New Study Increases Concerns About Climate Model Reliability

[Doc Savage Fan]

The study was published online this week in the International Journal of Climatology. Here's the Link to an article summarizing the results and there you'll find a link to the actual study. A few choice quotes as follows:

"The usual discussion is whether the climate model forecasts of Earth's climate 100 years or so into the future are realistic," said the lead author, Dr. David H. Douglass from the University of Rochester. "Here we have something more fundamental: Can the models accurately explain the climate from the recent past? "It seems that the answer is no."

"The last 25 years constitute a period of more complete and accurate observations, and more realistic modeling efforts," said Dr. Fred Singer from the University of Virginia. "Nonetheless, the models are seen to disagree with the observations. We suggest, therefore, that projections of future climate based on these models should be viewed with much caution."

I went over to RealClimate to get their spin on this study but nothing's been posted yet.

Here's the $64 question...if the models can't come close to predicting what actually happened over the past 30 years, how can they predict climate changes 100 years in the future?

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
The study was published online this week in the International Journal of Climatology. Here's the Link to an article summarizing the results and there you'll find a link to the actual study. A few choice quotes as follows:

"The usual discussion is whether the climate model forecasts of Earth's climate 100 years or so into the future are realistic," said the lead author, Dr. David H. Douglass from the University of Rochester. "Here we have something more fundamental: Can the models accurately explain the climate from the recent past? "It seems that the answer is no."

"The last 25 years constitute a period of more complete and accurate observations, and more realistic modeling efforts," said Dr. Fred Singer from the University of Virginia. "Nonetheless, the models are seen to disagree with the observations. We suggest, therefore, that projections of future climate based on these models should be viewed with much caution."

I went over to RealClimate to get their spin on this study but nothing's been posted yet.

Here's the $64 question...if the models can't come close to predicting what actually happened over the past 30 years, how can they predict climate changes 100 years in the future?

You sir are a global warming denier...

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
The study was published online this week in the International Journal of Climatology. Here's the Link to an article summarizing the results and there you'll find a link to the actual study. A few choice quotes as follows:

"The usual discussion is whether the climate model forecasts of Earth's climate 100 years or so into the future are realistic," said the lead author, Dr. David H. Douglass from the University of Rochester. "Here we have something more fundamental: Can the models accurately explain the climate from the recent past? "It seems that the answer is no."

"The last 25 years constitute a period of more complete and accurate observations, and more realistic modeling efforts," said Dr. Fred Singer from the University of Virginia. "Nonetheless, the models are seen to disagree with the observations. We suggest, therefore, that projections of future climate based on these models should be viewed with much caution."

I went over to RealClimate to get their spin on this study but nothing's been posted yet.

Here's the $64 question...if the models can't come close to predicting what actually happened over the past 30 years, how can they predict climate changes 100 years in the future?

You sir are a global warming denier...

Not true...there's no doubt that we're in a warming trend. What makes you assume that I'm a GW denier?

 

[pstylesss]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
The study was published online this week in the International Journal of Climatology. Here's the Link to an article summarizing the results and there you'll find a link to the actual study. A few choice quotes as follows:

"The usual discussion is whether the climate model forecasts of Earth's climate 100 years or so into the future are realistic," said the lead author, Dr. David H. Douglass from the University of Rochester. "Here we have something more fundamental: Can the models accurately explain the climate from the recent past? "It seems that the answer is no."

"The last 25 years constitute a period of more complete and accurate observations, and more realistic modeling efforts," said Dr. Fred Singer from the University of Virginia. "Nonetheless, the models are seen to disagree with the observations. We suggest, therefore, that projections of future climate based on these models should be viewed with much caution."

I went over to RealClimate to get their spin on this study but nothing's been posted yet.

Here's the $64 question...if the models can't come close to predicting what actually happened over the past 30 years, how can they predict climate changes 100 years in the future?

You sir are a global warming denier...

Not true...there's no doubt that we're in a warming trend. What makes you assume that I'm a GW denier?

A GW is caused by man and will cause serious problems denier.

Which I am. :thumbsup:

 

[AnnonUSA]

Warming is occurring, but one thing is certain Al Gores alarmist statistics are incorrect and designed to drive economic rather than climate change.

