[TUT317]

If we cannot predict the weather with real accuracy more that a few days out what makes these idiots think they can predict the weather years in advance using statistics

Hi Clete,

If we extend anything far enough we will eventually expose its weakness. I think this is true of classical science. However, this does not stop us from trying. It is only by exploring our theories and pushing them to the limit we will eventually come to see the need for a different approach.

Actually, weather forecasters sometimes get it wrong in a two day forecast but they don't just give up and go home. Quantum computers are a long way off so all they can do is work with the knowledge they have.

When it comes to computer modelling all they have are bits, 0 or 1 , on off, true or false; whatever you want to call it. In an odd sort of way the scientific method mirrors this technology.

Naturally, any climate scientist would rather have a small quantum computer than a state of the art super computer.

At the moment, and possibly for a long time to come, we are paying the political price for being in the middle of 'a change over' so to speak.

Just my opinion

Tut

P.S. "Weakness of will". Actually I was just being polite. I think you estimation is probably closer to the mark

[paraclete]

At the moment, and possibly for a long time to come, we are paying the political price for being in the middle of 'a change over' so to speak.

Hi Tut

Political price? There should not be a political price associated with a piece of unproven computer modelling in fact it should not be in the political arena at all. What we have here is pure political opportunism on the part of a lobby which is anti our way of life.

[excon]

anti our way of life.

Hello again, clete:

Anti your way of life?? Really?? Do you like driving? Do you like keeping warm? How about reading at night? If we don't find another energy source, you'll be walking to work.

So, whether burning oil is damaging our environment, or NOT, is a moot point, because WHO cares? We're going to STOP burning it in any case, whether we like it or not. So, seeking an alternative energy source is, to my way of thinking, not anti our way of life at all...

excon

[paraclete]

Hello again, clete:

Anti your way of life??? Really??? Do you like driving? Do you like keeping warm? How about reading at night? If we don't find another energy source, you'll be walking to work.

So, whether burning oil is damaging our environment, or NOT, is a moot point, because WHO cares? We're gonna STOP burning it in any case, whether we like it or not. So, seeking an alternative energy source is, to my way of thinking, not anti our way of life at all...

excon

Well Ex perhaps you haven't examined the manifesto or the political utterings of a political party called the Greens but among other ratbag ideas they have called for the shutdown of the coal industry to be replaced by renewable technologies. These dills have taken no account of the environmental cost of extracting the rare Earths needed for these technologies, the fact that a large part of the source is in the hands of the Chinese or the environmental damage caused by the refinement of silicon used in solar cells where there is no net gain in CO2 emissions. They happen to hold the political balance of power in my nation and others at the moment and clearly are willing to destroy our way of life to reduce emissions.

[excon]

They happen to hold the political balance of power in my nation and others at the moment and clearly are willing to destroy our way of life to reduce emissions.

Hello again, clete:

Well, then if you haven't been able to convince those in your own nation, why should we believe you?

In any case, I don't carry water for any wing of any party, and they all have nutbags.

excon

[paraclete]

Hello again, clete:

Well, then if you haven't been able to convince those in your own nation, why should we believe you?

There is only one way to convince them Ex and sadly that is illegal. I'm sure you know what it is like when a minority forces an issue, I think we were able to observe that in your own land recently and the outcome was a resounding GONG!

I know you are not going to believe me, it is of no consequence.

[speechlesstx]

I guess Obama really did cause the oceans to stop rising.

Weather cycles cause a drop in global sea level, scientists find

The global sea level this summer is a quarter of an inch lower than last summer, according to NASA scientists, in sharp contrast to the gradual rise the ocean has experienced in recent years.

The change stems from two strong weather cycles over the Pacific Ocean — El Niño and La Niña — which shifted precipitation patterns, according to scientists at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif. The two cycles brought heavy rains to Brazil and Amazon, along with drought to the southern United States.

So it's just weather after all.

[tomder55]

According to the Goracle you are a racist for questioning AGW .

[excon]

Weather cycles cause a drop in global sea level, scientists find

Hello again, Steve:

Nahhh. The ocean is simply spilling off the edges of the flat earth.

excon

[tomder55]

:p

[speechlesstx]

Hello again, Steve:

Nahhh. The ocean is simply spilling off the edges of the flat earth.

excon

Even though you can't hit the effin' ball, once in a while you get a real zinger. That was good, lol.

[paraclete]

Even though you can't hit the effin' ball, once in a while you get a real zinger. That was good, lol.

Here's another one we can laugh at. Apparently Greenland isn't green after all or at least not as green as climate scientists would have us believe. One more bastion of misinformation has been uncovered
Times Atlas of the World row: Hold on, Greenland isn't really that green | Space, Military and Medicine | News.com.au

[speechlesstx]

I love this quote from the article, "The company admitted yesterday that the 15 per cent figure was incorrect, but said it stood by the accuracy of the new maps in the 13th edition of the atlas."

Ain't that rich, and typical of consensus "science" - we're wrong, but we aren't changing our minds. LOL.

[excon]

Hello again:

I spose you can find scientists who disagree with the consensus, when their living depends on their disagreement... Those guys don't impress me.

But, scientists, who pursue science for the sake of science, understand that there's a downside to throwing your trash into the air..

I don't doubt, however, that you could find a private industry scientist who'll tell you that throwing your trash into the air is GOOD!

excon

[speechlesstx]

Once again instead of acknowledging the point, that the publishers admitted their figure was incorrect but stood by their maps, you throw up that trash in the air straw man. No one says that's good but you.

[excon]

Once again instead of acknowledging the point, that the publishers admitted their figure was incorrect but stood by their maps, you throw up that trash in the air straw man. No one says that's good but you.

Hello again, Steve:

Ok, but what's the POINT you're making?? From what I can gather, it's that global warming ISN'T a result of throwing your trash into the air... I'm left with the impression that you don't think throwing your trash into the air HAS a downside...

If you BELIEVE that throwing your trash into the air ISN'T good, which is what I THINK you're trying to say, what DO you believe it's doing?

excon

[paraclete]

Ex you are back to that ridiculous argument put forward by your government that CO2 is trash. CO2 is a natural substance, EX, and every time you breath you throw this "trash" in the air. Stop it man before it's too late and you become overheated.

Do you know, Ex, that this global warming argument was thunk up by Margaret Thatcher to justify building nuclear reactors?

[TUT317]

Ex you are back to that rediculous argument put forward by your government that CO2 is trash. CO2 is a natural substance, EX, and every time you breath you throw this "trash" in the air. Stop it man before it's too late and you become overheated.

Do you know, Ex, that this global warming argument was thunk up by Margaret Thatcher to justify building nuclear reactors?

Hi Clete,

Depends on how you define 'pollutant' or 'trash', as in the case of Ex.

Salt is a natural occurring substance and is important to the overall health of the environment. However, too much salinity results in the degradation of the environment. This doesn't make it harmless and desirable in large quantities. Every time we exercise we are putting salt into the environment.

No one would suggest this is a problem. The toxic properties only become evident when we talk about the amount being produced in a particular environment.

Tut

[paraclete]

Hi Clete,

Depends on how you define 'pollutant' or 'trash', as in the case of Ex.


Tut

Now Tut that's not nice, to call Ex "trash".

As far as salt is concerned again another natural occurring element that causes an environmental problem and by Ex's definition "trash". Therefore the use of salt should be banned. Are we going to ban Lithium too? No we have singled out CO2 because it suits some to find something they can tax.

I wonder has anyone asked who invented the industries that cause these problems?

[TUT317]

Now Tut that's not nice, to call Ex "trash".

Yes, you are right I''m sure his sexual behaviour is just as moral as anyone.

As far as salt is concerned again another natural occuring element that causes an environmental problem and by Ex's definition "trash". Therefore the use of salt should be banned.

Is this what he is claiming? I think Ex would have have something to say on that.