Problems With Scientific Models For GW

[Shogun]

 

[AllieBaba]

Well that explains the missing polar bears..

 

[Shogun]

 

[Bern80]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/02/19/MNGE1BECPI1.DTL

Lot's there. A few points. All but one observation are a result of simply warming. This is a typical scare tactic by the true believers. We're suppossed to see pictures of polar bears swimming in the middle of the ocean and jump to action. Well that polar is going to drown whether we are causing the warnming or not.

That it was printed in one of the most leftist of newspapers in one of the most leftist cities in the most leftist state doesn't add a lot of credibility.

The actual 'evidence' that we are causing it occurs in just one place. An observed acceleration of warming. Though they don't really get into how they linked said acceleration to man.

That the prof so vehemently declared this a closed case should be noted as well. But of course I shouldn't assume you'll take the word of just one, right?

 

[Shogun]

I wish PKD were alive so he could write a piece of excellent fiction about this. Something along the lines of a post-apocalyptic world where the only energy man uses turns out to be keeping catastrophe-deniers alive long enough for eternal torture while their progeny is hunted down.

Maybe if I channel the spirit of PKD with this ouija board set....

 

[Bern80]

I wish PKD were alive so he could write a piece of excellent fiction about this. Something along the lines of a post-apocalyptic world where the only energy man uses turns out to be keeping catastrophe-deniers alive long enough for eternal torture while their progeny is hunted down.

Maybe if I channel the spirit of PKD with this ouija board set....

Some don't seem to be jumping on my perspective bandwagon. Just because the results for man will be catastrophic doesn't mean what's happening is unnatural. What would be unnatural is trying to stop it. If this is natural and you believe it needs to be stopped then I went to see threads crying we need to stop earthquakes, volcanoes, tronadoes and floods. Think about it, the reason we stop wildfires is because there are people in the way. that doesn't make the fire unnatural.

 

[Larkinn]

U.K. Judge Rules Gore's Climate Film Has 9 Errors
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/11/AR2007101102134.html

By Mary Jordan
Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, October 12, 2007; Page A12

LONDON, Oct. 11 -- A British judge has ruled that Al Gore's Oscar-winning film on global warming, "An Inconvenient Truth," contains "nine errors."

High Court Judge Michael Burton, deciding a lawsuit that questioned the film's suitability for showing in British classrooms, said Wednesday that the movie builds a "powerful" case that global warming is caused by humans and that urgent means are needed to counter it.

The judge said that, for instance, Gore's script implies that Greenland or West Antarctica might melt in the near future, creating a sea level rise of up to 20 feet that would cause devastation from San Francisco to the Netherlands to Bangladesh. The judge called this "distinctly alarmist" and said the consensus view is that, if indeed Greenland melted, it would release this amount of water, "but only after, and over, millennia."

Burton also said Gore contends that inhabitants of low-lying Pacific atolls have had to evacuate to New Zealand because of global warming. "But there is no such evidence of any such evacuation," the judge said.

Another error, according to the judge, is that Gore says "a new scientific study shows that for the first time they are finding polar bears that have actually drowned swimming long distances up to 60 miles to find ice." Burton said that perhaps in the future polar bears will drown "by regression of pack-ice" but that the only study found on drowned polar bears attributed four deaths to a storm.

The ruling comes amid speculation that Gore will win the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday for his work on global warming.

Kalee Kreider, a spokesman for Gore, said the former vice president is "gratified that the courts verified that the central argument of 'An Inconvenient Truth' is supported by the scientific community." She said that "of the thousands and thousands of facts presented in the film, the judge apparently took issue with a handful."

Kreider also said that Gore believes the film will educate a generation of young people about the "climate crisis" and that the "debate has shifted from 'Is the problem real?' to 'What can be done about it?' "

Burton's ruling said that there is "now common ground that it is not simply a science film -- although it is clear that it is based substantially on scientific research and opinion -- but that it is a political film, albeit of course not party political." Burton said Gore's errors "arise in the context of alarmism and exaggeration in support of his political thesis."

Global warming has been a particularly big issue in Britain, where Prime Minister Gordon Brown said he wants to make his country a world leader in limiting carbon emissions.

Earlier this year, British education officials began distributing DVDs of Gore's film to state schools as part of a package designed to educate 3 million secondary school students on climate change.

The lawsuit was brought by Stewart Dimmock, a local school official who has two sons in state schools, in an attempt to block the education department's program. He claimed the film was inaccurate, politically biased and "sentimental mush" and therefore unsuitable for schools.

