Quick! Everbody go out and start your cars,,,
POSTED BY: Hero
UPDATED: Monday, March 3, 2025 17:27
VIEWED: 12359
PAGE 5 of 10
Finn the war in Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11 Afghanistan did. There were no Al-Qaeda in Iraq, Saddam wouldn't allow it because it was a threat to his rule. Also there were no WMD's the UN inspectors said so as well as our own intelligence, European intelligence...etc. There was no justification for going to war, and I have said that since before we went. I am no an alarmist, I'm a realist. I can look out my windows and see Venus and then go hmmm... I wonder how Venus got to have so much pressure, I'll check the NASA website, oh greenhouse gasses created an environment that trapped hot air, man sounds like congress har har, Oh wait those gasses are the same we are pumping into our atmosphere...hmmm maybe we should stop, along with things like albedo, temperature readings, pictures of the ice sheets from the 70's and now, gaseous data observed from ice core readings comparative to today's atmospheric readings and some more big words I am sure you don't want to hear about because hey you're not an alarmist because you go with your gut and it's never happened before so it could never happen now. I guess that's why none of your points can be backed up to vetted and peer reviewed documentation or papers. The only actual debate about global warming in the scientific community of those people who study it for a living is whether or not we have passed the threshold or not and the data coming out from climate models isn't all that encouraging, or are those computers having a bias as well?
Here is that link I meant to send earlier
http://jinchi.blogspot.com/search/label/climate%20change
Also do you realize that the premise of firefly is based upon the human race outstripping the planet of it's resources and making it uninhabitable. "The ETW could no longer support us, we were so many..." eeks maybe Joss is an alarmist, you should send him some hate mail.
When there are no heroes where will we turn?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Quite frequently, as a matter of fact. The accuracy of GCM predictions are a major source of debate in the climate change science.
Originally posted by avengingwatcher:
or are those computers haiving a bias as well?
It occurs to me that someone even partially familiar with real climate science wouldn’t even propose the issue of whether there is bias in the computers models. There certainly is.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
But AvengingWatcher, he DOES have "proof" - the sand that he's got his head buried in is completely free of any signs of melting ice packs; ergo, the ice CAN NOT be melting.
What you have to realize when dealing with these types, is that they are (a) utterly delusional, believing in fairy tales and falderol, and (b) actually BELIEVE that the world is 6000 years old.
The other proof that global warming isn't real? Republicans haven't yet found a way to make it profitable for their cronies. Dig for the green in being green, and they'll be on board.
M
"Me want Kill-Dozer!!"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by avengingwatcher:
I guess that's why none of your points can be backed up to vetted and peer reviewed documentation or papers.
I can only assume your facts are peer reviewed by the 99% of scientists you mentioned earlier. Peer review is a joke when the reviewers agree with you on everything from politics to global warming.
Quote:
The only actual debate about global warming in the scientific community of those people who study it for a living is whether or not we have passed the threshold or not and the data coming out from climate models isn't all that encouraging, or are those computers having a bias as well?
How many variables do these models take into account. Bet it's not even a minute fraction of those in nature.
Seems like those that "study it for a living" might just be perpetuating their own jobs like good bureaucrats do.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
Peer review is a joke when the reviewers agree with you on everything...
Can I hold you to that, when you start quoting pro-war Bushies talking about how great the war is going?
Quote:
Seems like those that "study it for a living" might just be perpetuating their own jobs like good beaurocrates do.
Like the generals are doing in Iraq - keeping it going forever so they have kewl new toys to play with, right?
M
"Me want Kill-Dozer!!"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Part of the problem with the GCMs is that we don’t know how the climate works. It’s the whole garbage-in-garbage-out principle. People who aren’t familiar with climate science will often assume that because these prediction are being made by a computer that they must be right, but in fact, there is little reason to believe that, and no way to know it. Computer models agree with some parts of the climate, but not with others, and often we’ve found that the reason why they agree with some parts is because they have, effectively, been programmed to agree with certain things. Not intentionally, generally, but in the absence of a real understanding of the physics and chemistry behind the climate, we often end up using empirical databases, lookup tables and other types of data that inadvertently bias the results and a model that is created to predict a certain result, will generally predict that result regardless of actual physical mechanism behind it.
Originally posted by Kirkules:
Seems like those that "study it for a living" might just be perpetuating their own jobs like good beaurocrates do.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Damn, did someone clone me while I wasn't lookin ?
Kwicko, yer startin to scare me,I might have to knock you off due to territorial issues cause you're fleecin MY herd here....
And doin a rather bang-up job of it too.
*grumble*
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
SO is there any common ground here? Can we agree that using finite resources indiscriminately is a bad thing? Can we agree that looking at REAL alternatives for power is a good thing?
Anyone?
You are beholden to no man
http://worldofhiglet.blogspot.com/
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:Quote:Part of the problem with the GCMs is that we don’t know how the climate works. It’s the whole garbage-in-garbage-out principle. People who aren’t familiar with climate science will often assume that because these prediction are being made by a computer that they must be right, but in fact, there is little reason to believe that, and no way to know it. Computer models agree with some parts of the climate, but not with others, and often we’ve found that the reason why they agree with some parts is because they have, effectively, been programmed to agree with certain things. Not intentionally, generally, but in the absence of a real understanding of the physics and chemistry behind the climate, we often end up using empirical databases, lookup tables and other types of data that inadvertently bias the results and a model that is created to predict a certain result, will generally predict that result regardless of actual physical mechanism behind it.
Originally posted by Kirkules:
Seems like those that "study it for a living" might just be perpetuating their own jobs like good bureaucrat's do.
While I'm not convinced that "global warming" is man made, I do believe it is occurring. The data I have seen in documentaries(pro and con)and a few scientific papers I have seen does seem to show this. It does seem ridiculous to try and say that from accurate temperature data for a few hundred years you can tell us about things that occur in geologic time scales. The temperature rise wouldn't bother me if it wasn't for the fact that solar cycles would seem to indicate we should be cooling instead of warming. I have seen no evidence to lead me to believe that the man made component is significant. The most convincing evidence that it is not man made is the study of gases found in ice core samples from the Arctic. Those that say this is decided science either have a vested interest in it being true or their not real scientists.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by worldofhiglet:
SO is there any common ground here? Can we agree that using finite resources indiscriminately is a bad thing?
well.. do we know that oil is finite? there is some good debate going on about whether that assertion is even true or not. we dont even know what causes oil exactly.. so there is still some speculation regarding its availability. i am however of the opinion that the "peak oil theory" is globalist propaganda(towards centralized planning), but thats just my gut...
Quote:
Can we agree that looking at REAL alternatives for power is a good thing?
Anyone?
oh i dont think anyone would disagree with seeking alternative energy sources, especially if they operate more cleanly. what is in dispute is at what cost? the market should, and will decide, when alternative energies are viable, and it wont happen any sooner. that is, unless the government gets envolved, and artificially manipulates and micromanages our lives to try and force the progress.
that seems to be what most of the MM GW extremists advocate: direct regulation of our everyday lives and choices. its communist, its collectivist, its fascist, but more importantly its irrelevant! if you want to live freely, you will wait for capitalism and the free market to solve the problem. opposite that is a slippery slope to tyranny, this much should be obvious
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME