climate models unreliable

uscitizen said:
Yeah we used to have no proof that polluting our water caused any problems.
After all as Dano said "A little Mercury never hurt anyone".
Same tune, different catastrophe looming.
Click to expand...
Apples and Oranges US. You can feed mercury to lab animals and see that it harms them and then extrapolate to humans. It is not always accurate but most of the time I would say it is. But with Global warming, the MODELS themselves are flawed. Mathematicians are backing away from the models. I am not saying that we do or we don't add to overall GW. But SHOW ME with models that have a high reliabilty to produce climates as they exist right now. The models that are being used right now can't recreate with any reliablity the climate as it exists right NOW. So how is it EVER going to predict the future changes in climates. Arguing with the Inconveniet Truthers is like arguing with someone about god. YOu point out that there is no real proof for god and they point to a fricken tree and tell me that is proof. You can't point to the fact that there has been an overall increase in global temperature and then tell me that is proof that WE HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH IT.
 
Socrtease said:
Apples and Oranges US. You can feed mercury to lab animals and see that it harms them and then extrapolate to humans. It is not always accurate but most of the time I would say it is. But with Global warming, the MODELS themselves are flawed. Mathematicians are backing away from the models. I am not saying that we do or we don't add to overall GW. But SHOW ME with models that have a high reliabilty to produce climates as they exist right now. The models that are being used right now can't recreate with any reliablity the climate as it exists right NOW. So how is it EVER going to predict the future changes in climates. Arguing with the Inconveniet Truthers is like arguing with someone about god. YOu point out that there is no real proof for god and they point to a fricken tree and tell me that is proof. You can't point to the fact that there has been an overall increase in global temperature and then tell me that is proof that WE HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH IT.
Click to expand...
But there ARE trees...

;)
 
Not like arguring about god.
God cannot be proven to exist at all, the fact that the global temp and sea level is rising can be proven.
As to all the causes of the rise...

I believe it is asinine to think that we are having zero effect on global warming.
 
In his analogy "God" is the "Cause". And because of "Consensus" rather than solid evidence we must follow.

When the "cause" cannot be proven, it takes faith to continue to believe.

If his view of global warming is correct, and the actual models used are basically worthless, then the reality is believing in any certain "cause" takes equal faith to believing in any specific origin hypothesis.
 
Damocles said:
In his analogy "God" is the "Cause". And because of "Consensus" rather than solid evidence we must follow.

When the "cause" cannot be proven, it takes faith to continue to believe.

If his view of global warming is correct, and the actual models used are basically worthless, then the reality is believing in any certain "cause" takes equal faith to believing in any specific origin hypothesis.
Click to expand...

A bit of comon sense is required as well Damo.
Yeah we dump trillions ? of tons of crap into the atmosphere annually but of course it has no impact on the climate, weather, etc...
 
As I always say, if people don't accept AGW, there is plenty to make the case for alternatives in terms of pollution alone, as well as national security.
 
Socrtease said:
The problem is as scientists begin to look at these models and see that they don't really prove anything and they can't possibly provide any evidence of what if any affect we are having on the climate. For the end of the worlders it has become THEIR Inconvienent Truth.
Click to expand...

exactly. Which is why we should quit wasting time, money and other resources trying to figure out how much humans are to "blame" and how much is attributable to natural events. We should instead focus on finding ways to reduce pollution because that is good for our health. We should find alternate energy sources because it is good for both the environment and our national security.

Take the intellectual property being wasted on the "whose to blame game" and invest that intelligence into solving the real problems rather than hypothectical problems.
 
Damocles said:
In his analogy "God" is the "Cause". And because of "Consensus" rather than solid evidence we must follow.

When the "cause" cannot be proven, it takes faith to continue to believe.

If his view of global warming is correct, and the actual models used are basically worthless, then the reality is believing in any certain "cause" takes equal faith to believing in any specific origin hypothesis.
Click to expand...
I knew someone would get it but I was hoping it might be someone that continues to criticize scientists that are backing away from AGW
 
Socrtease said:
Apples and Oranges US. You can feed mercury to lab animals and see that it harms them and then extrapolate to humans. It is not always accurate but most of the time I would say it is. But with Global warming, the MODELS themselves are flawed. Mathematicians are backing away from the models. I am not saying that we do or we don't add to overall GW. But SHOW ME with models that have a high reliabilty to produce climates as they exist right now. The models that are being used right now can't recreate with any reliablity the climate as it exists right NOW. So how is it EVER going to predict the future changes in climates. Arguing with the Inconveniet Truthers is like arguing with someone about god. YOu point out that there is no real proof for god and they point to a fricken tree and tell me that is proof. You can't point to the fact that there has been an overall increase in global temperature and then tell me that is proof that WE HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH IT.
Click to expand...


But a tree IS evidence of God.... the bible done told me so. :tongout:
 
uscitizen said:
Not like arguring about god.
God cannot be proven to exist at all, the fact that the global temp and sea level is rising can be proven.
As to all the causes of the rise...

I believe it is asinine to think that we are having zero effect on global warming.
Click to expand...

yes, but what HASN'T been shown is that man is the primary factor. While I agree it is idiotic to assume we are having zero effect, it is equally moronic to assume man is the primary cause of global warming based on inaccurate models.
 
Onceler said:
As I always say, if people don't accept AGW, there is plenty to make the case for alternatives in terms of pollution alone, as well as national security.
Click to expand...

agreed... so why are we wasting so much time, money and effort to prove whether man is a significant contributor or not? If we fight pollution and promote cleaner energy for health and security reasons.... will we not in the process also reduce/eliminate our effect on the environment should it exist?
 
uscitizen said:
A bit of comon sense is required as well Damo.
Yeah we dump trillions ? of tons of crap into the atmosphere annually but of course it has no impact on the climate, weather, etc...
Click to expand...
Which is why I say that there are plenty of good reasons regardless of warming to clean up our act. More like the "If god exists, living well might not be a bad idea, just in case." type of argument.

In fact there are better reasons, including the "War on Terror"... (Did you hear the music? 'Dum.. Dah.. Dum'..)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top