Dimmock, who belongs to the tiny New Party, told reporters he was "elated" at the ruling. He said guidance and context that teachers now must give along with the film means that students will not be "indoctrinated with this political spin." But he said he was disappointed the film wasn't banned outright from schools.

A spokesman for the Department of Children, Schools and Families said the agency was "delighted" that students could continue to see Gore's film. It has noted that the judge did not disagree with the film's main point -- that man-made emissions of greenhouse gases are causing serious climate consequences.




Related Articles
U.K. Judge: Gore's Film Has 9 Errors
U.K. Judge Finds Problems in Gore Film
'Climate Year' Heads for Uncertain End
Gore: Award Puts Focus on Global Warming
The Little Film That Became a Hot Property
Powered by Inform» Related Topics & Web Content

Well that sure means that Global warming doesn't exist. No, it means that Gore exaggerated some things in his film. Not a surprise. I'm still waiting for where the Judge said or implied there was no evidence for global warming.

 

[Larkinn]

Lot's there. A few points. All but one observation are a result of simply warming. This is a typical scare tactic by the true believers. We're suppossed to see pictures of polar bears swimming in the middle of the ocean and jump to action. Well that polar is going to drown whether we are causing the warnming or not.

Err I wasn't posting it was proof, Ali said there was "no evidence" of global warming. There is evidence.

That it was printed in one of the most leftist of newspapers in one of the most leftist cities in the most leftist state doesn't add a lot of credibility.

Try and avoid the ad hominems unless they have some clout behind them. Someone being a leftie does not mean they are wrong. If thats treated as even a semi-coherent argument, you know you are going very wrong somewhere.

By the way...leaving out the absurd moronic claims such as the left wants to destroy humanity, or this is some grand leftist plot to shift wealth, tell me what reasons the left would have to endorse this. I can think of some reasons the right would discredit it. But I can't think of any that tie into the ideological views of the left. So why?

That the prof so vehemently declared this a closed case should be noted as well. But of course I shouldn't assume you'll take the word of just one, right?

A lot of people believe its a closed case. They don't really feel the need to listen to the American right and its continuing skepticism of science. And no I don't take the word of just one. Hes not the only one saying that.

 

[Bern80]

Try and avoid the ad hominems unless they have some clout behind them. Someone being a leftie does not mean they are wrong. If thats treated as even a semi-coherent argument, you know you are going very wrong somewhere.

Why? It's the exact same tactic you used in your attempt to debunk Singer. You couldn't refute his evidence so you attacked his credibility. Which you said at the time was perfectly reasonable.

By the way...leaving out the absurd moronic claims such as the left wants to destroy humanity, or this is some grand leftist plot to shift wealth, tell me what reasons the left would have to endorse this. I can think of some reasons the right would discredit it. But I can't think of any that tie into the ideological views of the left. So why?

Again I think it's about prespective, IMO.

And no I don't take the word of just one. Hes not the only one saying that.

Where have I heard that argument before. Man I just can't rememb.....oh yeah.....IT WAS ME. Verbatim for all practical intents.

 

[Shogun]

Some don't seem to be jumping on my perspective bandwagon. Just because the results for man will be catastrophic doesn't mean what's happening is unnatural. What would be unnatural is trying to stop it. If this is natural and you believe it needs to be stopped then I went to see threads crying we need to stop earthquakes, volcanoes, tronadoes and floods. Think about it, the reason we stop wildfires is because there are people in the way. that doesn't make the fire unnatural.

Get yourself a fishtank, stock it with 500 dollars in marine fish and then dont turn the filter on.

Now, I understand that you, personally, don't see a correlation between human activity and climate change. I get it. Also, I understand that recorded data only goes back so far. I get it. Sure, it was "natural" when an extraterrestrial object struck the earth and doomed earths giant reptiles too. I also understand the process of group hysteria. Hell, I'll agree with you that assumptions are not hard evidence... which was the reason I suggested PKD writing such a story instead of, say, Heinlein or Clark.... but I'm reserving my chips instead of insisting that human induced climate change is a myth. If it is, I'll be wrong knowing that there was nothing that could be done. If im right, well... I think PKD would have written a great short story about the aftermath.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

And there we have Larkinn playing his games again. NO ONE is saying warming is not occurring you loser, we are saying it is not proven that MAN is causing it in a appreciable way.

Provide some actual facts that MAN is the cause.

 

[Larkinn]

Why? It's the exact same tactic you used in your attempt to debunk Singer. You couldn't refute his evidence so you attacked his credibility. Which you said at the time was perfectly reasonable.

You do, I hope, get the difference between attacking someone because they have ties to oil companies (read: conflict of interest) and attacking someone because they are a liberal, right?