Carbon Dioxide is not the problem. But it will make some people rich.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
The study was published online this week in the International Journal of Climatology. Here's the Link to an article summarizing the results and there you'll find a link to the actual study. A few choice quotes as follows:

"The usual discussion is whether the climate model forecasts of Earth's climate 100 years or so into the future are realistic," said the lead author, Dr. David H. Douglass from the University of Rochester. "Here we have something more fundamental: Can the models accurately explain the climate from the recent past? "It seems that the answer is no."

"The last 25 years constitute a period of more complete and accurate observations, and more realistic modeling efforts," said Dr. Fred Singer from the University of Virginia. "Nonetheless, the models are seen to disagree with the observations. We suggest, therefore, that projections of future climate based on these models should be viewed with much caution."

I went over to RealClimate to get their spin on this study but nothing's been posted yet.

Here's the $64 question...if the models can't come close to predicting what actually happened over the past 30 years, how can they predict climate changes 100 years in the future?

You sir are a global warming denier...

Not true...there's no doubt that we're in a warming trend. What makes you assume that I'm a GW denier?

He was making a funny.

 

[newmachineoverlord]

Originally posted by: AnnonUSA
Warming is occurring, but one thing is certain Al Gores alarmist statistics are incorrect and designed to drive economic rather than climate change.

Carbon Dioxide is not the problem. But it will make some people rich.

To say CO2 isn't a problem is rather contentious and defies conventional wisdom. You should cite an article for a statement like that in order to elevate the level of discussion, and to differentiate yourself from the many who disbelieve in greenhouse gases on a religious basis.

Here is a brief explanation of why carbon dioxide is a problem according to conventional physics. http://www.realclimate.org/ind...6-easy-steps/#more-462

There is a wealth of data supporting the assertion that carbon dioxide has increased Earth's temperature in the past and is doing it again.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/re...07/12/071221222544.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/re...07/11/071114111141.htm

Human emmisions can be found at the doe http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/chapter1.html

Furthermore with respect to climate change a type II error is far more damaging than a type I error. A type II error could, in the worst case, result in the extinction of all human life (if there are positive feedbacks not included in current climate models), whereas a type I error merely shifts from reliance on non-renewable energy to renewable energy, a shift that must occur eventually anyways if the human race is going to continue to exist on a large scale for more than a hundred more years or so. http://www.sciencedaily.com/re...07/03/070319110332.htm


I encourage everyone to attach to the cpdn distributed computing project and join team anandtech, to strengthen the body of data regarding climate sensitivity. http://forums.anandtech.com/me...ht_key=y&keyword1=cpdn

 

[Fern]

Looks like the GW models have some very serious problems

I think many of us have been aware of this for some time. Others, however, refuse to acknowlege it.

Fern

 

[Ronstang]

Originally posted by: Fern

Looks like the GW models have some very serious problems

I think many of us have been aware of this for some time. Others, however, refuse to acknowlege it.

Fern

That is because many who are championing the cause for MMGW are young people with ZERO experience and ZERO actual knowledge of the topic who are simply parroting the opinions they have been fed by professors and such. It has become a religion.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: newmachineoverlord
To say CO2 isn't a problem is rather contentious and defies conventional wisdom.

CO2 is a problem based on what, ice cores? Those very cores show CO2 changes following, not leading, temperature by an average of 500 years. A cause cannot come AFTER the effect, so they prove nothing as to CO2?s effect on warming.

 

[IGBT]

Originally posted by: AnnonUSA
Warming is occurring, but one thing is certain Al Gores alarmist statistics are incorrect and designed to drive economic rather than climate change.

Carbon Dioxide is not the problem. But it will make some people rich.

..the carbon con will be a great revenue producer.

 

[Lemon law]

Its been long known that climate models are not doing a good job of fitting observable data. While we have a fairly good understanding of what each individual input into the models should be doing, its somewhat clear that some input factors are missing and that we don't understand very well how things interact. But the most glaring climate models discrepancies now involve the fact almost all existing models overestimate the amount of warming we are seeing at the lower latitudes and vastly underestimate the amount of warming we are seeing at the poles. Which tells us we need to get a better understanding of how incoming solar radiation is distributed which is somewhat of a problem independent of simple global warming or not global warming.

But given that this is roughly the zillionth GW post that should be answered on P&N, the bottom line facts have not changed an iota.

1. None of these threads discredit global warming and hence should bring zero cheer to GW deniers.
2. All of these posts show we need more climate research and better science.
3. Until we have better science, we still have to ask the tough political questions of what do we do now even though our knowledge is not perfect. And if we do nothing now, we
still have to realize we may be taking huge risks of hitting a non reversible tipping point. We know we can live with the climate we have now, we don't know if we can live with a future climate man inadvertently caused.

