 enbar says: New study finds an ongoing recent trend towards increasing numbers of "extreme weather events" (droughts, storms, heat waves), accompanied by high levels of human suffering and economic damage, and predicts this trend will accelerate in the coming decades. From the source (p. 2): While global warming studies always have their critics, it’s not easy to dismiss these findings. They’re based on nine different climate-change models developed by leading scientists in four countries: France, Japan, Russia, and the United States. Each one is processed by supercomputers, crunching millions of data points on variables like surface temperatures, ocean currents, winds, solar radiation, volcanic eruptions and rainforest destruction. Each one takes months to perform. “The fact that all nine produced remarkably consistent agreement gives us a lot of confidence in the results,” says Katharine Hayhoe of Texas Tech University, another of the study’s authors. I predict that because of factors such as more people living in more places and inflation, that weather events will continue to take a greater human toll and cost more than in the past. As for the computer models, show me one that can accurately predict the past 1000 or even 100 years. They all predicted an even worse hurricane season this year, but we had one of the mildest. If they can be that far off predicting the next six months, why should anyone believe they can predict years and even decades into the future? I guess you didn't read the article ... it's about predicting long-term climate trends, not year-to-year weather forecasting. But consider this: under the worst of the three scenarios, by the year 2099, the length of heat waves will increase by a whopping 12 standard deviation--which is statistician-speak for "holy cow!" The recent predictions of the disastrous hurricane season were so accurate why not go for the long-term gold. In fact, they could NOT have been MORE WRONG! I guess you fell into the same fallacy that n2sooners did. Analyzing long-term trends is not the same as forecasting next year's weather. But they have shown no more ability to predict long term trends then they have on mid or short term trends. They actually seem to be more accurate the shorter the trend. You know, for all of our sakes, I sure hope you guys are right ... but personally I'd rather be safe than sorry. It is not a fallacy ... look up the definition, It is a simple illustration of the arrogance and actual ignorance of those that presume the ability to forcast any distance into the future. The fallacies of naive realism, consensus, hunch, intuition, majority rule, and authority are ALL in your court. I am simply stating facts as they have unfolded. Okay, willhelm, see my previous comment. but personally I'd rather be safe than sorry.Now, I actually agree with you here. The only problem is there is nothing on the table to actually confront the possibility of anthropogenic global warming. Kyoto does NOTHING, and everyoner that knows anything about Kyoto knows this. It is a shell game that redistributes wealth, energy use, and punishes the countries that provide the most effective means for combatting the alleged greenhous gas problem. Besides that no country that is abiding by Kyoto is even close to achieving the limits, and even if they did, it only cuts co2 by 2% over 50 years. Yeah, I know. It's depressing. I wish I could believe otherwise, but it seems to me we -- or at least our kids -- are in deep doo-doo. Kyoto does NOTHING, and everyoner that knows anything about Kyoto knows thisI love how you make up these sentences... If countries actually follow the Kyoto protocol, then it can actually make quite a difference (if the science is right). Many of the Scandinavian countries, as well as France, and others are well on the way to meeting or exceeding their promises... Canada, has failed miserably, the US, has it's head in the sand stating that it would kill the economy (which is BS, it would cause a shift in some industries, and their might be a TEMPORARY dip, but it would pick back up as the newer, greener energy industries picked up the slack). PS: Yes I know, the... TCW, you just simply do not know what you are talking about. http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=6 These optimistic projections don't even take in to account the gross failures of Kyoto and economioc costs. willhelm ... that's your idea of a reputable source? Yes, It is not an anti-global warming site., and I did not think the TCW had the constitution for the actual Kyoto Protocol or SPCC projections. How about engaging in the facts, proposing alternatives, rather than engaging in ad hominems. Ad hominems? yes. Can you explain? Good grief. Your insinuation the site is not worthy of adequate and trustworthy information is a faulty and misplaced attack on credibilty. You seek to diminish the facts I presented by diminishing the source of the information. This is not a valid assessment and objection to the information. Ahh ... by "ad hominem" you mean "doesn't accept the reliability of the source." I think of "ad hominem" normally as referring to attacks on specific individuals. That's why I was confused. Anyhow. Okay, willhelm, busted... you got me. I'm guilty of not buying that particular source. It certainly looks like an anti-Kyoto site. Anyhow, though, I have no stake specifically in Kyoto's validity one way or the other. Rag on Kyoto all you want. But, I do confess that I tend to trust the IPCC more than I trust friendsofscience.org. Yes anti-kyoto not anti-global warming. I trust the IPCC too. That is why you should read the actual IPCC report and not the politcally driven Summary for Policy makers, which was written by politicians at the UN that support Kyoto. It was not written by scientists. There are numerous twists of truths in the SPM and dispicable ommissions. For example.. IPCC, 2001..pg 97: The recent observed warming trends does not mean an anthropogenic effect on the climate has been identified. Climate has and will always vary, so the observed changes could be natural. Most of the science in the IPCC is good, too bad for the alarmists and Kyoto advocates it does not support their agenda. This site pr... TCW, you just simply do not know what you are talking about.Ha! and yo know this because YOU are an expert? Lol.. The fact you suggested "friendsofscience.org" makes me smile... the site is so obvious its sad. I have no doubt that some governments and agencies "twisted" the truths of global warming to sensationalize it a bit.. that's what all governments do when they want something done.. look at the Gulf War  TCW, I am no expert. I am just informed. I am glad I made you smile. You obviously have no counter to the facts, just a slap at the source. Read my previous comment. |
View the Top Clips from November 29, 2006
|
|
|
|