Again I think it's about prespective, IMO.

Not really. Conservatives don't like government interference, are notoriously skeptical of new ideas, and tend to support corporations. All of these beliefs are challenged by Global Warming. Now...care to give me reasons why liberals would support it based on ideology, and not weird conspiracy theories?

Where have I heard that argument before. Man I just can't rememb.....oh yeah.....IT WAS ME. Verbatim for all practical intents.

And when I asked who you failed to provide me with anyone. Want to ask me who so I can provide the 42% stat again?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You do, I hope, get the difference between attacking someone because they have ties to oil companies (read: conflict of interest) and attacking someone because they are a liberal, right?



Not really. Conservatives don't like government interference, are notoriously skeptical of new ideas, and tend to support corporations. All of these beliefs are challenged by Global Warming. Now...care to give me reasons why liberals would support it based on ideology, and not weird conspiracy theories?



And when I asked who you failed to provide me with anyone. Want to ask me who so I can provide the 42% stat again?

Liberals are all about scaring people into depending on them, then once hooked keeping them hooked. Global warming by man is a perfect way to do that. Giving Liberals power over Corporations and economies and ruling with an even bigger stick.

 

[Larkinn]

Liberals are all about scaring people into depending on them, then once hooked keeping them hooked. Global warming by man is a perfect way to do that. Giving Liberals power over Corporations and economies and ruling with an even bigger stick.

And they meet in a building somewhere below Harvard and eat babies, plot to overthrow the government, assassinate Bush, take away everyones guns, turn your children into lesbians, have sex with animals, right?

Its funny how you can notice gross caricatures of conservatives, or marines, but when its done to liberals you embrace them wholeheartedly.

 

[Bern80]

You do, I hope, get the difference between attacking someone because they have ties to oil companies (read: conflict of interest) and attacking someone because they are a liberal, right?

I realize you'd like to think they are different, but they aren't

Not really. Conservatives don't like government interference, are notoriously skeptical of new ideas, and tend to support corporations. All of these beliefs are challenged by Global Warming. Now...care to give me reasons why liberals would support it based on ideology, and not weird conspiracy theories?

See RGS's response above. It's reoughly along those lines

And when I asked who you failed to provide me with anyone. Want to ask me who so I can provide the 42% stat again?

Which of course means they don't exist. You keep your 42. Ill keep my 58, deal?

 

[AllieBaba]

It's not a caricature. Liberals are all, every one of them, about power. I've never met or talked to one who didn't have power issues. It all revolves around them knowing best for everybody, and because they know best, they don't have to be held accountable, or meet others' standards.

Every single one, even my dearest, oldest friend. They think man as a group is stupid and unworthy, with the exception of themselves and those who think exactly like them.

 

[Shogun]

It's not a caricature. Liberals are all, every one of them, about power. I've never met or talked to one who didn't have power issues. It all revolves around them knowing best for everybody, and because they know best, they don't have to be held accountable, or meet others' standards.

Every single one, even my dearest, oldest friend. They think man as a group is stupid and unworthy, with the exception of themselves and those who think exactly like them.

*sigh*

remember, you might find that generalizing club coming back to haunt you.

 

[Larkinn]

I realize you'd like to think they are different, but they aren't

Please explain exactly how they aren't.

See RGS's response above. It's reoughly along those lines

...

Liberals are about scaring people to depend on them? What an idiotic and asinine generalization. That has nothing to do with liberal beliefs. And this is exactly why the rest of the world thinks your views on global warming are fucking retarded. Because you think global warming is believed because of some leftist global conspiracy designed to control the world. Go and join the 9/11 conspiracy theorists and those who think that the Masons are running the world and leave us to actual serious discussion.

Which of course means they don't exist. You keep your 42. Ill keep my 58, deal?

You have 58% of scientists backing you up on that claim? Oh wait, no you don't. What was it again? I think it was something like 6%.

 

[Larkinn]

It's not a caricature. Liberals are all, every one of them, about power. I've never met or talked to one who didn't have power issues. It all revolves around them knowing best for everybody, and because they know best, they don't have to be held accountable, or meet others' standards.

Every single one, even my dearest, oldest friend. They think man as a group is stupid and unworthy, with the exception of themselves and those who think exactly like them.

Yes and conservatives are all fat cats who hate the poor, love pollution, are racist and homophobic (but yet secretly gay), southern, inbred rednecks with a 4th grade education.

Well that was an exercise in absurdity. Maybe now we can get to discussing something that vaguely involves rational thought?

 

[AllieBaba]

The difference, of course, is that my comments are true. Your comments are simply outright lies perpetuated by angry little people with control issues.