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.
They're basing their outlook on political leanings. That doesn't bode well for their scientific analysis of the situation. It's becoming more and more clear that the deniers don't care about the science. They've basically lost the argument and are basing their objections on political considerations and only use scientific jargon to confuse the unsophisticated.
They're basing their outlook on political leanings. That doesn't bode well for their scientific analysis of the situation. It's becoming more and more clear that the deniers don't care about the science. They've basically lost the argument and are basing their objections on political considerations and only use scientific jargon to confuse the unsophisticated.
This, I find is funny, Now I know Gore should have used chimps in his studies instead of those 'other' scientists so he could have increased his accuracy of the 'GW' debate.
Dr. Hansimian's Hurricane Forecast Center
Think-Tank Says Trained Chimp Can Predict Hurricanes Better Than NOAA
The NHC for the most part has kept itself out of the politics of AGW "theory". The group using monkeys is poking fun at all of the alarmists who pervert or ignore what the NHC says. An example of a NHC report that was ignored is below.
NHC Downplays Study On Global Warming & Storms - cbs3.com
The NHC for the most part has kept itself out of the politics of AGW "theory". The group using monkeys is poking fun at all of the alarmists who pervert or ignore what the NHC says. An example of a NHC report that was ignored is below.
NHC Downplays Study On Global Warming & Storms - cbs3.com
You used a conservative think tank article to call the NHC forecast basically the same as a monkey forecast. You know how the average conservative that reads that article is going to react. It was wrong when Al Gore did it with climatology, it is wrong here. Disenfranchising scientist for political gain is ridiculous. By the way I do understand your response and I agree that people misinterpret this forecast to gratify their doomsday theories. However the majority of the scientists that are involved with the NHC and the broader NOAA..are in the business of saving peoples lives.
They're basing their outlook on political leanings. That doesn't bode well for their scientific analysis of the situation. It's becoming more and more clear that the deniers don't care about the science. They've basically lost the argument and are basing their objections on political considerations and only use scientific jargon to confuse the unsophisticated.
The NHC for the most part has kept itself out of the politics of AGW "theory". The group using monkeys is poking fun at all of the alarmists who pervert or ignore what the NHC says. An example of a NHC report that was ignored is below.
NHC Downplays Study On Global Warming & Storms - cbs3.com
You used a conservative think tank article to call the NHC forecast basically the same as a monkey forecast. You know how the average conservative that reads that article is going to react. It was wrong when Al Gore did it with climatology, it is wrong here. Disenfranchising scientist for political gain is ridiculous. By the way I do understand your response and I agree that people misinterpret this forecast to gratify their doomsday theories. However the majority of the scientists that are involved with the NHC and the broader NOAA..are in the business of saving peoples lives.
Uhhhh, Jason,
You might wish to look at who initiated the thread....'cause...it wasn't me and if you would care to read my followup I said the NHC is actually keeping out of the whole mess for the most part. I actually like the NHC. I don't like the fraudsters who pervert what they say and that is who is being picked on.
NOAA on the other hand have been up to their eyeballs in the AGW fraud and have actively been deleting weather stations for years to perpetuate the fraud so NOAA needs a major airing out. Currently anything they publish about anything is suspect.
Small differences in initial conditions (such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation) yield widely diverging outcomes for chaotic systems, rendering long-term prediction impossible in general.[1] This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behaviour is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved.[2] In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable.[3] This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos.
Chaotic behavior can be observed in many natural systems, such as the weather.[4] Explanation of such behavior may be sought through analysis of a chaotic mathematical model, or through analytical techniques such as recurrence plots and Poincaré maps.
CO2 absorbs infra-red radiation.
The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has been going up since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.
Therefore, if the trend continues, warming is inevitable.
If you can't find the flaw in this logical syllogism, Syllogism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia , but still think AGW is a crock, then you're basing your opinion totally on politics and NOT the science, proving my point.
CO2 absorbs infra-red radiation.
The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has been going up since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.
Therefore, if the trend continues, warming is inevitable.
If you can't find the flaw in this logical syllogism, Syllogism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia , but still think AGW is a crock, then you're basing your opinion totally on politics and NOT the science, proving my point.