 

[newmachineoverlord]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: newmachineoverlord
To say CO2 isn't a problem is rather contentious and defies conventional wisdom.

CO2 is a problem based on what, ice cores? Those very cores show CO2 changes following, not leading, temperature by an average of 500 years. A cause cannot come AFTER the effect, so they prove nothing as to CO2?s effect on warming.

CO2 is a problem because it's increasing temperatures as explained here
CO2 can't not increase global temperatures due to the laws of physics. The upper atmosphere is a giant heatsink that radiates infrared energy into space to cool. Adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is exactly like shortening the fins on that heatsink. Thus ice core data is not necessary to recognize the existence of a problem.

As for the ice cores, the meaning of the lag is explained here. The lag only means that the first 800 years of warming wasn't caused by CO2, but the other 4200 years of warming (5/6 of the warming effect) was caused by greenhouse gases, half of it from CO2.

The lag ancient between temperature increases and carbon dioxide increases should make you more worried about climate change, not less, because it suggests that there are positive feedback mechanisms for releasing additional greenhouse gases that can be triggered by a threshold warming. Those feedback systems could lead to greater warming than predicted by current models. We can be quite certain that it is going to get warmer on this planet, and that the warming will be greater than 2 degrees C. If that triggers the same positive feedback systems that caused 4200 yeasr of warming millions of years ago then all the current models could be unreasonably optimistic. The good news is that whatever that feedback system was, it took a long time, so if we stick to worrying about eliminating dependence on non-renewable energy and controlling greenhouse gases we should be fine for the coming century as long as we don't live near the coast.

 

[Moonbeam]

These are the:

Related Stories

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Impact Of Global Warming On Weather Patterns Underestimated (Sep. 22, 2005) ? The impact of global warming on European weather patterns has been underestimated, according to a new report published in Nature this week. The Northern Hemisphere Circulation study found that ... > read more
Insides Of Clouds May Be The Key To Climate Change (Feb. 25, 2007) ? As climate change scientists develop ever more sophisticated climate models to project an expected path of temperature change, it is becoming increasingly important to include the effects of aerosols ... > read more

Evidence Shaky For Sun's Major Role In Past Climate Changes (Oct. 1, 2004) ? Computer models of Earth's climate have consistently linked long-term, high-magnitude variations in solar output to past climate changes. Now a closer look at earlier studies of the Sun casts ... > read more

Satellite Instruments Reveal Evidence The Atmosphere Has Gotten Warmer And Wetter Over The Past Decade (Jan. 28, 2000) ? Frank Wentz, a physicist at Remote Sensing Systems in Santa Rosa, Calif., has confirmed that the atmosphere has gotten warmer and wetter over the last decade. The results of his research will appear ... > read more

Rising Surface Ozone Reduces Plant Growth And Adds To Global Warming (Jul. 27, 2007) ? Scientists have just released new findings that could have major implications for food production and global warming in the 21st century. Researchers have found that projections of increasing ozone ... > read more
==========
Oh my!

 

[IGBT]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
These are the:

Related Stories

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Impact Of Global Warming On Weather Patterns Underestimated (Sep. 22, 2005) ? The impact of global warming on European weather patterns has been underestimated, according to a new report published in Nature this week. The Northern Hemisphere Circulation study found that ... > read more
Insides Of Clouds May Be The Key To Climate Change (Feb. 25, 2007) ? As climate change scientists develop ever more sophisticated climate models to project an expected path of temperature change, it is becoming increasingly important to include the effects of aerosols ... > read more

Evidence Shaky For Sun's Major Role In Past Climate Changes (Oct. 1, 2004) ? Computer models of Earth's climate have consistently linked long-term, high-magnitude variations in solar output to past climate changes. Now a closer look at earlier studies of the Sun casts ... > read more

Satellite Instruments Reveal Evidence The Atmosphere Has Gotten Warmer And Wetter Over The Past Decade (Jan. 28, 2000) ? Frank Wentz, a physicist at Remote Sensing Systems in Santa Rosa, Calif., has confirmed that the atmosphere has gotten warmer and wetter over the last decade. The results of his research will appear ... > read more

Rising Surface Ozone Reduces Plant Growth And Adds To Global Warming (Jul. 27, 2007) ? Scientists have just released new findings that could have major implications for food production and global warming in the 21st century. Researchers have found that projections of increasing ozone ... > read more
==========
Oh my!

..ahh more voodoo climate models.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: IGBT

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
These are the:

Related Stories

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Impact Of Global Warming On Weather Patterns Underestimated (Sep. 22, 2005) ? The impact of global warming on European weather patterns has been underestimated, according to a new report published in Nature this week. The Northern Hemisphere Circulation study found that ... > read more
Insides Of Clouds May Be The Key To Climate Change (Feb. 25, 2007) ? As climate change scientists develop ever more sophisticated climate models to project an expected path of temperature change, it is becoming increasingly important to include the effects of aerosols ... > read more

Evidence Shaky For Sun's Major Role In Past Climate Changes (Oct. 1, 2004) ? Computer models of Earth's climate have consistently linked long-term, high-magnitude variations in solar output to past climate changes. Now a closer look at earlier studies of the Sun casts ... > read more

Satellite Instruments Reveal Evidence The Atmosphere Has Gotten Warmer And Wetter Over The Past Decade (Jan. 28, 2000) ? Frank Wentz, a physicist at Remote Sensing Systems in Santa Rosa, Calif., has confirmed that the atmosphere has gotten warmer and wetter over the last decade. The results of his research will appear ... > read more

Rising Surface Ozone Reduces Plant Growth And Adds To Global Warming (Jul. 27, 2007) ? Scientists have just released new findings that could have major implications for food production and global warming in the 21st century. Researchers have found that projections of increasing ozone ... > read more
==========
Oh my!

..ahh more voodoo climate models.

Yes they seem to outnumber the good ones 4 to 1. Such a pity.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: IGBT

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
These are the:

Related Stories

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Impact Of Global Warming On Weather Patterns Underestimated (Sep. 22, 2005) ? The impact of global warming on European weather patterns has been underestimated, according to a new report published in Nature this week. The Northern Hemisphere Circulation study found that ... > read more
Insides Of Clouds May Be The Key To Climate Change (Feb. 25, 2007) ? As climate change scientists develop ever more sophisticated climate models to project an expected path of temperature change, it is becoming increasingly important to include the effects of aerosols ... > read more

Evidence Shaky For Sun's Major Role In Past Climate Changes (Oct. 1, 2004) ? Computer models of Earth's climate have consistently linked long-term, high-magnitude variations in solar output to past climate changes. Now a closer look at earlier studies of the Sun casts ... > read more

Satellite Instruments Reveal Evidence The Atmosphere Has Gotten Warmer And Wetter Over The Past Decade (Jan. 28, 2000) ? Frank Wentz, a physicist at Remote Sensing Systems in Santa Rosa, Calif., has confirmed that the atmosphere has gotten warmer and wetter over the last decade. The results of his research will appear ... > read more

Rising Surface Ozone Reduces Plant Growth And Adds To Global Warming (Jul. 27, 2007) ? Scientists have just released new findings that could have major implications for food production and global warming in the 21st century. Researchers have found that projections of increasing ozone ... > read more
==========
Oh my!

..ahh more voodoo climate models.

Yes they seem to outnumber the good ones 4 to 1. Such a pity.

No, 1 correct one "outnumbers" all the others, no matter how many.

Fern

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Ronstang

Originally posted by: Fern

Looks like the GW models have some very serious problems

I think many of us have been aware of this for some time. Others, however, refuse to acknowlege it.

Fern

That is because many who are championing the cause for MMGW are young people with ZERO experience and ZERO actual knowledge of the topic who are simply parroting the opinions they have been fed by professors and such. It has become a religion.

How is that different from the various people who are arguing AGAINST MMGW? Most of them seem to be complete ass clowns who couldn't do basic math without a calculator...if there is a qualitative difference between the masses of idiots on either side, I've yet to see it.

However, while the pro-MMGW idiots make a good target, they don't have anything to do with the science or the facts here. Maybe you should try arguing THOSE things. Ah, but there's the problem...you fall pretty squarely into that "ZERO actual knowledge" category yourself, don't you?

 

[Rainsford]

Speaking of science, it would be helpful to threads like this if the various people discussing it actually READ THE ARTICLE. I know it's a radical idea, but it just might provide more insight that consulting whatever talking head on TV tells you what to think. For example, the study highlighted in the article discusses some inaccurate results with SOME of the climate model predictions, it in fact confirms some other predictions that are relevant to global warming. And even on the inaccurate results front, there is another study that contradicts this one...anyone trying to draw an absolute conclusion from this study alone is a moron.

I feel like there should be a requirement that EVERYONE who wants to debate this issue go back to high school science and actually pay attention, instead of sleeping or checking out the hottie in the second row or whatever you people were doing the last time you were there. I'm not even talking about the specific climate science involved here, I'm talking about understanding even the basic building blocks of science.

There is no such thing as a holy grail paper, no one paper in the history of scientific endeavor provides all the answers or allows you to make an absolute decision on anything. It's all a non-stop progression to get better and better, finding flaws in a theory doesn't mean you need to dump the entire theory, and it sure as shit doesn't mean the "opposite" theory must be true...it's just another data point to help refine our understanding. If anyone here is involved in real scientific research (which seems pretty doubtful), remember that you don't start out 100% right about something...you start out with a much more basic understanding, and refine that as you discover new information. There is no such thing as two competing theories, each scoring points until one has enough to "win".

The second thing to keep in mind is that argumentum ad logicam, or argument from fallacy, is a scientific newbie mistake. Al Gore may be an idiot, and he may make bogus scientific arguments, that doesn't mean his conclusion about MMGW is wrong. Similarly, demonstrating a flaw in part of a climate model doesn't make the rest of it wrong, and it certainly doesn't mean its prediction is wrong. If you want to make that argument, you have to actually make that argument...you can't just throw a bunch of dust in the air and then declare that your theory must be right.

Finally, leave your political bullshit at the door. There are MAYBE a handful of P&N posters who know anything at all about climate change...yet everyone has a really strong opinion about it. Are you guys idiots? Do you not think that it's a little strange that almost everyone on the MMGW side is a tree-hugging liberal, and everyone on the anti-MMGW side is some slapnuts conservative? You guys aren't even LOOKING at the science, not because you couldn't understand it, but because the truth isn't really relevant to your political argument.

And I know, I know, this is just how politics works. Except that this isn't some moral debate or ethical issue or discussion of the role of government...this is an actual thing. It doesn't matter who "wins" the political debate, MMGW is either real or it's not. If it is, it won't matter if you guys on the right make a more convincing argument against it...we'll all still be fucked. And if it's NOT real, it won't matter how many movies Al Gore makes, we will have spent trillions of dollars chasing down a problem that doesn't exist instead of dealing with ones that do. If you have more than two neurons to rub together, the ONLY goal here should be to find out what's actually happening. And if the rest of you folks that are a little short on the neurons can't get on board with that idea, then the least you can do is shut your big pie holes and go back to arguing about gay marriage or something.

Edit: And I'm not saying I'm some sort of genius who's above all this crap, I just seem to be one of the only people actually concerned about the science here instead of the politics. I'm not a climate scientist, maybe my point of view is wrong (hey, why don't you guys try saying that?), so I think it would be a good idea for the ACTUAL climate scientists to get a chance to speak instead of being drowned out by all the loud folks who got a C+ in high school physics.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: IGBT

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
These are the:

Related Stories

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Impact Of Global Warming On Weather Patterns Underestimated (Sep. 22, 2005) ? The impact of global warming on European weather patterns has been underestimated, according to a new report published in Nature this week. The Northern Hemisphere Circulation study found that ... > read more
Insides Of Clouds May Be The Key To Climate Change (Feb. 25, 2007) ? As climate change scientists develop ever more sophisticated climate models to project an expected path of temperature change, it is becoming increasingly important to include the effects of aerosols ... > read more

Evidence Shaky For Sun's Major Role In Past Climate Changes (Oct. 1, 2004) ? Computer models of Earth's climate have consistently linked long-term, high-magnitude variations in solar output to past climate changes. Now a closer look at earlier studies of the Sun casts ... > read more

Satellite Instruments Reveal Evidence The Atmosphere Has Gotten Warmer And Wetter Over The Past Decade (Jan. 28, 2000) ? Frank Wentz, a physicist at Remote Sensing Systems in Santa Rosa, Calif., has confirmed that the atmosphere has gotten warmer and wetter over the last decade. The results of his research will appear ... > read more

Rising Surface Ozone Reduces Plant Growth And Adds To Global Warming (Jul. 27, 2007) ? Scientists have just released new findings that could have major implications for food production and global warming in the 21st century. Researchers have found that projections of increasing ozone ... > read more
==========
Oh my!

..ahh more voodoo climate models.

Yes they seem to outnumber the good ones 4 to 1. Such a pity.

No, 1 correct one "outnumbers" all the others, no matter how many.

Fern

True enough, the real question is which one is the correct one? Is it the one that happens to agree with what you already think? Sorry, chief, science doesn't work like that.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

True enough, the real question is which one is the correct one? Is it the one that happens to agree with what you already think? Sorry, chief, science doesn't work like that.

Then you MMGW peeps need to stop already with the "debate is over" BS.

I'm not the one saying I know which is correct - tha's you guys. I've been saying nobody knows, that it's a work in progress.

Is it the one that happens to agree with what you already think? Sorry, chief, science doesn't work like that

That's pure fscking irony.

Fern

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Rainsford

True enough, the real question is which one is the correct one? Is it the one that happens to agree with what you already think? Sorry, chief, science doesn't work like that.

Then you MMGW peeps need to stop already with the "debate is over" BS.

I'm not the one saying I know which is correct - tha's you guys. I've been saying nobody knows, that it's a work in progress.

Actually, you haven't been saying that. What you've been saying is that the presence of any uncertainty at all means we don't know what the heck is going on and we should just assume MMGW is an Al Gore fantasy. The debate is not over, but the debate is also not what you think it is. MMGW is pretty well settled fact, the debate is really over the details of exactly how much we're contributing and how big of a problem it will be. But that isn't the position you guys have taken at all. There are more than two alternatives here, and your "work in progress" line is just a passive-aggressive way to argue against the science without having to make a real argument. The fact that you borrowed the approach from the "intelligent design" people should tell you something...

Is it the one that happens to agree with what you already think? Sorry, chief, science doesn't work like that

That's pure fscking irony.

Fern

How's that? I have at no point expressed a politically motivated interest in this debate, and I formed my conclusion after actually looking at the facts. There was no "I already think" going on, I didn't HAVE an opinion until I looked at the data...can you say the same?

 

[Red Dawn]

Hey I'm not sure if it's a normal cycle or if it's caused by man I'm just glad that they are paying a lot of attention to it.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Hey I'm not sure if it's a normal cycle or if it's caused by man I'm just glad that they are paying a lot of attention to it.

Yes, the problem is that the "they" who are paying attention might not be the "they" that are actually interested in getting to the bottom of this issues. Bill O'Reilly gets a lot more airtime discussing this issue than anyone with a PHD in climate science.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Rainsford

True enough, the real question is which one is the correct one? Is it the one that happens to agree with what you already think? Sorry, chief, science doesn't work like that.

Then you MMGW peeps need to stop already with the "debate is over" BS.

I'm not the one saying I know which is correct - tha's you guys. I've been saying nobody knows, that it's a work in progress.

Actually, you haven't been saying that. What you've been saying is that the presence of any uncertainty at all means we don't know what the heck is going on and we should just assume MMGW is an Al Gore fantasy. The debate is not over, but the debate is also not what you think it is. MMGW is pretty well settled fact Well, there you go again , the debate is really over the details of exactly how much we're contributing and how big of a problem it will be. But that isn't the position you guys have taken at all. There are more than two alternatives here My proposed 3rd alternative, as expressed here many times, has been let 'em keep working at it. , and your "work in progress" line is just a passive-aggressive way to argue against the science without having to make a real argument. The fact that you borrowed the approach from the "intelligent design" people should tell you something... WTH? Hehe, oh I get it. Good one. If we're not ready to unconditionally buy into MMGW it's because we're ignorant science-hating creationist-types who believe the world is 6,000 yrs old

Is it the one that happens to agree with what you already think? Sorry, chief, science doesn't work like that

That's pure fscking irony.

Fern

How's that? I have at no point expressed a politically motivated interest in this debate, and I formed my conclusion after actually looking at the facts There you go again. Jeez, you're making ne repeat myself. What you refer to as facts are contested assertions. Aside from the disagreements among scientists, those espousing the "facts" have so often and materially changed their "facts" as to create doubt in the mind of any reasonable person that they have yet gotten it right. I will not be surprised to see the "facts" or predictions revised again. Prolly often. Of course, that means they weren't facts to begin with. There was no "I already think" going on, I didn't HAVE an opinion until I looked at the data...can you say the same?
My opinion, for the above enumerated reasons, remains that the issue is still open. Wide open. Yeah, that's based on the data - that of some scientists who are of the contrary opinion, and the ever changing nature of the "data" so far supplied.

Fern