Al Gore... I want my money back!

[Blackjack200]

That only one here that looks like a jackass is you.

You have been proven wrong several times here and all you can do is resort to name calling.

You're out of your league Donnie, and you'll end up embarassing us all with a spectacular display of ignorance. Just back up slowly and leave the thread.

 

[spacejamz]

You're out of your league Donnie, and you'll end up embarassing us all with a spectacular display of ignorance. Just back up slowly and leave the thread.

Just keep lashing out...It is probably healthier than keeping it inside you.

You have already embarrassed yourself enough with your display of ignorance here and you should really stop...but if you want to continue, be my guest...I don't think I am the only one getting amusement at your juvenile retorts...

 

[Blackjack200]

Just keep lashing out...It is probably healthier than keeping it inside you.

You have already embarrassed yourself enough with your display of ignorance here and you should really stop...but if you want to continue, be my guest...I don't think I am the only one getting amusement at your juvenile retorts...

Do you have anything to add to the discussion about Dr. Latif, Tsonis, the referenced article, study, AGW, science, or anything that's been discussed in this thread, or did you just come here to demonstrate that it's possible to be dumber than a sign post?

 

[Munky]

Lol, Tsonis has said repeatedly that he believes in AGW. Go on, keep making a bigger jackass out of yourself.

Did he now? Did he say we are headed for doom and gloom because of human-induced warming? Did he say the computer models can accurately predict it, and the science is settled? Go back to kindergarten, dipshit, and learn to read before spewing garbage.

 

[ayabe]

Well I'm going to take a different tact with this.

GoPackGo feels that perhaps scientists in general and climate scientists in particular rely too heavily upon computer models to reach their conclusions.

What we're talking about here is high-level statistics, almost all of which is done with computers nowadays. We use statistics to make predictions based on available data or to see patterns in data, draw inferences from data, etc.

It's not an exact science, it never will be, but it's best method we currently have for making predictions for all kinds of things that aren't tangible or things that cannot be practically measured to an exacting degree.

Statistics are used in every major industry and every scientific field, Exxon uses it to estimate sizes of oil wells for instance - and amazingly they revise their estimates up or down based on the latest data - climate science really isn't any different.

So it should come as a shock to no one that models are tweaked or predictions can change based on updated data - but what hasn't changed is the consensus that we are changing our climate.

 

[Blackjack200]

Did he now? Did he say we are headed for doom and gloom because of human-induced warming? Did he say the computer models can accurately predict it, and the science is settled? Go back to kindergarten, dipshit, and learn to read before spewing garbage.

Yeah, actually, he did. He has different opinions about models and the long term effects, but he seems pretty comfortable with the idea that the science of AGW itself is settled. Do you need me to explain anything else for you, you mouth breather?

 

[Munky]

Yeah, actually, he did. He has different opinions about models and the long term effects, but he seems pretty comfortable with the idea that the science of AGW itself is settled. Do you need me to explain anything else for you, you mouth breather?

You got links to where he says that, or are you gonna continue yapping in short-bus rhetoric?

 

[spacejamz]

Do you have anything to add to the discussion about Dr. Latif, Tsonis, the referenced article, study, AGW, science, or anything that's been discussed in this thread, or did you just come here to demonstrate that it's possible to be dumber than a sign post?

You are actually calling your incessant name calling, juvenile attitude and lack of civility in your posts a discussion??? That's classic....

 

[Hacp]

Well I'm going to take a different tact with this.

GoPackGo feels that perhaps scientists in general and climate scientists in particular rely too heavily upon computer models to reach their conclusions.

What we're talking about here is high-level statistics, almost all of which is done with computers nowadays. We use statistics to make predictions based on available data or to see patterns in data, draw inferences from data, etc.

It's not an exact science, it never will be, but it's best method we currently have for making predictions for all kinds of things that aren't tangible or things that cannot be practically measured to an exacting degree.

