It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

New Study Explodes Human-Global Warming Story

page: 8
31
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by traderonwallst
reply to post by jimbo999
 


Of course I have. Were you claiming to be a member? It was called sarcasm.

A Mensa member would have gotten that.


Hmmm..sorry? Could you perhaps 'quote' me? Intellect does not necessarily denote short-term memory retention
And yes....as are most of my family.

J.




posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 06:28 PM
link   
Source of quote below. Sorry - the source is from Richard S. Lindzen of the Cato Institute.

Modelling and Societal Instability

So far I have emphasized the political elements in the current climate hysteria. There can be no question, however, that scientists are abetting this situation. Concerns about funding have already been mentioned. There is, however, another perhaps more important element to the scientific support. The existence of modern computing power has led to innumerable modelling efforts in many fields. Supercomputers have allowed us to consider the behavior of systems seemingly too complex for other approaches. One of those systems is climate. Not surprisingly, there are many problems involved in modelling climate. For example, even supercomputers are inadequate to allow long-term integrations of the relevant equations at adequate spatial resolutions. At presently available resolutions, it is unlikely that the computer solutions are close to the solutions of the underlying equations. In addition, the physics of unresolved phenomena such as clouds and other turbulent elements is not understood to the extent needed for incorporation into models. In view of those problems, it is generally recognized that models are at present experimental tools whose relation to the real world is questionable.

While there is nothing wrong in using those models in an experimental mode, there is a real dilemma when they predict potentially dangerous situations. Should scientists publicize such predictions since the models are almost certainly wrong? Is it proper to not publicize the predictions if the predicted danger is serious? How is the public to respond to such predictions? The difficulty would be diminished if the public understood how poor the models actually are. Unfortunately, there is a tendency to hold in awe anything that emerges from a sufficiently large computer. There is also a reluctance on the part of many modellers to admit to the experimental nature of their models lest public support for their efforts diminish. Nevertheless, with poor and uncertain models in wide use, predictions of ominous situations are virtually inevitable--regardless of reality.

Such weak predictions feed and contribute to what I have already described as a societal instability that can cascade the most questionable suggestions of danger into major political responses with massive economic and social consequences. I have already discussed some of the reasons for this instability: the existence of large cadres of professional planners looking for work, the existence of advocacy groups looking for profitable causes, the existence of agendas in search of saleable rationales, and the ability of many industries to profit from regulation, coupled with an effective neutralization of opposition. It goes almost without saying that the dangers and costs of those economic and social consequences may be far greater than the original environmental danger. That becomes especially true when the benefits of additional knowledge are rejected and when it is forgotten that improved technology and increased societal wealth are what allow society to deal with environmental threats most effectively. The control of societal instability may very well be the real challenge facing us.


This speaks to the assertion I made earlier, without a response, that current computers are not even capable of handling a model that would reliably answer the Global Warming questions. I see I'm not alone in that opinion.



[edit on 12/10/2007 by Blaine91555]



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
Here is something for everyone too chew on. I've personally been flooded with information as to why Global Warming is real or caused my Human activity. This site appears to have an excellent compilation of the argument the other way.

Mind Candy regarding Global Warming.


Hmmm....but have you actually looked into WHO and WHAT this is. The CATO Institute is (which is where all this info comes from) and I quote:

'The Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank based in Washington DC, was founded in 1977 by Edward Crane and Charles Koch, the billionaire co-owner of Koch Industries, the largest privately held oil company in the U.S.

The Cato Institute holds regular briefings on global warming with known climate 'skeptics' as panelists.'

Here's the link to the rest of the article.

www.exxonsecrets.org...

So once again, we're dealing with the oil industry and their hidden agendas I'm afraid...

Same old, same old...

J.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 06:29 PM
link   
trader, you really are grasping at straws. Mensa? Does it take a Mensa member to go out of his/her house to see what is appearent? Btw, it's June to August that it is that hot. STILL way to HOT for here.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by jimbo999
 


How is that any different than what you are doing. You are basing your whole opinion on one side of a many sided coin. You don't even pretend to accept that the truth may not be entirely on one side of the debate. So do we all rely on your biased sources or read both sides to get as close as we can to the truth. If the truth is indeed what you are after. Or is it to just win the debate at all costs and ignore anyones opinion other than your own?



