Board index » Word on the Street... » News & Debate




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1605 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 81  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 18, 2005 7:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Yeah Yeah Yeah
 Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 4:53 am
Posts: 4470
Location: Knoxville, TN
Gender: Male
sleightofhandpj wrote:
Cartman wrote:
sleightofhandpj wrote:
I can definately see how this is in fact global warming. Especially when compared with the ocean temperature database with observations from the past 1000 years let alone all those numbers from billions of years ago.

:roll:


So we have absolutely ZERO effect on the earth. :roll:


Oh we absolutely do. I just don't see how "WE" are the only thing causing this. Natural order may very well be involved as well. Nothing is constant on this planet.


Yes. I don't think environmentalists have ever argued that natural causes aren't heating things up also. But it's our affect on the earth that is unnatural and what scientists are concerned with.


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 18, 2005 7:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar
The Man, The Myth
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 12:12 am
Posts: 1080
Location: boulder
sleightofhandpj wrote:
I can definately see how this is in fact global warming. Especially when compared with the ocean temperature database with observations from the past 1000 years let alone all those numbers from billions of years ago.

:roll:


Yes, all those numbers from billions of years like, like zeros and twos and sevens. That was a very scientific refute of the article. I don't know about anyone else but I have just changed my mind, global warming is a farce!

It's amazing how so many people believe they understand the issue better than the scientists that work on them. Or believe they've thought of things that scientists have neglected to account for (Nick, I'm looking your way). I can't think of another issue that has such a large number of scientists analyzing it as this one - hundreds, if not thousands, spanning many countries - and yet Joe Schmoe can see right through their work and analysis.

_________________
"my fading voice sings, of love..."


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 18, 2005 7:48 pm 
Offline
Force of Nature
 Profile

Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 2:43 am
Posts: 870
Location: We chase misprinted lies.....
Cartman wrote:
sleightofhandpj wrote:
Cartman wrote:
sleightofhandpj wrote:
I can definately see how this is in fact global warming. Especially when compared with the ocean temperature database with observations from the past 1000 years let alone all those numbers from billions of years ago.

:roll:


So we have absolutely ZERO effect on the earth. :roll:


Oh we absolutely do. I just don't see how "WE" are the only thing causing this. Natural order may very well be involved as well. Nothing is constant on this planet.


Yes. I don't think environmentalists have ever argued that natural causes aren't heating things up also. But it's our affect on the earth that is unnatural and what scientists are concerned with.


I'm all for some population control to help curb the problem! :lol:

_________________
“If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain.” - Winston Churchill


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 18, 2005 7:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Yeah Yeah Yeah
 Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 4:53 am
Posts: 4470
Location: Knoxville, TN
Gender: Male
stonecrest wrote:
sleightofhandpj wrote:
I can definately see how this is in fact global warming. Especially when compared with the ocean temperature database with observations from the past 1000 years let alone all those numbers from billions of years ago.

:roll:


Yes, all those numbers from billions of years like, like zeros and twos and sevens. That was a very scientific refute of the article. I don't know about anyone else but I have just changed my mind, global warming is a farce!

It's amazing how so many people believe they understand the issue better than the scientists that work on them. Or believe they've thought of things that scientists have neglected to account for (Nick, I'm looking your way). I can't think of another issue that has such a large number of scientists analyzing it as this one - hundreds, if not thousands, spanning many countries - and yet Joe Schmoe can see right through their work and analysis.


This has baffled me as well.


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 18, 2005 9:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Of Counsel
 Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:14 am
Posts: 37778
Location: OmaGOD!!!
Gender: Male
Cartman wrote:
stonecrest wrote:
sleightofhandpj wrote:
I can definately see how this is in fact global warming. Especially when compared with the ocean temperature database with observations from the past 1000 years let alone all those numbers from billions of years ago.

:roll:


Yes, all those numbers from billions of years like, like zeros and twos and sevens. That was a very scientific refute of the article. I don't know about anyone else but I have just changed my mind, global warming is a farce!

It's amazing how so many people believe they understand the issue better than the scientists that work on them. Or believe they've thought of things that scientists have neglected to account for (Nick, I'm looking your way). I can't think of another issue that has such a large number of scientists analyzing it as this one - hundreds, if not thousands, spanning many countries - and yet Joe Schmoe can see right through their work and analysis.


This has baffled me as well.


Why would it baffle you? If your local preacher knows more about the origins of life than biologists and geologists, then why shouldn't the average Joe Schmuck know more about global climate change than legions of scientists from all over the world?

Oh yeah, the scientists have "an agenda" because if there is no global warming, then they're out of a job. :roll:

--PunkDavid

_________________
Unfortunately, at the Dawning of the Age of Aquarius, the Flower Children jerked off and went back to sleep.


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 18, 2005 9:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar
too drunk to moderate properly
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:19 pm
Posts: 39068
Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA
Gender: Male
Global warming is real? Didn't we know that in 1981? Is it Retro Day here on RM?

_________________
"Though some may think there should be a separation between art/music and politics, it should be reinforced that art can be a form of nonviolent protest." - e.v.


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 18, 2005 9:49 pm 
Offline
Yeah Yeah Yeah
 Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 12:25 pm
Posts: 3567
Location: Swingin from the Gallows Pole
punkdavid wrote:
Oh yeah, the scientists have "an agenda" because if there is no global warming, then they're out of a job. :roll:

--PunkDavid


That's like saying now that Bush signed a bill curbing class action suits that lawyers will be out of a job.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Scientists: Global Warming is real
PostPosted: Sun Feb 20, 2005 6:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Got Some
 Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 3:47 pm
Posts: 2932
glorified_version wrote:
There's been some interesting debate on this forum recently about global warming and its effects and whether or not it all has any validity. I haven't really taken sides although I lean towards the Global Warming theory being real and a great concern. This is from today's CNN.com:

Scientists: Global warming is real

Friday, February 18, 2005 Posted: 4:59 AM EST (0959 GMT)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- Studies looking at the oceans and melting Arctic ice leave no room for doubt that it is getting warmer, people are to blame, and the weather is going to suffer, climate experts have said.

New computer models that look at ocean temperatures instead of the atmosphere show the clearest signal yet that global warming is well under way, Tim Barnett of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography said.

Speaking at an annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Barnett said climate models based on air temperatures are weak because most of the evidence for global warming is not even there.

"The real place to look is in the ocean," Barnett told a news conference.

His team used millions of temperature readings made by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to calculate steady ocean warming.

"The debate over whether or not there is a global warming signal is now over, at least for rational people," he said.

The report was published one day after the United Nations Kyoto Protocol took effect, a 141-nation environmental pact the United States government has spurned for several reasons, including stated doubts about whether global warming is occurring and is caused by people.

Barnett urged U.S. officials to reconsider.

"Could a climate system simply do this on its own? The answer is clearly no," Barnett said.

His team used U.S. government models of solar warming and volcanic warming, just to see if they could account for the measurements they made. "Not a chance," he said.

And the effects will be felt far and wide. "Anywhere that the major water source is fed by snow ... or glacial melt," he said.

"The debate is what are we going to do about it."

Other researchers found clear effects on climate and animals.

Ruth Curry of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution found that melting ice was changing the water cycle, which in turn affects ocean currents and, ultimately, climate.

"As the Earth warms, its water cycle is changing, being pushed out of kilter," she said.

"Ice is in decline everywhere on the planet."

A circulation system called the Ocean Conveyer Belt is in danger of shutting down, she said.

The last time that happened, northern Europe suffered extremely cold winters.

She said the changes were already causing droughts in the U.S. west.

Greenland's ice cap, which contains enough ice to raise sea levels globally by 23 feet (7 meters), is starting to melt and could collapse suddenly, Curry said.

