Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
(Phys.org) A team of climatologists with members from the U.S., Australia, Canada and Norway is claiming in a paper they've had published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, that they have found proof that global warming is being caused by human influences. They are basing their claims on computer simulations they've run and data obtained from three decades' worth of satellite observations[
Most of the world's scientists agree that our planet is experiencing global warming. Most also generally support the theory that the cause of global warming is due to an increase in greenhouse gasses, primarily carbon dioxide. And while many also support the notion that the increase in greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere is likely due to human emissions, few are willing to go on record claiming that global warming is due directly to human activities. The researchers in this new effort are one such group and they claim they have proof
They are basing their claims on computer simulations they've run...
Dismissed as worthless.
Ol' Daveboy is one ignorant ass, and determined to stay that way. Absolutely never seen an intelligent post from him. Skooker does better. At least some of the girls in his posts are good looking.
We use computer models for chemical reactions, engineering, aircraft design, weather forecasting, and so many other things. That ignoramouses like Daveboy want to go back to slide rules is simply a reflection of his inability to deal with modern devices. In fact, so much of the 'Conservatives' whining is do to their own deficiences in dealing with good change.
Ol' Daveboy is one ignorant ass, and determined to stay that way. Absolutely never seen an intelligent post from him. Skooker does better. At least some of the girls in his posts are good looking.
We use computer models for chemical reactions, engineering, aircraft design, weather forecasting, and so many other things. That ignoramouses like Daveboy want to go back to slide rules is simply a reflection of his inability to deal with modern devices. In fact, so much of the 'Conservatives' whining is do to their own deficiences in dealing with good change.
Ol' Daveboy is one ignorant ass, and determined to stay that way. Absolutely never seen an intelligent post from him. Skooker does better. At least some of the girls in his posts are good looking.
We use computer models for chemical reactions, engineering, aircraft design, weather forecasting, and so many other things. That ignoramouses like Daveboy want to go back to slide rules is simply a reflection of his inability to deal with modern devices. In fact, so much of the 'Conservatives' whining is do to their own deficiences in dealing with good change.
The difference is those are modelling far smaller systems, with far more detailed input data, a smaller time frame, and often can be directly compared to the system they are trying to reproduce. They are not trying to model a 2-3 billion year old climate system using 30 years of data (in this case).
Models are tools, and as tools can be used correctly, or misused negligently (or maliciously).
Well, YOU have dismissed it as worthless. I'm sorry but I don't see a wave of people's minds changed by your decision.
And this is NOT the first time that models were unable to reproduce observations without assuming human influence. The IPCC included such data in their very first report.
Your objection to the use of models is dismissed as worthless. They are what they are, but they do have some value, particularly when used on a comparative basis.
You might as well reject all research in the natural sciences that makes use of computers. How can ANY researcher claim that they have successfully reduced some natural phenomenon to a mathematical equation (and then accurately coded it into computerese). Right?
Wrong. I don't know whether you are just grasping at straws or displaying your general ignorance, but I do know your opinion is deeply incorrect.
Then you aren't paying attention.
Ah, but I think you DO know that the public is rejecting the con that you pull - I think you are filling your pockets from the con. I think you know that the jig is just about up. Hmm
Say sparky, wasn't that IPCC data shown to be erroneous to the point of open fraud?
{The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.
Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.
In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the reports chapter on Asia, said: It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.}
Glacier scientists says he knew data had not been verified | Mail Online
Good point - open fraud isn't worthless to your con - it's vital. Without fraud, jargon, and intimidation - the fraud would have collapsed a decade back - with you leaving billions of dollars on the table.
Actually, you know his opinion is entirely correct, and fear that many people are catching on to the fact that you are running a shell game, a con.
When your con was first used, and the Shaman pointed to the smoking volcano and demanded sacrifice from the villagers to appease the gods, there was some possibility that the volcano would erupt.
BUT the shaman had no real knowledge, and he SURE the fuck had no control, and the sacrifice of the villagers only served to enrich the shaman.
Your con has not changed - not one bit.
Ol' Daveboy is one ignorant ass, and determined to stay that way. Absolutely never seen an intelligent post from him. Skooker does better. At least some of the girls in his posts are good looking.
We use computer models for chemical reactions, engineering, aircraft design, weather forecasting, and so many other things. That ignoramouses like Daveboy want to go back to slide rules is simply a reflection of his inability to deal with modern devices. In fact, so much of the 'Conservatives' whining is do to their own deficiences in dealing with good change.
Are AGW cultists incapable of honesty?Ol' Daveboy is one ignorant ass, and determined to stay that way. Absolutely never seen an intelligent post from him. Skooker does better. At least some of the girls in his posts are good looking.
We use computer models for chemical reactions, engineering, aircraft design, weather forecasting, and so many other things. That ignoramouses like Daveboy want to go back to slide rules is simply a reflection of his inability to deal with modern devices. In fact, so much of the 'Conservatives' whining is do to their own deficiences in dealing with good change.
I have to disagree with you just a wee bit. I don't think the problem is an overarching antipathy towards technology and science. His problem is that he has to reject models to argue that AGW is false. I don't know if it's the best way for him to do it, but it IS certainly the easiest.
Climate models are NOT accurate.
The solution is clear... get rid of humans. Save the planet at any cost.
In the meantime... the U.S. plasters 39 million acres of formerly verdant oxygen-producing and Co2 reducing land with... corn.
Because more corn makes more farmers more wealthy.
Fuck the agriculture industry, for they are fucking us.
Well, YOU have dismissed it as worthless. I'm sorry but I don't see a wave of people's minds changed by your decision.
Then you aren't paying attention.
Ah, but I think you DO know that the public is rejecting the con that you pull - I think you are filling your pockets from the con. I think you know that the jig is just about up.
And this is NOT the first time that models were unable to reproduce observations without assuming human influence. The IPCC included such data in their very first report.
Hmm
Say sparky, wasn't that IPCC data shown to be erroneous to the point of open fraud?
Your objection to the use of models is dismissed as worthless. They are what they are, but they do have some value, particularly when used on a comparative basis.
You might as well reject all research in the natural sciences that makes use of computers. How can ANY researcher claim that they have successfully reduced some natural phenomenon to a mathematical equation (and then accurately coded it into computerese). Right?
Good point - open fraud isn't worthless to your con - it's vital. Without fraud, jargon, and intimidation - the fraud would have collapsed a decade back - with you leaving billions of dollars on the table.
Wrong. I don't know whether you are just grasping at straws or displaying your general ignorance, but I do know your opinion is deeply incorrect.
Actually, you know his opinion is entirely correct, and fear that many people are catching on to the fact that you are running a shell game, a con.
When your con was first used, and the Shaman pointed to the smoking volcano and demanded sacrifice from the villagers to appease the gods, there was some possibility that the volcano would erupt.
BUT the shaman had no real knowledge, and he SURE the fuck had no control, and the sacrifice of the villagers only served to enrich the shaman.
Your con has not changed - not one bit.
