Alaskas climate is safe after all !!! YES (airport, transport)

[Metlakatla]

Uh oh. We were counting on being able to grow corn in SE in a couple of years for the still. I wonder if I can sue anyone for loss of revenue.

[Metlakatla]

Originally Posted by tigre79

Actually, it has been pretty big news. What's unfortunate is that most of the people reading the stories about this incident don't know a thing about the kind of mathematical modeling these researchers are doing and don't understand the language used to discuss it. How they can then think they know what these out-of-context emails are really talking about is beyond me.

I agree with this.

[tigre79]

Originally Posted by Moose Whisperer

I don't need to understand how my computer works either to know that Garbage In = Garbage Out. Models based on deception and fraud will always produce fictitious results, no matter how elaborate or complex.

Originally Posted by Candle

Uh, they program the models to suit their interests...obviously.

What in the world are you guys even basing these assertions on? If you don't know the first thing about modeling, how would you know how the model is built or how well it fits a dataset?

Consider those rhetorical questions, by the way. I have absolutely no interest in pursuing a discussion on a technical subject with people who don't even think they need to know anything about the subject in order to form their opinions.

[akck]

Originally Posted by Metlakatla

Uh oh. We were counting on being able to grow corn in SE in a couple of years for the still. I wonder if I can sue anyone for loss of revenue.

Send Al Gore the bill. He's made $$ millions off of it.

[akck]

Originally Posted by tigre79

What in the world are you guys even basing these assertions on? If you don't know the first thing about modeling, how would you know how the model is built or how well it fits a dataset?

Consider those rhetorical questions, by the way. I have absolutely no interest in pursuing a discussion on a technical subject with people who don't even think they need to know anything about the subject in order to form their opinions.

You don't have to know the model or dataset to understand that the data needed to be massaged to give the wanted results. I'm sure some here know how statistical modeling works and if you build your model on x & y, adding in z to get it to work is not proper scientific research. Actually, you don't even need to statistical modeling to know that. Consider this to be a rhetorical answer.

[Manmountain]

The Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change is the leading body for the assessment of climate change, established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic consequences.



The IPCC is a scientific body. It reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, technical and socio-economic information produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of climate change. It does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters. Thousands of scientists from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC on a voluntary basis. Review is an essential part of the IPCC process, to ensure an objective and complete assessment of current information. Differing viewpoints existing within the scientific community are reflected in the IPCC reports.



The IPCC is an intergovernmental body, and it is open to all member countries of UN and WMO. Governments are involved in the IPCC work as they can participate in the review process and in the IPCC plenary sessions, where main decisions about the IPCC workprogramme are taken and reports are accepted, adopted and approved. The IPCC Bureau and Chairperson are also elected in the plenary sessions.



Because of its scientific and intergovernmental nature, the IPCC embodies a unique opportunity to provide rigorous and balanced scientific information to decision makers. By endorsing the IPCC reports, governments acknowledge the authority of their scientific content. The work of the organization is therefore policy-relevant and yet policy-neutral, never policy-prescriptive.


The Climatic Research Unit is the major contributor of data to the IPCC. The aim of CRU is to improve scientific understanding in:
» past climate history and its impact on humanity
» the course and causes of climate change during the present century
» prospects for the future.



CRU's website is currently being served from the CRU Emergency Webserver.
Some pages may be out of date.
Normal service will be resumed as soon as possible.

[Sweden]

Wow - the OP actually got answers. Wow...

Guess those 3 years I spent studying how climates are formed (for A's, you need to know e.g. if factor x causes y, then what does factor x plus y equal, etc.) are just... no, wait! Phew - my knowledge of the field is still valid.
A silly "this email is the truth, no evidence to prove it needed and this disproves everything to the contrary because I say so" hasn't changed a thing.

Smoking cigaretts cause lung cancer in the long run. It's been proven that the more you smoke, the higher the likelihood of developing lung cancer.

However, as it seems - CO2 is a green house gas. But adding more CO2 to the atmosphere does not increase the likelihood of problems such as climate change?

Logic, huh? Bad thing when it doesn't go your way...

I would urge people to stop listening to the media when it comes to "hot topics" such as global climate change. Media says what the media thinks sells. Instead, STUDY the subject. Not the topic, but the subject.
Read up on e.g. what climate is.
How climate comes about (i.e. what factors in in creating it and thus what can change it).
Understand the subject before trying to figure out who thinks right. Think for yourself.

And, sorry to have to tell you this - but the world doesn't revolve around the US. The rest of us don't listen to Gore or what the US media says or the US scientists. We have our own scientists.
And we're changing our economical systems and our lifestyles. And you know what - it's ok. It's not worse, just slightly different. You can't even tell the difference. (Ok, actually, before the crisis - more jobs had actually been created. Not less.)

I'm off to hack into the Swedish health agency's website now - who are they to tell me candy can't replace "real food"! Just because they say so. Well, I say differently, and I believe I have the entire population of children in this world behind me.
I smell a governmental conspiracy...

[blueflames50]

Originally Posted by Sweden

Wow - the OP actually got answers. Wow...

Guess those 3 years I spent studying how climates are formed (for A's, you need to know e.g. if factor x causes y, then what does factor x plus y equal, etc.) are just... no, wait! Phew - my knowledge of the field is still valid.
A silly "this email is the truth, no evidence to prove it needed and this disproves everything to the contrary because I say so" hasn't changed a thing.

Smoking cigaretts cause lung cancer in the long run. It's been proven that the more you smoke, the higher the likelihood of developing lung cancer.

However, as it seems - CO2 is a green house gas. But adding more CO2 to the atmosphere does not increase the likelihood of problems such as climate change?

Logic, huh? Bad thing when it doesn't go your way...

I would urge people to stop listening to the media when it comes to "hot topics" such as global climate change. Media says what the media thinks sells. Instead, STUDY the subject. Not the topic, but the subject.
Read up on e.g. what climate is.
How climate comes about (i.e. what factors in in creating it and thus what can change it).
Understand the subject before trying to figure out who thinks right. Think for yourself.

And, sorry to have to tell you this - but the world doesn't revolve around the US. The rest of us don't listen to Gore or what the US media says or the US scientists. We have our own scientists.
And we're changing our economical systems and our lifestyles. And you know what - it's ok. It's not worse, just slightly different. You can't even tell the difference. (Ok, actually, before the crisis - more jobs had actually been created. Not less.)

I'm off to hack into the Swedish health agency's website now - who are they to tell me candy can't replace "real food"! Just because they say so. Well, I say differently, and I believe I have the entire population of children in this world behind me.
I smell a governmental conspiracy...

oh my oh my....love ya Sweden!!! People really need to realize how "programed" we are to what our media and society wants us think and believe instead of learning for ourselves....most of it is money motivated!!

[Manmountain]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxis7...ayer_embedded#

[Jerseykat]

Well that was disturbing.