Quote:
|
Originally Posted by retsuki03
Well, your "Clutch" article shows just how accurate these computer models can be. The problem is knowing all the significant variables.
From your article:
"Even the most pessimistic forecasts of global warming may now have to be drastically revised upwards."
So I guess that means even the models that predicted the worst are quite potentially completely wrong. The more modest predictions would, of course, be way fucking off.
|
I believe the article said "predictions", which in my book would not single out computer models, but all predictions made. It seems to me that you're taking a general statement about the accuracy of predictions in general and applying it specifically to computer models, which seems to suit your position in this debate quite nicely.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by retsuki03
This only proves how far we are from knowing the right variables to predict the climate in the future. The local weatherman can often not even tell me if it is going to rain on the weekend. He uses the information he knows, and makes a guess. Just like these computer models do. Sometimes they are right, and sometimes they are wrong. Apparently, up until your ground breaking clutch article- all of them were wrong.
|
And I said that when? I'm not saying that other people's ideas are wrong, and I don't believe Dr. Cox or Dr. Stanhill were either. I was merely presenting a piece of information which few people had likely considered.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by retsuki03
So basically your article is a demonstration of how erroneous information can be used to develop often entirely wrong climate predicting computer models in conjunction with yellow journalism to convince people that there is a cataclysmic change pending in the environment all the while getting people to watch the BBC and arousing a "sceptical response from other scientists." |
I take it you're not a scientist, or you wouldn't be speaking like that. Please, indicate what information is erroneous. Being that we're speaking of a complex aspect of the FUTURE, I guess we can't really know what would be erroneous or not, now do we?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by retsuki03
The truth be told, I just don't buy it. I have looked on the internet can find could very few articles supporting Stanhill. Neither your article, or the Analysis of your article that I posted before address the prospect of cosmic radiation. However, the article by Dr. Jaworowski I posted before does. I honestly wonder if you even looked at either.
|
Yes, I've looked at both. They both make interesting points. Before you go giving Dr. Jaworowski's article preferential treatment, think about some things... Beside that Dr. Jaworowski is obviously biased, this
magazine article would never be accepted as a scientific journal review. About half of his references are not even from scientific studies, but rather other magazine articles, newspapers, and interviews. That would be the equivalent of me stating that my opinion is truth and citing the BBC article. Mind you, the other half are credible, but I wonder why he has to back up many of his supposed "fact" with non-scientific sources. Perhaps he just wants to believe he is right. (Not to say he's not... I think we've established that no one can totally accurately predict the future). Oh, and your previous statement of:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by retsuki03
erroneous information can be used to develop often entirely wrong climate predicting computer models in conjunction with yellow journalism to convince people that there is a cataclysmic change pending in the environment all the while getting people to watch the BBC and arousing a "sceptical response from other scientists."
|
would apply to this magazine and Dr. Jaworowski's article as well, wouldn't it?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by retsuki03
This apparently is a big fucking deal, and if you haven't heard yet, all the polar bears are going to die. It's a big fucking deal you see- dead polar bears. How tragic. Have I garnished any sympathy yet? Hell, penguins are even cuter. And shit! They will die too! This is horrible fucking news, I better run out and buy that hybrid car or perhaps first I should scold my neighbor for driving the truck he obviously doesn't need.
|
I know you're being sarcastic, but I just want to make a comment about the WWF's use of the article. The WWF's goal is to save the animals, and shit the bed every time something with fur dies. I think most of us would agree that they can go overboard in many situations (and perhaps this is one of them) but the purpose of my bringing it up is merely to indicate the possibility for severe climate change, and perhaps one could also derive from that how a high rate of climate change could, over a not-too-long time frame have an adverse effect on the environment which humanity would also feel the effects of. Trust me, the LAST people that I would take my environmental position from is the WWF, as they also have quite a well-defined agenda... or could I call that a crusade? Haha...