Another cynical assumption with little proof to back it up. Sure
scientists can be influenced--but are you suggesting that the thousands
around the world who know about global warming have all been paid off?
Or would take the money if offered in every case? That's ridiculous.
Nobody gets 'paid off'. The Process ensures that the available funds will
be spent on the research du jour. It also ensures that more and more
people will jump on the wagon, because they can get grants and keep their
BS, pure and simple. Doesn't happen--or, if it sdoea, it's in exbtremely
isolated cases like the tobacco fiasco. The "scientists" who found for
the companies were mostly employees of the companies. The implication
that all scientists are for sale is ridiculous. And who, exactly, is
paying them to find in favor of global warming? The international
Nice terminology, but the evidence I mentioned is established: the world
is getting warmer. You can argue causation, and I'll be with you on the
cyclic vs. human causation argument (although I suspect that there is no
dichotomy here), but please don't insinuate that there is no evidence.
Conclusions drawn for evidence are arguable, but the evidence is
And your point is? Computer modeling based on scientific evidence is an
extremely valuable tool. Your assumption that GIGO applies is just
Are you suggesting that every single scientist is motivated by the "rush
to publish?" That every one of the thousands of trained scientists who
support the idea of global warming are doing it for personal
advancement? If that's the case, then no scientist anywhere can be
trusted on any issue.
Sorry--that's short-term prediction of weather, as opposed to long-term
climate. They were wrong, of course, but that does not invalidate the
long-term evidence. As someone pointed out, ice cores reveal climate for
the past millions of years, and show a CO2 level that is unprecedented.
I'm hardly gullible, nor do I have my head in the sand as some people
seem to have. And you give not one single fact yourself.
There is NO scientific evidence at this point. Zero, zip, nada. Nothing but
an attempt at correlating cause and effect.
You obviously do not comprehend that to which you are replying.
Once again ... those who do not use establised "scienctific method", but
misuse "statistics" parading as "scientific method", and they abound on this
issue, do not deserve to be trusted.
Once again, there is NO long term evidence ... 70 years at best.
"Someone"? ... to the contrary, there is much geologic evidence that CO2
levels have been far higher in the planets history than at present.
LOL ... I don't need to. It is you, and the GW "opinionist" who are trying
to prove mankind induced GW, who must provide "facts".
We're still waiting ...
If the average temperature is rising, which it is over the period examined,
then it's warming. What's so difficult to comprehend? Don't even have to
debate over "what _is_ is," to figure this out.
Cause? Could be coincidence, could be the carbon. It's the only thing most
people will research, lest they fall afoul of the current religion. So far
we only have two rising.
Solution? Certainly not the crap from Kyoto, where some, like the two most
populous nations get to make gas without restriction, others must restrict.
That's plain stupid. Politically it's a club to use, but the club-wielding
caveman Algore is not about to suggest anything as unpopular as mandating
taking the bus and leaving the car at home, or making electricity
differently, or any of the other sure ways to drop emissions. You don't
blame the voters, lest ye die. Let "them" do it. The ones who can't vote
and will do anything to make a buck, and are therefore willing to comply.
Effect? When the models can predict the next day's weather, or even agree
between NOAA and the European model, I'll regard the "predictions" as more
than the hot air they predict.
Now go out and take some carbon out of the cycle and make it into furniture.
The tree you cut will make room for another to grow. Ooops, that's not PC
Correct, however the period examined has been picked. I pick the period
from March to August in the southern hemisphere. The result of those
temperatures shows global cooling.
Or take the period from the ice age until now. Global warming.
You can make any thing look the way you want it to with the right time frame
Models predictions are just that, predictions. My guess is usually closer
to what happens than what the predictions are.
Models called for a winter that was going to be warmer and wetter than
normal in SE Texas. When it started cooling off in August I said that it
would probably be colder this winter, one month before the September
prediction. Today we broke a 56 year "low" record. We have had a much
colder winter than in the last 10 years. It has also been wetter, a guess
that happened to be right by the models.
Hurricane number and intensity models for 2006 were slightly lower than the
actual occurrences in 2005 but higher than the 2005 models. The predictions
were changed 2 or 3 times after we were well into the season and had only
fulfilled about 15% of the predictions.
The weather bureau is basically clueless more than a few days out.
But it's nice.
Why should this whole debate be defined by a couple of dichotomies:
1. Global warming is. Global warming isn't.
2. If it is, it's the fault of human beings. No, it's a natural
1. It is--that's beyond doubt. Even the stupidest president in our
history got it through his wooden head.
2. Why should it be one or the other, separated by our political
convictions? It may be both, or maybe there are undiscovered causes.
I'll supply four:
a. The solar system in its journey around the center of the Milky Way
galaxy occasionally passes through clouds of gas and dust that block a
bit of the Sun's heat.
b. The Earth's orbit is not perfectly stable and occasionally becomes
more eccentric, i.e., a longer ellipse.
c. The Earth's poles don't maintain their 23.5 degree orientation to
the plane of the ecliptic.
d. Rec. Woodworking did not produce hot air until about 15 years ago.
Scientists have proposed the first three, but I'll go with (d)
As a sawdust producer, I'd like to agree on choice D, but the current
rational is to get a 'consensus'. You need more people on board with
this. And the question should read " Is choice D the answer?". And
the answer must surely be "yes".
As someone who makes his living using, in part, computer simulations I
can also tell you that one of the other things no one has touched on here
yet is the absolute uncertainty of the validity of the models being used. I
know how hard it is to validate results comparing a simulation with a test
when I have significant control over many (but not all) of the variables
going into that test. To be able to predict specifics of a test event with
certainty is a fool's errand. To come close statistically is possible, and
we work to narrow the uncertainty of those statistics, but that requires a
strong knowledge of the variables and interdependencies of those variables
in the tests. Now, compound the complexity by taking the fact that one has
absolutely no control over the variables going into weather tests and
further, the fact that we may not even *know* the dependencies or
interdependencies of many of the variables being simulated means that the
models may not even have all of the contributors to climate prediction
incorporated. What that gets you is a huge uncertainty region -- a model
that is predicting warming or cooling at a rate of tenths of a degree over
periods of years is nothing more than simulation noise in that instance.
In order for a skeptic like myself to believe that these people have
their models right, they are going to have to establish a track record.
Since they insist that this isn't about predicting weather, but climate,
that is going to take some time. I'm patient, I'll wait. Especially
before supporting implementation of draconian, economy-shaking legislation
based upon models with,thus far, no established credibility.
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.