VRWC Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 If anyone thinks we understand Global Warming and what causes it, please read this. http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/02/num...egrated_ci.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 If anyone thinks we understand Global Warming and what causes it, please read this. http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/02/num...egrated_ci.html Good article that explains better than I ever could why I think global warming is bad science, regardless of whether it's actually happening or not. It's also a nice warning for exercising caution in federal funding of research, particularly in areas that lend themselves to open-ended funding (i.e. 30 or 40 years of "We'll see breakthroughs if we just study this more..." from researchers). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 Excellent find. I never even considered corrupt scientists as a "cause" of this current global warming panic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 Excellent find. I never even considered corrupt scientists as a "cause" of this current global warming panic. "Corrupt" is a bad exaggeration. "Biased" would be more accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 If anyone thinks we understand Global Warming and what causes it, please read this. http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/02/num...egrated_ci.html Just wondering, why would the President of a defense contractor for explosive detection devises take an interest? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 Excellent find. I never even considered corrupt scientists as a "cause" of this current global warming panic. And don't forget the panic about wide-scale nuclear war, aids, macro-economics, and the bird flu epidemic. Let's face it - in a chaotic universe, scientific modeling is worthless, will never produce anything usefull, and we shouldn't try. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 And don't forget the panic about wide-scale nuclear war, aids, macro-economics, and the bird flu epidemic. Let's face it - in a chaotic universe, scientific modeling is worthless, will never produce anything usefull, and we shouldn't try. Numerical modeling never produces anything useful on its own. Ever. A model, without an experimental basis, is intellectual masturbation. Which is the whole point of the article, if you'd bothered to read it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 Numerical modeling never produces anything useful on its own. Ever. A model, without an experimental basis, is intellectual masturbation. Which is the whole point of the article, if you'd bothered to read it. My mom caught me numerically modeling once.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 My mom caught me numerically modeling once.... That funny... Sorry I am letting you down in the number retirement business X... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 The ultra lefties have replaced the fear of nuclear war with the fear of global warming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 The ultra lefties have replaced the fear of nuclear war with the fear of global warming. Interesting comment. And the right has replaced the fear of atheist ideology with the fear of religious ideology? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 Rember the stories in the 80s (when the evil Reagan was president) about how nuclear war was right around the corner and we had to disarm right away or we'd all die. Kids were shown talking about how they were losing sleep over it. Well, there was an almost identical story the other day about global warming, but it was the evil Bush who is president. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 Interesting comment. And the right has replaced the fear of atheist ideology with the fear of religious ideology? Both sides depend on fear mongering to keep their base. The funny part is how ridiculous each seems to the other - and for good reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 Rember the stories in the 80s (when the evil Reagan was president) about how nuclear war was right around the corner and we had to disarm right away or we'd all die. Kids were shown talking about how they were losing sleep over it. Well, there was an almost identical story the other day about global warming, but it was the evil Bush who is president. Ummmm... isn't our entire defense strategy and most every major problem we're in right now (directly or peripherally) over disarming nukes and WMD? I'm just sayin'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 Both sides depend on fear mongering to keep their base. The funny part is how ridiculous each seems to the other - and for good reason. Now there is a relentless truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 If anyone thinks we understand Global Warming and what causes it, please read this. http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/02/num...egrated_ci.html The article's author is very obviously intelligent and well-informed. That said, he makes some implicit assumptions which which I'm uncomfortable: Funding pressures almost always cause scientists to overstate the effects of global warming Inaccuracies in predicting artificially-created "weather" on a small scale mean that predicting global climate is far more uncertain. It's easy to predict that an increase in the sun's brightness will result in a warmer earth. It's very difficult to predict whether the warmer sun will make it more or less likely for Omaha to receive rain in the first week of March. In other words, climate may be easier to predict than weather. We should wait around for better climate data before making any major investment decisions designed to curb global warming. With all due respect to Schmitt, we know that human activity has significantly increased the amount of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere. We don't yet know whether said change will result in no ecological damage, an outright catastrophe, or something in between. Nor do we know how much (or how little) time we might have to avert said catastrophe if in fact it's coming. If I told you that the berries you ate every morning may or may not produce severe long-term brain damage, would you wait until a double-blind medical study had been concluded before searching for alternatives? Why should we be prudent about protecting our own health on the one hand, and completely cavalier about protecting the entire Earth's ecosystem on the other? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 With all due respect to Schmitt, we know that human activity has significantly increased the amount of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere. We don't yet know whether said change will result in no ecological damage, an outright catastrophe, or something in between. Nor do we know how much (or how little) time we might have to avert said catastrophe if in fact it's coming. If I told you that the berries you ate every morning may or may not produce severe long-term brain damage, would you wait until a double-blind medical study had been concluded before searching for alternatives? Why should we be prudent about protecting our own health on the one hand, and completely cavalier about protecting the entire Earth's ecosystem on the other? And why it's irresistible to call you an idiot. No one has been disputing that human activity has led to increased CO2 levels, or other pollutants. What the argument is about is whether this "science" is pushing for unnecessary curbs on known technology and known impact to adopt potentially more harmful remedies. Unless the remedy for the growing world population to go back to living standards of 1940's, you have to have a reasonable balance of imposing emissions curbs and allowing industry to grow to provide the needs that people demand. You seem to have a bug up your arse about the automobile industry, yet are perfectly comfortable with replacing the entire electrical generating capacity of the US with nukular plants. I may want to continue eating the berries, especially if the likes of you tell me that apples will be better for my health. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 In other words, climate may be easier to predict than weather. That is actually a very intelligent and lucid distinction. Who made it for you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC-Bills Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 That is actually a very intelligent and lucid distinction. Who made it for you? I was playing on wikipedia again... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 just a brief aside...read any major paleoclimatological study done, and they almost exclusively say that we are in a warming trend now in relation to past climate. Theres a nice little cycle that repeats, containing roughly 90,000 years of cooling followed by 10,000 years of warming. A lot of studies seem to think we are nearing the end of the warming phase as well. **i can get the sources for these, because i know 1 moron, check that, poster, who will question the sources and claim they are wrong. The girlfriend has been doing a paleoclimatology paper, and theres over 20 books/papers sitting on our table at home. Sorry tho, no wikipedia link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts