If the model could accurately forecast other variables besides temperature, such as rainfall, it would be increasingly useful,
but climate predictions for a decade ahead would always be to some extent uncertain, he added.
So, the guys who built the model and performed the research ensured a caution about the reliability and limitatioms of the model were included
(which the MSM just happened to not edit out).
The guys whose models support AGW treat theirs as scientific fact with undebatable results (which the media hype throughout those articles).
Just wanted to be clear about which side of the argument actually uses Science, the Scientific Method, and admits to the limitations they are working
under.
0 Kudo
The Greatest Scam in History
| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
 kell553 |
Well isn't that interesting | ||
|
Posts: 803 ( 1-May-2008 16:51:54) |
|
||
|
DCmontana |
|||
|
Posts: 430 ( 1-May-2008 18:02:17) |
Having students that go out into the world, become very successful, and move into positions of leadership in their chosen professions is most satisfactory.
They also are incredible intelligence assets! Some time ago, at least a couple of years back, I posted that no matter what happened with the weather and
climate over the next few years, it would all be a result of global warming, the man induced kind. This information came to me from sources I deemed to be
85-90% accurate. Now that things are not going just as the members of the First Church of the Global Warming Faithful believe, they come up with models and
explanations that compliment, rather than question the original dogma. Let me see now, current cooling would not be nearly as bad, if it weren't for man
made global warming???? Knock, knock, anybody home???? I don't really think so!
|
||
|
seasick |
|||
|
Posts: 4631 ( 1-May-2008 20:13:31) |
My opinion is that the greatest scam in American history was the "energy crisis" while Jimmy Carter was President. People were topping off their
tanks and forming long gas lines. There was pleanty of gasoline. Frequently gasoline would run out at stations because gas delivery trucks couldn't get
through the gas lines to deliver at the stations. When Reagan became President the paranoia was no longer being fed by the government and things got better
fast.
|
||
|
Nightwatch2 |
|||
|
Posts: 3542 ( 1-May-2008 20:33:25) |
seasick wrote: in other words - Throw the Democrats out, get the Republicans in, and ensure the supply side is working right!
Republican; because not everyone can be on welfare.
|
||
|
Nightwatch2 |
|||
|
Posts: 3544 ( 1-May-2008 23:42:34) |
kell553 wrote: what is also interesting is that these latest revelations about cooling for the next couple of decades means that The SCIENTISTS are actually admitting
that those of us, including our Scientists, have been right all along and that climate change cycles are driven by NATURAL forces!!!
Republican; because not everyone can be on welfare.
|
||
|
brianm |
|||
|
Posts: 380 ( 3-May-2008 14:21:18) |
@ Kell,
If I'm wrong, I can still look the old man in the eye and tell him I was a good person who never set out to do anyone any harm. If he wants to take away my ice cream then he's no kind of God we should be associating with. If you're wrong, think of the millions (billions?) of people who have (will have) suffered and died in the name of religion for nothing... absolutely nothing. I admit that religion has its uses. God is the ultimate bogey-man, but it's now an outmoded concept. Many of us have now realized this and many more will in the future. The interesting question will be 'will we need to replace the bogeyman?' Is that part of the drive toward environmental awareness? |
||
|
jim3au |
|||
|
Posts: 1477 ( 3-May-2008 15:10:21) |
All of the main religions have traditions of learning and academic study. They also have times and places where they seem to resist change and learning.
Still the fact that many learning institutions have strong religious affiliations suggests to me that religion has not much to fear from a more educated society. I am sure that when a religion is perverted to work against learning, society has much to fear. |
||
|
seasick |
|||
|
Posts: 4635 ( 5-May-2008 06:33:08) |
seasick wrote: . . . and ensure the supply side is working right! The Reagan administration never fully implemented Supply side. Supply side requires that spending be cut to match the tax cuts. Which wasn't done. Also borrowing is counted as taxation in the concept. Its one of the reasons David Stockman quit the administration. Bill Clinton went back to the concept of paying bills out of current revenue. Which hadn't been done since Eisenhower. He did get some control over the debt. George W. Bush has "cherry picked" some of the points of supply side but in general is fiscally liberal. His tax cuts are ineffective. Much of the "savings" (30%) was picked up by middle class and upper middle class tax payers getting hit by the Alternative Minimum Tax. WBush as also changed taxes into fees, making them undetectable on the income tax, a slickness even Bill Clinton can appreciate. Other sins: 1. WBush went along with the Perscription medicine coverage plan, giving the Federal government new financial obligations. 2. Even after "Mission accomplished" WBush still funds the Iraq occupation with mostly "emergency appropriations", giving him the ability to award "no bid" contracts for spending in Iraq. In the private sector a CEO doing such would be forced to resign by the board and stock holders, and would be subject to legal action by the stock holders. 3. Borrowing like mad. Federal securities have low interest rates because they can't default. That makes them better than AAA rated corporate bonds. As the interest on Federal securities moved up to 5%, corporations were forced to raise rates on their bonds to stay competitive. Smaller companies that can't get BBB or better ratings were forced to raise them more. This increase in interest paid puts pressure on small cap and mid cap companies similar to a tax increase. ---------- Libertarian because some one has to be conservative. |
||
|
Nightwatch2 |
|||
|
Posts: 3552 ( 5-May-2008 19:13:55) |
seasick wrote: no argument from me. I will only quibble on one key point; "Bill Clinton went back to the concept of paying bills out of current revenue. Which hadn't been done since Eisenhower. He did get some control over the debt." he succeeded in that only by cutting Federal spending and the payroll. He did that, however, by gutting only the Defense Department. Every other part of the Federal government and spending increased considerably. Within the DoD he through over a million of us out of the military and gutted military procurement. Which set us up for the current impasse where a war was brought to us while we had inadequate forces to meet it. The resulting spending increase has been unacceptable to the Congress and the American people who sent those representatives to Congress. As a result, we are stuck in the band-aid approach of the current administration which absolutely did fail on that point in properly funding the war and expanding the forces needed to meet combat operational requirements.
Republican; because not everyone can be on welfare.
|
||
|
JNiemczyk |
|||
|
Posts: 6314 ( 5-May-2008 19:42:18) |
As a result, we are stuck in the band-aid approach of the current administration which absolutely did fail on that point in properly funding the war
and expanding the forces needed to meet combat operational requirements.
I can fully sympathise. As far as I can see our MoD is trying to fight a two front war on existing peacetime budgets. Wars are also generally not the time when the army is reduced in size. |
||
- Battleship Vs Battleship
- Should Battleships Be Back In Service?
- The United States Navy
- The Royal Navy
- The European Navies
- The Commonwealth Navies
- The Asian Navies
- Aircraft Carriers
- Fighting Ships Of The World
- Submarines
- Designing A Navy/Ship
- The Land Forces
- The Air Forces
- The Naval Fiction Board
- The Politics Of War
- Naval Help
