Global Warming - It's Complicated

Prediction is very hard, especially when it is about the future. (Brilliant observation...would predicting the past be easier??)

Past performance is no basis for prediction about future performance.

Try the null hypothesis.

Are you 100% sure that man made effects will have negligible effect on future weather? (Are you 100% sure that man made effects have had negligible effects on weather in the past, like these scam artist scientists (and Algore) claim??) Originally Posted by essence

The brilliance on this board is underwhelming...

And that it is caused by us dirty ole' humans... Originally Posted by EXTXOILMAN

Yeah, that too. Thanks for completeing my post, lol.

Prediction is very hard, especially when it is about the future.

Past performance is no basis for prediction about future performance.

Try the null hypothesis.

Are you 100% sure that man made effects will have negligible effect on future weather? Originally Posted by essence

Considering that one (1) volcano popping off puts more CO2 into the atmosphere in one gasp than Man does all year, considering that NONE of the Anthropogenic Global Warming/Climate Change scenarios seem to consider volcanic effects...

... oh, and considering that NONE of them even MENTION 1800-And-Froze-To-Death, The Year With No Summer, which by its very nature argues very strongly against PERMANENT climate change from temporary effects like CO2 and ash...

... I'm trending skeptical.

Are you 100% sure that man made effects will have negligible effect on future weather? Originally Posted by essence

. . . and you are 100% sure that mega-rich commodity managers brokering cow farts is a sure fire solution to a problem (man made global warming) you cannot prove exists?

Essence that is called Hobson's Choice. You are given only two choices and there is no in between. You must ask yourself this (better question) are you willing to run your civilization down, lower your standard of living, allow millions to starve, and waste trillions on the unlikely chance that we can affect the climate? The afore mentioned Bjorn Lomborg has put together the expected cost of stopping MMGW (according to the acolytes of Al Gore) at $70 trillion. He goes on to say that for a fraction we can build sea walls, move populations, and learn to live with MMGW (remember Lomborg is a believer).

The brilliance on this board is underwhelming... Originally Posted by EXTXOILMAN

I'm so sorry, I thought everybody knew the quote, here it is (I got it slightly wrong).

Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future.Niels Bohr
Danish physicist (1885 - 1962)

I assume I don't need to explain who Niels Bohr was?

. . . and you are 100% sure that mega-rich commodity managers brokering cow farts is a sure fire solution to a problem (man made global warming) you cannot prove exists? Originally Posted by I B Hankering

I'm not 100% sure of anything. It's the ones who are 100% sure that scare me. Especially the ones who say they are 100% sure that there is no global warming and we can continue as we have been. That level of assurance is one which only the truly stupid can attain.

ps. do I need to explain what the null hypothesis is? See

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis

I'm so sorry, I thought everybody knew the quote, here it is (I got it slightly wrong).

Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future.Niels Bohr
Danish physicist (1885 - 1962)

I assume I don't need to explain who Niels Bohr was? Originally Posted by essence

Atom bombs, Manhattan Project, etc., etc., brilliant man, no doubt. A simple attribution would have sufficed.

I'm not 100% sure of anything. It's the ones who are 100% sure that scare me. Originally Posted by essence

There must be many people that scare you then, limey boy.

I'm not 100% sure of anything. It's the ones who are 100% sure that scare me. Especially the ones who say they are 100% sure that there is no global warming and we can continue as we have been. That level of assurance is one which only the truly stupid can attain.

ps. do I need to explain what the null hypothesis is? See

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis Originally Posted by essence

According to the geological record, the earth has, in the distant past, been much colder -- and much, much warmer; hence, global warming cannot be construed as an unnatural event. As such, well connected politicians and charlatans, e.g., Al Gore, et al, should not be allowed to draft the power of the government for their personal benefit to enforce bogus policies based on a very questionable hypothesis. BTW:


charlatan

2 : fraud, faker

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/charlatan

Are you sure he's not a golem, Corpy?

About 10,000 years ago New York City was under a mile thick ice sheet. Saw that on the Discovery Channel which about 3 years ago was very pro-global warming.

What happened to cause all that ice the recede?

So you're saying that 100,000 years ago they had to use the subway because it was hard for taxis to get around?

Great video Iffy; thanks for posting.....................

Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB