Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You know what they say GIGO - garbage in, garbage out.
The GW models are seriously defective.
The challenge with modeling is that no one model gives accurate results. For example, there are 4-5 weather models, strictly used for weatherforecasting, and each has its shortcomings: one may underestimate precipiation while another might overestimate temperatures. These are validiated by taking the actual readings and placing them up against the model's predictions, and then adjusting and ultimately extrapolating information. Some models are more reliable in certain parts of the US or even the world, but then info from other models is substituted, so it is a patchwork, of sorts.
The same challenges happen when modeling GW, climate change, call it what you will. If the ice sheets in the North Pole are shrinking or melting, then why are those in the South Pole increasing in surface area and why is the ozone hole smaller than it was several years ago? If people were not here before the Ice Age and preceding warmer periods, then what caused those warming periods? We can't blame them on people. You see, there is nothing to suggest that people have any sort of major influence on climatology. This is like blaming the dust bowl days on people or the industrial revolution. If we read Erasmus or other world history accounts of droughts and drastic weather incidents, should we also attritube these to people driving their chariots? GW/climate change only fits into the myopic frame of logic, however, when you place the theory against the big picture, it does not stand the test of reason.
The challenge with modeling is that no one model gives accurate results. For example, there are 4-5 weather models, strictly used for weatherforecasting, and each has its shortcomings: one may underestimate precipiation while another might overestimate temperatures. These are validiated by taking the actual readings and placing them up against the model's predictions, and then adjusting and ultimately extrapolating information. Some models are more reliable in certain parts of the US or even the world, but then info from other models is substituted, so it is a patchwork, of sorts.
The same challenges happen when modeling GW, climate change, call it what you will. If the ice sheets in the North Pole are shrinking or melting, then why are those in the South Pole increasing in surface area and why is the ozone hole smaller than it was several years ago? If people were not here before the Ice Age and preceding warmer periods, then what caused those warming periods? We can't blame them on people. You see, there is nothing to suggest that people have any sort of major influence on climatology. This is like blaming the dust bowl days on people or the industrial revolution. If we read Erasmus or other world history accounts of droughts and drastic weather incidents, should we also attritube these to people driving their chariots? GW/climate change only fits into the myopic frame of logic, however, when you place the theory against the big picture, it does not stand the test of reason.
It all sounds very rational, but people do have an impact on the environment and the environment does have an impact on people.
I think, again, that at the heart of this discussion, the issue really isn't about who's responsible for climate change. The issue to me is that climate change is a possibility. And since climate is a key part of the environment humans depend upon for our well-being, anticipating how climate is going to change, and how humans should respond to such change, is a worthwhile topic.
And didn't farming and agricultural practices have an impact on what happened during the "dust bowl days"?
Of course it is a possibility and a reality. It has been that way for billions of years.
Do you think the climate is static?
Did I say climate was static?
If climate change is a possibility, then it is reasonable to think about how a change in climate affects people, and to think of how to offset any adverse effects, and even to capitalize on positive effects.
And there you have it. Scientific understanding requires no experience or understanding, just common sense, intuition, and a healthy dose of preconceived notions outweighs all the papers published by the experts.
Don't forget their erroneous predictions, which have done more to discredit the alarmists than anything else. Well, not quite - the planet has basically proven them liars - 2008/2009 the year the GW hoax was exposed by mother nature.
If climate change is a possibility, then it is reasonable to think about how a change in climate affects people, and to think of how to offset any adverse effects, and even to capitalize on positive effects.
Nothing wrong with trying to understand the implications of a natural and certain event. I have an issue with a trillion dollar tax increase to combat the natural order of the earth.
Nothing wrong with trying to understand the implications of a natural and certain event. I have an issue with a trillion dollar tax increase to combat the natural order of the earth.
I think that there is a difference between combatting the natural order of the earth, though, and dealing with the changes that are a result of natural forces. There is also a difference between assuming complete responsibility for those changes, and acknowledging that human activities might have played a part in some of those changes. We have an impact on our environment, our environment has an impact on us. Sometimes it's not a bad idea to try to control our impact on the environment, and that doesn't automatically lead to the conclusion that we are trying to control our environment. Control our impact versus control the environment. Two different things.
I think that there is a difference between combatting the natural order of the earth, though, and dealing with the changes that are a result of natural forces. There is also a difference between assuming complete responsibility for those changes, and acknowledging that human activities might have played a part in some of those changes. We have an impact on our environment, our environment has an impact on us. Sometimes it's not a bad idea to try to control our impact on the environment, and that doesn't automatically lead to the conclusion that we are trying to control our environment. Control our impact versus control the environment. Two different things.
How do you suggest we control our impact? Go back to living in caves?
What does this mean? Sure seems like you are questioning if "climate change" is possible.
You must be joking? It is a reality and always has been.
What does this mean? It means I never said such a thing, though you tried to imply that I did.
As for the second time where you parsed my post because your argument evidently isn't good enough to respond to my entire post,
This is what I said.
If climate change is a possibility, then it is reasonable to think about how a change in climate affects people, and to think of how to offset any adverse effects, and even to capitalize on positive effects.
I consider the way you take fragments of someone's post in an attempt to ridicule them to be dishonest and to be an attack.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
