"So now you're saying that the words of prophesy were misguided because your high priest was filling in the gaps with theological untruths. "
No, you shameless, embarrassing little liar, i said nothing like that. I said gore said that the models now predicted the possibility that the Northern sea ice could melt away completely at some point during the year by 2014. And saying so was accurate on his part, as this was an outlier in the models. Just take a hike, I have no use for your crazy or for your lies.
And knowing what we "know" now...that doesn't seem like a scare tactic to you? How is it we have such a different model predicting this same event at soonest 50 years away...only 10 years later?
" How is it we have such a different model predicting this same event at soonest 50 years away...only 10 years later?"
Simple... by gathering more data, given the benefit of time. Just as the part of a model of a hurricane's path over a location in the middle of the model becomes more narrow and accurate, as the hurricane approaches. How can you not puzzle this out for yourself?
A. How much is the current model going to be off as the hurricane approaches closer and closer...is it going to get further and further, it did make a pretty drastic change in only 10 years? And 50 years is the most aggressive model.
B. Predicting Hurricanes are not at all the same as predicting climate change...not even close. With the data we've been compiling and have compiled over the past we'll say even 50 years. If it was similar to predicting a hurricanes path, certainly with 50 years of data we should've had a vastly better idea of the "path" of climate change.
C. A simpler explanation is that it was a scare tactic, which seems to work well in a world with such a short term memory, and a constant imminent "threat" from terror, tragedy, war, and violence.
You sound a lot like an excuse maker, more than someone whose honestly curious. If that wasn't a scare tactic, I don't know what is.
I did not say they were the same, but rather gave an illustration of how models can be refined as more data is collected. And no, implying a vast conspiracy is not a "simpler explanation". Saying so is dishonest and bizarre to the point of you losing any credibility you showed up with.
Simplest explanation? You don't have a clue what you are talking about, have no education or experience in any of these fields, know less than nothing about this topic, and are trying to employ rhetorical tricks to misinform.
you would dare sit there and expect another person to bleieve or even
consider that a) you have outsmarted the global scientific community, who is b) all lying or all incompetent... and then blame the other person for walking away from you? You're just the guy on the corner with a sandwich sign and a bullhorn. Get back to me when you have published your mountains of research papers, crazyman
Ok what I'm seeing now is a huge appeal to ignorance. And you shouldn't have to resort to logical fallacies as proof when it comes to science. And there's never been a 95% consensus of scientist that agree with AGW. That was one paper from one grad student, that was completely false...but cited and accepted as truth since then.
Is some form of global warming formed by human activities, sure, sure as in its possible. But the leading cause to carbon emissions (according to the UN) is livestock...as in aerobic life that's exhaling co2. More so than energy or transportation (and that's only taking in account actual commercially used livestock)...should we have not seen a greater rise in warming in much greater release of carbon emissions from when we were using it more heavily and not as clean as we have been doing it since? There were plenty of times in history that should've shown us this correlation. We haven't seen much change since drastic change in both these factors. We have however seen a change (increase) in greenery (+13% 10 years ago, over a 30 year measure) across the globe, which does make sense since plants "breath" co2, and "exhale" oxygen.
Anyway ninety some percent of global warming models have been wrong thus far. The ones that are on par (barely), suggest that cataclysmic change won't be seen for hundreds or thousands of years. Obviously I reject the ones completely off (ninety some percent), and the ones sort of on par don't suggest that global warming is either strictly human caused or actually bad, honestly global warming is largely beneficial to life itself as a whole on the planet.
Until I hear something more than an appeal to ignorance, or non sequitur...I'm not on board. I'll entertain absolutely, but not on board. And when you HAVE to resort to appeal to ignorance and non sequiturs, the less on board I am. It was indeed Socrates who said "the only true wisdom is knowing you know nothing." Which is a paraphrase but the principle remains the same. You expect me to just completely ignore the fact the ninety some percent of global warming models have been false, and the ones that aren't don't suggest that much of a crisis...again I'll entertain, don't come at me with appeals to ignorance and no. Sequiturs.
