Problems With Scientific Models For GW

Discussion in 'Science and Technology' started by Annie, Dec 13, 2007.

  1. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    From another site:

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1211101623.htm

     
  2. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,568
    Thanks Received:
    5,902
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,985
  3. Larkinn
    Offline

    Larkinn Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2007
    Messages:
    5,598
    Thanks Received:
    174
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +175
    So it might be worse than predicted, eh?
     
  4. Kid Pickle
    Offline

    Kid Pickle KindOfABigDealAroundHere

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2007
    Messages:
    76
    Thanks Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Ratings:
    +15
    To a pessimist, perhaps.

    Pessimists are almost always wrong, though. Which, of course, makes their pessimism even deeper. It's kind of like a drug that way, yes?
     
  5. Larkinn
    Offline

    Larkinn Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2007
    Messages:
    5,598
    Thanks Received:
    174
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +175
    Pessimists are almost always wrong? So I take it we shouldn't be worried about the lack of water in Georgia, Iran who may or may not be getting nukes, Pakistani instability, etc, etc? After all why think things might not pan out well? Those type of thoughts are "almost always wrong", right?

    Absurd, really. And no, its nothing like a drug.
     
  6. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,568
    Thanks Received:
    5,902
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,985
    Missed the entire fucking point. The models are so flawed they can not predict shit. Meaning the data put in them is WRONG, you stupid genius you. They do not WORK.

    It is simple really. If the model can predict the future it should be able to accurately recreate what has already happened, since we HAVE that data. It can not do that. Meaning future predictions do not pan out at ALL. The models are not even educated guesses, they are wild ass guesses with no basis in fact.

    The point is we do NOT know enough to predict the future. We do not have enough data or understanding of how things work, we can not get models to recreate what we KNOW happened. The models are useless. The science is to poor to make the predictions.

    Thus why I suggest we LEARN what we need to know rather then make ignorant worthless wild guesses and use them to damage economies for no reason other then to delude ourselves into thinking we have power and knowledge we do NOT have.
     
  7. Larkinn
    Offline

    Larkinn Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2007
    Messages:
    5,598
    Thanks Received:
    174
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +175
    Umm, no. Thats not what it means. It means the calculations they are making are wrong.

    Well this is a wild assumption based on the article. Are educated guesses sometimes wrong RGS? If so then how do you know these are "wild ass guesses with no basis in fact" as opposed to educated guesses? Oh wait, its convenient for you to think that.
     
  8. Psychoblues
    Offline

    Psychoblues Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    2,701
    Thanks Received:
    142
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    North Missisippi
    Ratings:
    +143
    Actually, we do have all that data and scientific research to back it up, rgs.


    Are we now to believe your ignorant rants and completely disproven statements to guide us in our efforts to save our planet, if only for a few more years?

    God told us to protect our environment. Are you telling us that God was wrong?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  9. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,568
    Thanks Received:
    5,902
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,985
    LOL, usual games from Larkinn. Hey stupid, if ALL the models are wrong, all are using the wrong calculations, those calculations deviced and determined by YOUR 42 percent of the Scientific community, what the hell does that tell you about the dooms day predictions? What dose that tell you about the claims they KNOW what is causing the problem? Now I know it may hurt you, but engage the lump of coal in your head and reason it out, even you can do it.
     
  10. Psychoblues
    Offline

    Psychoblues Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    2,701
    Thanks Received:
    142
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    North Missisippi
    Ratings:
    +143
    Kinda like all the "Shock and Awe" "We'll be met with Flowers" "Slam Duck" and all that other shit you like to proclaim and defend?


    Even I can figure all that out!!!!!!!!!!!

    You never figured out the Cheerleaders in High School, did you?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1

Share This Page