligence who would argue otherwise.

However:

Climate change models are incredibly complex, a fact that has been twisted into 'evidence' that they are somehow accurate, the implication being that complexity alone confers reliability, that all we really need to do is 'fine tune' them some more & we'll know exactly what the climate will be like in 3008.  That is, to put it kindly, garbage.

We don't (and probably can't) know all the requisite equations & all the relevant variables for those equations, let alone their values (make that range of values).  The variable that represents man's impact on global warming is so dwarfed by all the other variables, known and unknown, as to be meaningless.

Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top

The variable that represents man's impact on global warming is so dwarfed by all the other variables,
End of quote

That is incorrect. Why is it that I am sitting here watching a panel of 5 former Sec. of States that range from the Nixon to Clinton admins that all have the same opinion. That it does exist, that it is a problem, and that the US should take the lead on the issue instead of sitting back and throwing up their hands? It amazes me how in step both reps and dems who are in the know are, yet there are still a bunch of folks who continue to pay homage to the rhetoric and lies of spinmasters and lobbyists.

Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top

No, it's not 'incorrect' - it is a fact and 100 former secretaries of state won't change it just because they 'believe.'.  That doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't conduct ourselves in an environmentally friendly manner, but the conceipt that doing so will solve the global warming dilemma is just that, a conceipt, which will only embolden the carbon-credit thieves intent on capitalizing on stoked, and unfounded, fears.

Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top

It amazes me how people take information that is used to modify the models used for climate change science and try to explain it off as disproving something when it in fact it doesnt do that.
End of quote

WHen using "The Exception Proves the rule" in science, it ceases to be science and becomes religion.  When facts are presented to refute the hypothesis, and the desciples use those same facts to claim (note not prove) that those facts prove their point, it becomes a religion.  WHich it pretty much is.