Statistics are used in every major industry and every scientific field, Exxon uses it to estimate sizes of oil wells for instance - and amazingly they revise their estimates up or down based on the latest data - climate science really isn't any different.

So it should come as a shock to no one that models are tweaked or predictions can change based on updated data - but what hasn't changed is the consensus that we are changing our climate.

I hear statistics and models are used in Economics. They predicted the Great Recession quite well if I recall correctly.

Get Real! Most economic models did not predict the Great Recession. Climatology, just like Economics is a model based science. It can not be tested. People don't run experiments. That leaves a huge reliance on models that can not predict the future. They can just explain what happened in the past.

 

[spacejamz]

Well I'm going to take a different tact with this.

GoPackGo feels that perhaps scientists in general and climate scientists in particular rely too heavily upon computer models to reach their conclusions.

What we're talking about here is high-level statistics, almost all of which is done with computers nowadays. We use statistics to make predictions based on available data or to see patterns in data, draw inferences from data, etc.

It's not an exact science, it never will be, but it's best method we currently have for making predictions for all kinds of things that aren't tangible or things that cannot be practically measured to an exacting degree.

Statistics are used in every major industry and every scientific field, Exxon uses it to estimate sizes of oil wells for instance - and amazingly they revise their estimates up or down based on the latest data - climate science really isn't any different.

So it should come as a shock to no one that models are tweaked or predictions can change based on updated data - but what hasn't changed is the consensus that we are changing our climate.

The message that was being spread was that Global Warming was destroying the planet because increased CO2 levels caused by human waste. This has prompted billions in spending to make the planet greener.

Many of the people preaching this message were saying one thing yet doing another (Al Gore anyone??? Or how about the recent Climate change convention where the host city ran out of limos to tranport the attendents who arrived in private jets???)....

Then we come to find out that data used by some scientists for these 'predictions' was altered/ignored becuase it did not fit the warming trends they projected?

Now there are predictions (which is the subject of the OP) that we are going to have a 20-30 years cooling trend...so castrophic global change will really start after this cooling period ends??? or is the increased CO2 really not warming up the planet now as these scientists have projected??

Since I am not a scientist, I probably cannot dessimenate all of this information properly...However, I do have my own bullshit detector and I smell some serious bullshit here. This is how I see it in my layman's eyes...

 

[IGBT]

and the eco-KOOKS will line up for their algore koolAid no matter what racket or fraud algore sells.

 

[sandorski]

I hear statistics and models are used in Economics. They predicted the Great Recession quite well if I recall correctly.

Get Real! Most economic models did not predict the Great Recession. Climatology, just like Economics is a model based science. It can not be tested. People don't run experiments. That leaves a huge reliance on models that can not predict the future. They can just explain what happened in the past.

Ahh, so if one Fails they all Fail? That kind of thinking would have never landed a man on the Moon.

 

[EndGame]

that only one here that looks like a jackass is you.

You have been proven wrong several times here and all you can do is resort to name calling.

qft!

 

[Bitek]

Hats off to Obama for solving Global Warming, all in his first year of office.

GWB had 8 years to work on it, and all we got was the hottest decade in recorded history. One more in long string of GOP failures. Further proof you can't trust a republican to run the war on Nature and keep the American people safe.

Granted this may or may not be a short term down tick in an otherwise long term trend, but if the OP's forecasts are accurate, should last thru Obama's full term and only resume by the next time Republicans manage to win a majority.

 

[werepossum]

Hats off to Obama for solving Global Warming, all in his first year of office.

GWB had 8 years to work on it, and all we got was the hottest decade in recorded history. One more in long string of GOP failures. Further proof you can't trust a republican to run the war on Nature and keep the American people safe.

Granted this may or may not be a short term down tick in an otherwise long term trend, but if the OP's forecasts are accurate, should last thru Obama's full term and only resume by the next time Republicans manage to win a majority.

LOL Makes you think.