Post
Experience Project iOS Android Apps | Download EP for your Mobile Device
It's important because the UN-led hysteria over hypothesized FUTURE man-caused catastrophic global warming is ALL ABOUT COMPUTER MODELS. Those computer models' predictions have been failing badly for the past decade and a half? WHY THE HELL SHOULD WE BELIEVE IN THEM? I say the "flat earthers" are the stubborn people who cling to discredited computer models!
conceptualclarity conceptualclarity 51-55, M 10 Answers Oct 2, 2013 in Politics

Your Response

Cancel

Michael Crichton,the late author of State of fear,posited that small .ideological organizations became large ,money making organizations,needed a constant "State of Fear" to keep the big money coming in. He used footnotes all through the fictional novel.to ensure that the reader knew it was serious debate on the subject..speaking of debates,his team won the IQ2 debate on the subject:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fz8KiA-YMt8&list=PL1B692C4A75C9AE<br />
<br />
The new thinking is that we're going into a New Ice Age..Chicken Little is never too fa away!

Best Answer

There is no doubt that global warming is an artificial, politically-motivated "crisis". There was more warming in the first half of the 20th century, with FAR fewer carbon emissions from man, than in the 2nd half of the 20th century. The earth has been warming since the 1600s, a natural development.

Best Answer

No one can predict the weather. Especially the weatherman.

Best Answer

The Sea ice is growing. <br />
The Land ice is vanishing. <br />
<br />
Of nearly 14,000 research papers in EVERY branch of earth ba<x>sed science - geology, biology, chemistry, zoology. All but 27 conclude with evidence (you know, something can actually be qualified and quantified) that global warming is real and that humans have caused it. <br />
<br />
THAT'S why we should believe them. Now do you have something tangible to bring to the table or are you going to keep your fingers in your ears and expect people to respect you for it?

Best Answer

Your assertion that only 27 papers have challenged hypothesized future catastrophic man-caused global warning is absurd. Whoever generated that number is a liar, just like those deceivers in the UK who were exposed a couple of years ago. And you run from the point that the models have been failing badly for a decade and a half. The models simply are not predictive! They are just liberals' toys. And yes, political bias is a huge corrupting force among scientists. I know because I used to subscribe to Science, and was well familiar with its broad pattern of left-wing idiocies.

Best Answer

@ senergetic LOL I love how people just want to use data that they like. So what 14,000 years. the world is 6,000,000 years old. It has been much warmer/cooler in the past. Useing .23 % of the age of the earth as proof that there such a thing as global warming would be just as logicak as a patient going to the emergency room for a disease and have the Dr took your History and physical going back to the time you entered the ER. try peddling that crapola else where.

Best Answer

The fact of the matter is there have been a lot of scientists guilty of being greedy. They knew that government and foundation money was behind this global warming hoax, so they got on board. The beliefs of x number of scientists is never scientific fact. Scientists have been egregiously wrong about many things. Right now they are wrong in thinking pharmaceutical medicine is the superior way. Antibiotics save lives, but for the most part contemporary medicine is in a dark ages with the false notion that chronic health conditions are better treated by synthetic xenobiotic chemicals rather than natural substances.

Best Answer

I will take the typical liberal stance here<br />
ITS ALL W"S FAULT !!!

Best Answer

A lot of the research is government funded and reports citing humans' contribution to global warming as significant offer justification for high 'green' taxes. I suspect this is not a coincidence!<br />
<br />
Computer generated models for global warming and its effects have been shown to be highly inaccurate at best. The so-called 'father' of global warming produced three long-term temperature predictions that varied according to level of man-made greenhouse gases contributing to the atmosphere. One of the predictions was ba<x>sed on what should happen if we stopped the emissions completely. We kept billowing out those gases yet the actual temperature increase observed turned out to be lower than the one the predicted in the event we stop generating greenhouse gases. The model was great for justifying extra taxes to combat global warming though!

Best Answer

Don't you realize that global cooling is caused by global warming? I thought everyone knew this.

Best Answer

That's what the weasels will say.

Best Answer

I got blocked over the man made global warming issue the other day. Not an ounce of vitriol- just for having a conflicting opinion.

Best Answer

They are insecure because of the weakness of their case, so they resort to name-calling and smearing like "flat earth society."

Best Answer

The ice cap just didn't shrink as much this summer as it has in the past.

Best Answer

It's only growing phenomenally by percentage because it's up 50% from historic lows. "The experts added, however, that much of the ice remains thin and slushy, a far cry from the thick Arctic pack ice of the past. Because thin ice is subject to rapid future melting, the scientists said this year’s recovery was unlikely to portend any change in the relentless long-term decline of Arctic sea ice."

Best Answer

One datum point doesn't disprove a model.

Best Answer

It's not one datum point, it's 15 years.

Best Answer

@ Ketsan
Christy told CNSNews that he analyzed all 73 models used in the 5AR and not one accurately predicted that the Earth’s temperature would remain flat since Oct. 1, 1996. (See Temperatures v Predictions 1976-2013.pdf)

“I compared the models with observations in the key area – the tropics – where the climate models showed a real impact of greenhouse gases,” Christy explained. “I wanted to compare the real world temperatures with the models in a place where the impact would be very clear.” (See Tropical Mid-Troposphere Graph.pdf)

Using datasets of actual temperatures recorded by the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (NASA GISS), the United Kingdom’s Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research at the University of East Anglia (Hadley-CRU), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), satellites measuring atmospheric and deep oceanic temperatures, and a remote sensor system in California, Christy found that “all show a lack of warming over the past 17 years.”

“All 73 models’ predictions were on average three to four times what occurred in the real world,” Christy pointed out. “The closest was a Russian model that predicted a one-degree increase."
- See more at: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/climate-scientist-73-un-climate-models-wrong-no-global-warming-17#sthash.Fwy0j7rc.dpuf

Best Answer

Related Questions