Al Gore's Electricity Plan 100% Renewable in 10 Yrs.

Nero doesn't need any stinking "consensus" of scientists to tell him whether global warming is occurring and humans are contributing to it. He has a "functional memory" and he surveyed his small group of associates and they assured him that it's no hotter now than it was in 2000 and that they personally haven't done anything that would heat things up.

This is known as the Winger Method and it's far superior to the "Scientific Method". Using the Winger Method, Nero has been able to prove that people were far sicker of Clinton, than they are of Bush. It's almost like magic.

 

Whenever you do this kind of posting, I must admit that I laugh. Maybe it's the word "winger". It just sounds funny.

 

You have an apt nom de plume.

 

Terrible analogies. If that is the best you can come up with, then all you are doing is supporting the notion that very verifiable and quantifiable problems are more worthy of our attention and our money.

You can call me names all you want, it doesn't bother me. But you yourself ought to be asking your modelers why the temperature hasn't risen since 98, and in fact may have cooled. Since the models didn't predict that happening, just an eyeblink away from the predictions themselves, how can you possibly expect any serious person to take the models as more than wild supposition regarding events centuries in the future?

Come on.. Hurricanes? Why would you suggest we apply that same standard to *everything*? Why not apply it to global warming, since we have the technology to watch a hurricane move every inch it moves, and can measure and constantly update *CHANGING* predictions based on constantly changing data. Worst 'analogy' you could have thought of. Drano? You think it would not be possible to confirm the toxicity of drano? You think there's no proof that it's poisonous? Now most 'carcinogens' I'll give you, as there is very little correlation between feeding a mouse 1000X the dose any person would ever get and then claiming it 'contains a substance known to the State of California to cause cancer'. That is all about opening doors for lawsuit abuse. Yay California.

Anyway, I don't think every single person who has come up with computer models has some ulterior motive. But you are being naive if you think that it is all pure as the fresh-driven snow.

You seem to think it's all-or-nothing, either a person buys into the hype 100%, or else they are closed-minded and dedicated to the status quo. Reality is different than that though. There are too many more-important issues in the word today to blindly dedicate so much of our resources to something that is still so shaky.

And let's be clear: I do not doubt that the world is 'changing'.. Point of fact, there has never been a time in the Earth's history that it has NOT been 'changing'. It has changed countless times over the last 4 billion years and it will continue to do so long after we are all forgotten. The fact that we are now simply able to perceive this change better than we could 50 years ago in no way necessarily implies that Mankind is suddenly the cause of this change. It's most likely just the Earth doing what the Earth has always done and always will do. You confuse the fact of 'change' with the naive assumption that 'we' are to 'blame' for this 'change'.

And if that is indeed all it is, then dedicating resources to trying to 'stop' it would be the 'r****ded' thing, to borrow your word. To demand policy without sound scientific proof is asinine, and smacks of ulterior motive.

You think a ton of data and some computer models constitute strong enough reason to determine such wide-ranging and far-reaching policy? Fine, let's make it easy for them. Let's see them predict - accurately, mind you - the temperature in ten years. Heck, make it five years. Shoot, one year even. I would even be happy if they could do it for next week.

They can't.

And if they can't do that, then what kind of fool takes these things at face value when talking about time periods decades and centuries away?

I am not saying 'stop researching'. I am not saying 'stop modeling', or stop looking for the proof they need to have. I am just saying that it is too important an issue to just say 'Argument is over! Shut up! You're stupid!' and then demand that our lives all change. The questions remain unsettled. And until they ARE settled, all I am saying is, 'Patience. Deal with more pressing issues first.'

Yeah, I'm the devil I guess. LOL

 

Yeah it was pretty funny. Good job Giff.

 

if he, and many others, stopped saying that then they could never post again.

 

I quit reading here.

From NASA:



From NOAA:

 

Gee, you can post things from the internets.

I already posted something as well, which showed a mean surface temperature DROP since 2001. But, it's precious that 'you stopped reading right there', and that attitude is exactly why so many people think 'the debate is settled'.

It's not.

Hansen was peer-reviewed, was it not? And that hasn't been right yet, so to automatically dismiss data because it has not been 'peer-reviewed' is extremely arrogant.

So, ok. We disagree. I get it. You have a desperate desire to believe that 'we' are 'causing' 'global warming'. You have a strong need to believe that there is no more room for debate. I get that.

I just have a strong desire for the decision-makers to make the RIGHT decisions, and hey can't do that YET.

 

You apparently still don't understand the realtionship between theory, data, and model.