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 06:39 PM
link   
I thought the whole Venus global warming discovery would finally make most people realise that CO2 is quite clearly a cause of global warming. Venus has average surface temperatures 3 times higher than would be expected, considering its distance from the sun. However its atmosphere is 96% Carbon dioxide, so the greenhouse effect is extreme to say the least. CO2 is not the only cause of global warming on earth, or indeed the most prominent cause, but it is one of the causes we can actually do something about, so I can't see why people have a problem with dealing with it. If it prevents catastrophe for a few extra years then surely it is worth it? Ask a terminal cancer patient if they would want an extremely expensive drug that would extent their life for a year and you will be surprised what lengths they would go to, just to get that extra year.


[edit on 10-12-2007 by mrmanuva]



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 06:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


Unfortunately, the source of the information (CATO) is suspect at best. Beware oil billionaires bearing gifts...


J.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
Mind Candy regarding Global Warming.


Heh, a compilation of climate 'obscurantists' talking points, from hockey sticks to urban heating.

Bleugh...

Same old, same old...

Nice to see avenger has shown his face - howdy, cowboy! - if you want the article, U2U me - I have it already. It's funny to see ToWSt criticising climatologists for reanalysising data, that's what this Singer study is, LOLocopter...

[edit on 10-12-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by jimbo999
 


And what makes up your consensus. For someone responding as often as you are, your really not saying much.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
reply to post by jimbo999
 


How is that any different than what you are doing. You are basing your whole opinion on one side of a many sided coin. You don't even pretend to accept that the truth may not be entirely on one side of the debate. So do we all rely on your biased sources or read both sides to get as close as we can to the truth. If the truth is indeed what you are after. Or is it to just win the debate at all costs and ignore anyones opinion other than your own?


I base my opinions on accepted science - peer reviewed science from reputable sources. CATO pay people to back up their agenda - which is selling oil. Simple logic suffices to reveal just how skewed their material is going to be. To make an analogy: would you trust information re: The Holocaust that was posted on a 'Neo-Nazi' website? No, me neither. So why would you trust a website with such an obvious agenda?

J.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrmanuva
I thought the whole Venus global warming discovery would finally make most people realise that CO2 is quite clearly a cause global warming.


That's just too simple for some. It's must be magical cosmic rays or something, heh.

It also shows that the saturation issue is overplayed as well.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimbo999


Go back one page to Bluess post there. You will find the obvious answer there I believe.


J.


A Mensa member relying on others to answer. HMMMMMM



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by traderonwallst
reply to post by jimbo999
 


And what makes up your consensus. For someone responding as often as you are, your really not saying much.


My consensus? Can you elucidate? Or do you mean the 'scientific consensus'?

Well, I'd say it's more honest that what you are saying. I'm simply stating the painful truth. If some people don't like that - well, that's tough. Doesn't really change anything though.

J.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimbo999


Hmmm..sorry? Could you perhaps 'quote' me? Intellect does not necessarily denote short-term memory retention
And yes....as are most of my family.

J.


Guess they let anyone in these days.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by traderonwallst
 



It's called information. Amazing what you can learn if you simply open your mind


J.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 06:53 PM
link   


That's just too simple for some. It's must be magical cosmic rays or something, heh.

It also shows that the saturation issue is overplayed as well.
Yeh, upper limit rubbish, you wont find a whole lot of water vapour in that 4% thats left over either.

[edit on 10-12-2007 by mrmanuva]

[edit on 10-12-2007 by mrmanuva]



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by traderonwallst
 


Only the top 2% actually. So I guess that means you won't have to worry yourself with all those pesky tests



J.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by traderonwallst

Originally posted by jimbo999


Hmmm..sorry? Could you perhaps 'quote' me? Intellect does not necessarily denote short-term memory retention
And yes....as are most of my family.

J.


Guess they let anyone in these days.


That's all you have? Your pipe dream is deflated and you resort to insults? :shk:



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimbo999
reply to post by traderonwallst
 


Only the top 2% actually. So I guess that means you won't have to worry yourself with all those pesky tests



J.


Chill dude. Let's not make it that personal. Be above it.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by traderonwallst

Originally posted by jimbo999


Hmmm..sorry? Could you perhaps 'quote' me? Intellect does not necessarily denote short-term memory retention
And yes....as are most of my family.

J.


Guess they let anyone in these days.


That's all you have? Your pipe dream is deflated and you resort to insults? :shk:


Yes, sad isn't it? I guess we should thank our lucky stars for the canadian educational system....

J.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join