Already freshwater is percolating down, lubricating the base and making it more unstable.

Sharon Smith of the University of Miami found melting Arctic ice was taking with it algae that formed an important base of the food supply for a range of animals.

And the disappearing ice shelves meant big animals such as walruses, polar bears and seals were losing their homes.

"In 1997 there was a mass die-off of a bird called the short-tailed shearwater in the Bering Sea," Smith told the news conference.

The birds, which migrate from Australia, starved to death for several years running when warmer waters caused a plankton called a coccolithophore to bloom in huge numbers, turning the water an opaque turquoise color.

"The short-tailed shearwater couldn't see its prey," Smith said.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/02 ... index.html


This article is laughable, quite frankly (was it written by a 5th grader?).
Typical enviro-propaganda on a propaganda friendly site.

There are a few points that jump out, even to a lay person like myself.
Ol' Tim says: "climate models based on air temperatures are weak because most of the evidence for global warming is not even there."

The fact that this didn't raise any eyebrows with you folks is kind of pathetic. These are the models you global warming alarmists have been using the past 10 years. Tim says there's no evidence there.

Now we're suppose to believe his new models, which rational science will debunk in no time (coming soon to this thread, I promise).

Ol' Ruth says "Ice is in decline everywhere on the planet."
Simply not true. The Anarctic shelf is growing.

Ol' Ruth says " changes were already causing droughts in the U.S. west."
Nevada's having it's wettest winter in 70 years(wonder what's causing that?).

And then Ruth makes the hysterical claim that the Greenland Ice cap could suddenly collapse. Oh...my...god.

It was only 30 years ago that the cover of Newsweek warned of an imminent ice age (it was all "good science" of course)...now you folks will have us believe we're headed for doom because the planet's heatin' up, baby.

Get a grip, people.

_________________
For your sake
I hope heaven and hell
are really there
but I wouldn't hold my breath


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Scientists: Global Warming is real
PostPosted: Mon Feb 21, 2005 12:36 am 
Offline
User avatar
Spaceman
 Profile

Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 1:03 am
Posts: 24177
Location: Australia
Man in Black wrote:
Ol' Ruth says "Ice is in decline everywhere on the planet."
Simply not true. The Anarctic shelf is growing.

Then supply us with proof. Do you have any peer reviewed scientific literature to support that claim? Does it say this means global warming is not happening? Where are the findings to support your claim?
Man in Black wrote:
Ol' Ruth says " changes were already causing droughts in the U.S. west."
Nevada's having it's wettest winter in 70 years(wonder what's causing that?).

Cilmate change goes both ways. Extreme weather patterns such as say, I don't know, Nevada's having it's wettest winter in 70 years, is a prime example of this.
Man in Black wrote:
It was only 30 years ago that the cover of Newsweek warned of an imminent ice age (it was all "good science" of course)...now you folks will have us believe we're headed for doom because the planet's heatin' up, baby.

Newsweek. Sounds like a peer reviewed journal to me :arrow:
So are you saying that because scientists don't get it right 100% of the time (and they damn well should, what are they, human?:roll:) then we shouldn't believe them this time?
Man in Black wrote:
Get a grip, people.
Maybe you should take your own advice on that last point there.

_________________
Oh, the flowers of indulgence and the weeds of yesteryear,
Like criminals, they have choked the breath of conscience and good cheer.
The sun beat down upon the steps of time to light the way
To ease the pain of idleness and the memory of decay.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Scientists: Global Warming is real
PostPosted: Mon Feb 21, 2005 12:55 am 
Offline
User avatar
Got Some
 Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 3:47 pm
Posts: 2932
Vacate, obviously you didn't take my advice from the other day.

The info on the antarctic ice shelf is out there. Why don't you research it for yourself?

Your statement"Cilmate[sic] change goes both ways. Extreme weather patterns such as say, I don't know, Nevada's having it's wettest winter in 70 years, is a prime example of this." is about the most cliched, tired, overused excuse on the entire internet. Every time weather patterns refute the global warming theory, someone trots out that statement. I know you've read it a million times, I'm also quite sure you have absolutely no idea whether it's true or not.

Since you seem to be in an argumentive mood, perhaps you like to argue this point:

Quote:
There are a few points that jump out, even to a lay person like myself.
Ol' Tim says: "climate models based on air temperatures are weak because most of the evidence for global warming is not even there."

The fact that this didn't raise any eyebrows with you folks is kind of pathetic. These are the models you global warming alarmists have been using the past 10 years. Tim says there's no evidence there.

_________________
For your sake
I hope heaven and hell
are really there
but I wouldn't hold my breath


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 28, 2005 3:00 am 
Offline
User avatar
Got Some
 Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 3:47 pm
Posts: 2932
From Fred Singer, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Science at the University of Virginia:

Even assuming that Barnett's data are accurate and that the models have not been "tweaked" to produce agreement, there is a lot wrong here:

1. Nowhere is there any real support for an anthropogenic greenhouse effect (AGH). It's simply a statement thrown out after Barnett claims to have taken care of natural climate forcing, such as solar and volcanic. This is nonsense. We don't know the solar contribution well enough (see IPCC 2001 report), and the volcanic effect is short-lived compared to the timescale of Deep Ocean warming.

2. Barnett completely ignores the atmospheric AGH effect; but to account for ocean GH warming, the energy must come from the atmosphere. But the satellite and balloon data of the past 25 years don't show any appreciable warming.

As reported, Barnett then made this strange claim:
Speaking at an annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Barnett said climate models based on air temperatures are weak because most of the evidence for global warming is not even there. "The real place to look is in the ocean," Barnett told a news conference in Washington, DC."

3. Nowhere does Barnett mention the time factor. It takes years or decades for any surface trend to show itself in the deep ocean. But when we consult an earlier paper of his [Science 2001] that used the same basic data, we can see a cooling trend in the deep ocean between 1976 and 1985. He gives no explanation for this and his models don't show it. [Note: There was a strong warming of the atmosphere and sea surface between 1976 and 1980.]

I am curious to see if this paper is published with its conclusions intact.

Dr. Singer makes a very powerful, very simple point here, can anyone pick it up?

_________________
For your sake
I hope heaven and hell
are really there
but I wouldn't hold my breath


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 22, 2005 9:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar
The Man, The Myth
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 12:12 am
Posts: 1080
Location: boulder
A lengthy article about how ExxonMobile has been spending huge amounts of money on getting the public to become skeptical about global warming.

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature ... t_hot.html

And for those who want the summary version...

Quote:
In 1998, the American Petroleum Institute outlined a strategy to sow the seeds of doubt about global-warming science "with Congress, the media, and other key audiences." "Victory will be achieved," read an API memo, "when ... recognition of uncertainty becomes part of the 'conventional wisdom.'" Since then, ExxonMobil -- one of API's leading members -- has been working valiantly in pursuit of that strategy, even as other oil, energy, and car companies bow out in the face of overwhelming scientific consensus or public pressure. From 2000 to 2003, Exxon funneled more than $8 million into a network of think tanks, quasi-journalistic media outlets, and civic and religious groups, to great effect. While peer-reviewed scientific journals contain virtually nothing that challenges the consensus on anthropogenic global warming, a flood of "reports," press releases, and op-ed columns has succeeded in creating the illusion of scientific controversy, seized on by sympathetic lawmakers like Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), who calls global warming a "hoax" and also receives buckets of money from Exxon.

_________________
"my fading voice sings, of love..."


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 22, 2005 10:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Of Counsel
 Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:14 am
Posts: 37778
Location: OmaGOD!!!
Gender: Male
stonecrest wrote:
A lengthy article about how ExxonMobile has been spending huge amounts of money on getting the public to become skeptical about global warming.

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature ... t_hot.html

And for those who want the summary version...

Quote:
In 1998, the American Petroleum Institute outlined a strategy to sow the seeds of doubt about global-warming science "with Congress, the media, and other key audiences." "Victory will be achieved," read an API memo, "when ... recognition of uncertainty becomes part of the 'conventional wisdom.'" Since then, ExxonMobil -- one of API's leading members -- has been working valiantly in pursuit of that strategy, even as other oil, energy, and car companies bow out in the face of overwhelming scientific consensus or public pressure. From 2000 to 2003, Exxon funneled more than $8 million into a network of think tanks, quasi-journalistic media outlets, and civic and religious groups, to great effect. While peer-reviewed scientific journals contain virtually nothing that challenges the consensus on anthropogenic global warming, a flood of "reports," press releases, and op-ed columns has succeeded in creating the illusion of scientific controversy, seized on by sympathetic lawmakers like Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), who calls global warming a "hoax" and also receives buckets of money from Exxon.

This is exactly what big tobacco did for forty years, and what the religious right is doing regarding creationism.

_________________
Unfortunately, at the Dawning of the Age of Aquarius, the Flower Children jerked off and went back to sleep.


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 22, 2005 10:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar
The Man, The Myth
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 12:12 am
Posts: 1080
Location: boulder
punkdavid wrote:
This is exactly what big tobacco did for forty years, and what the religious right is doing regarding creationism.

That is true.

Here's my favorite part of the article:
Quote:
Mother Jones has tallied some 40 ExxonMobil-funded organizations that either have sought to undermine mainstream scientific findings on global climate change or have maintained affiliations with a small group of “skeptic” scientists who continue to do so. Beyond think tanks, the count also includes quasi-journalistic outlets like Tech CentralStation.com (a website providing “news, analysis, research, and commentary” that received $95,000 from ExxonMobil in 2003), a FoxNews.com columnist, and even religious and civil rights groups.


Good ol' Fox News :lol:

_________________
"my fading voice sings, of love..."


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Apr 23, 2005 12:33 am 
Offline
User avatar
Spaceman
 Profile

Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 1:03 am
Posts: 24177
Location: Australia
stonecrest wrote:
Quote:
In 1998, the American Petroleum Institute outlined a strategy to sow the seeds of doubt about global-warming science "with Congress, the media, and other key audiences." "Victory will be achieved," read an API memo, "when ... recognition of uncertainty becomes part of the 'conventional wisdom.'" Since then, ExxonMobil -- one of API's leading members -- has been working valiantly in pursuit of that strategy, even as other oil, energy, and car companies bow out in the face of overwhelming scientific consensus or public pressure. From 2000 to 2003, Exxon funneled more than $8 million into a network of think tanks, quasi-journalistic media outlets, and civic and religious groups, to great effect. While peer-reviewed scientific journals contain virtually nothing that challenges the consensus on anthropogenic global warming, a flood of "reports," press releases, and op-ed columns has succeeded in creating the illusion of scientific controversy, seized on by sympathetic lawmakers like Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), who calls global warming a "hoax" and also receives buckets of money from Exxon.

George Orwell wrote:
WAR IS PEACE

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

_________________
Oh, the flowers of indulgence and the weeds of yesteryear,
Like criminals, they have choked the breath of conscience and good cheer.
The sun beat down upon the steps of time to light the way
To ease the pain of idleness and the memory of decay.


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Apr 23, 2005 8:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Got Some
 Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 3:47 pm
Posts: 2932
Quote:
Notwithstanding some role for natural variability, human-created greenhouse gas emissions could, if left unchecked, ramp up global average temperatures by as much as 5.8 degrees Celsius (or 10.4 degrees Fahrenheit) by the year 2100. “Consensus as strong as the one that has developed around this topic is rare in science,” wrote Science Editor-in-Chief Donald Kennedy in a 2001 editorial.


This is an absolutely hysterical paragraph and should immediately suggest to anyone who reads it that this article is alarmist propaganda.