I didn't.

hahahaha I remember reading that gem. Please don't quote misleading and fundamentally flawed "winger" newscasts as worthy of scientific merit. Or my time - which is already being wasted enough.

Serious person? Like you? Pardon me while I laugh.

Because they are based on the exact same scientific foundation. Duh.

Amazing. We are. We do "measure and constantly update *CHANGING* predictions based on constantly changing data" for global warming. How astute of you to (unintentionally) point that out. After I already did. Hmmm. I don't think you grasped the point of these analogies.

You must be right. Theories explaining the natural mechanics that cause hurricanes to take certain paths are in no way modeled and studied like climate change. I mean, the scientific method only applies when it's conveniant for people to get out of the way of big storms.

Dose-response my good man. Not the same thing. Look it up. (although, I submit that Drano is a bad example.) Most of said curves are based on minimal (if any) data. The data they do have is usually from studies on mice...

Ummm ok.

I did not say that. You said the models were all but worthless since they were not 100% accurate. I said that's... well... stupid.

Like what? Since global warming is occurring concurrently with rampant pollution - how is is not affecting every one of these other issues. Or just more important, period? (Interesting side note, your bizarre use of mosquito control in a previous post is rather ironic, given that mosquito populations nd infectious diseases are spreading thanks to... global warming. I'd link you to data - but no doubt it's not 100% irrefutable proof so you won't acknowledge it. Bummer.)

Holy ****! This new finding of yours changes everything!

Ice core data might actually imply that the rise of human civilization averted an ice age. Regardless, it's good of you to use the word "necessarily" as the point is not that natural effects may not be at work as well - but that human activity is majorly exacerbating the situtation. In the case of CO2 emissions, the idea that humans are not directly causing the huge rate of change since the industrial revolution is, frankly, ridiculous.

Of course, CO2 has never risen at this rate ever before, and has not been this high in 650,000 years.

Yeah. Because in reality we all want people back in caves!

Yes.

Your martyrdom is duly noted. Well, it's been fun Nero, but I have work to do. I am presently building a computer model, of all things. It's based on thermodynamic theory. Theory collaborated and refined with tons of data. This model is not perfectly accurate, but we build them all the time to aid in the design of complex machinery and process systems. Of course, thanks to your enlightening views on whether or not any output from this model should be believed given our lack of 100% perfect proof and the fact that the "world is changing" I'm thinking maybe we should just can this activity.

Of course, a failure to trust in our scientific rigor like this in the past would have probably resulted in us still living in caves - poignant, no?

 

Ok. you just lost the argument, as far as I am concerned.

 

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24036736-7583,00.html

 

Back in this hemisphere: Global Warming causes too many kittens

http://www.thestar.com/article/190006

 

Oh, Wes, Wes, Wes...

Don't you know the argument is already settled?

I mean, it's fun to poke sticks into the automatic-talking-points-repeating machines and all, but the poor things are beyond reason now it seems.

We just have to hope that the voters keep their eyes open enough to avoid this scam when it comes time to ante up.

And that quote by Keynes - priceless. Gotta love brilliant men.

 

I just had to come back and admire the sounds of all the crickets chirping in the silence.

 

The sound is enhanced after bouncing off the hollow walls of your argument.

 

Would you like me to refute? It's easy.

Anyone up to date in this arena (not you) knows this for the nonsense it is.

 

Uh huh.

 

Hey, don't bothering refuting me. I am small potatoes.

Go ahead and refute Dr. David Evans.

That ought to be good for a few yuks.

 

You mean THE Dr. David Evans? The Australian Electrical Engineer who once claimed he was a "Top Rocket Scientist?" This is how he justified that resume enhancer:

This Dr. David Evans?

The Dr. David Evans whose only claim to anything remotely close to Climate Change research was developing a computer model to track carbon emissions for the Australian government and whose new projects include creating a program that analyzes Australian gold stocks?

http://www.sciencespeak.com/

I think you are wrong to ask people to refute him. Debunk is the much better word and it's already been done several times, including here:

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/07/the_australians_war_on_science_16.php

Yuk. Yuk.

 

Wow, you found a couple of global warming alarmist blogger websites who have 'debunked' the guy. Wow, the only thing more surprising than that is the fact that the sun came up this morning.

Your first page doesn't even deny that they are not bothering to refute his arguments, but rather solely attempting to denigrate the person himself.

Well, whatever, you'd best hurry and email the guy and let him know that you have declared him 'debunked', so he can be an alarmist again.