Speaking of the general public, what most people don't understand is that claims(such as this one) which suggest imminent catastrophic warming are all based on computer models. The accuracy and dependability of these models have thus far proven to be, well, less than stellar; they have been rather poor in predicting real atmospheric temperatures(could the problem be that the source code is written by humans?).

I'm wondering, by show of hands, how many of you GW alarmists knew that all these dire predictions are based on computer modeling, rather than actual temperature readings?

_________________
For your sake
I hope heaven and hell
are really there
but I wouldn't hold my breath


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Apr 23, 2005 8:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Of Counsel
 Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:14 am
Posts: 37778
Location: OmaGOD!!!
Gender: Male
Man in Black wrote:
Quote:
Notwithstanding some role for natural variability, human-created greenhouse gas emissions could, if left unchecked, ramp up global average temperatures by as much as 5.8 degrees Celsius (or 10.4 degrees Fahrenheit) by the year 2100. “Consensus as strong as the one that has developed around this topic is rare in science,” wrote Science Editor-in-Chief Donald Kennedy in a 2001 editorial.


This is an absolutely hysterical paragraph and should immediately suggest to anyone who reads it that this article is alarmist propaganda.

Speaking of the general public, what most people don't understand is that claims(such as this one) which suggest imminent catastrophic warming are all based on computer models. The accuracy and dependability of these models have thus far proven to be, well, less than stellar; they have been rather poor in predicting real atmospheric temperatures(could the problem be that the source code is written by humans?).

I'm wondering, by show of hands, how many of you GW alarmists knew that all these dire predictions are based on computer modeling, rather than actual temperature readings?

But what is the data that goes into the computer models? I bet you anything that it is actual temperature readings, and then the computer extrapolates those to get its results. Whether the model is accurate or not is another question, but you can't say that it is all "just computer generated".

_________________
Unfortunately, at the Dawning of the Age of Aquarius, the Flower Children jerked off and went back to sleep.


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Apr 23, 2005 8:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Got Some
 Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 12:35 am
Posts: 1311
Location: Lexington
According to the data I have found in the last century the average temperature of the earth increased 1.8 degrees. Now, assuming of course that we had the fahrenhiet and celsius scales worked out precisely when most people lacked telephones, electricity, and indoor plumbing, the rise is entirely unremarkable. Furthermore, we are technically still in an ice age.

I am tired of people using the politics of fear. Conservatives now latch onto global terrorism, Liberals love global warming. Why must everything be on a global scale to be a concern?

_________________
punkdavid wrote:
Make sure to bring a bottle of vitriol. And wear a condom so you don't insinuate her.

--PunkDavid


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Apr 23, 2005 8:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar
The Man, The Myth
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 12:12 am
Posts: 1080
Location: boulder
Man in Black wrote:
I'm wondering, by show of hands, how many of you GW alarmists knew that all these dire predictions are based on computer modeling, rather than actual temperature readings?

Considering there is no method of obtaining actual temperature readings for the future, I'm pretty sure everyone is well aware that these are modeling predictions. But thanks for stating the obvious.

_________________
"my fading voice sings, of love..."


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Apr 23, 2005 9:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Got Some
 Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 3:47 pm
Posts: 2932
stonecrest wrote:
Man in Black wrote:
I'm wondering, by show of hands, how many of you GW alarmists knew that all these dire predictions are based on computer modeling, rather than actual temperature readings?

Considering there is no method of obtaining actual temperature readings for the future, I'm pretty sure everyone is well aware that these are modeling predictions. But thanks for stating the obvious.


It would seem that you're raising your hand?

Perhaps then, you like to comment on the rather miserable performance of said models thus far?

_________________
For your sake
I hope heaven and hell
are really there
but I wouldn't hold my breath


Top
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1605 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 81  Next

Board index » Word on the Street... » News & Debate


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
It is currently Fri Mar 29, 2024 3:34 pm