Calendar
Retailers
Stack & Reach
Custom Geometry Calculator (beta)
More To Come...
MAIN
INDEX
RULES &
LEGEND
LOG
IN
Search
this forum
this category
all forums
for
All words
Any words
Whole Phrase
(
options
)
Newsletter Signup
Slowtwitch Forums
:
Lavender Room
:
Andrewmc, why so many British deniers? Global Warming poll.
1
2
View All
Tri Forum
Classifieds
Lavender Room
The Womens
Print Thread
ajfranke
Jun 22, 08 4:13
Post #1 of 26 (446 views)
Andrewmc, why so many British deniers? Global Warming poll.
Can't Post
I have to say that this article is interesting anyway, but the internal contradictions make it more so:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/...ange.carbonemissions
The majority of the British public is still not convinced that climate change is caused by humans - and many others believe scientists are exaggerating the problem, according to an exclusive poll for The Observer.
The results have shocked campaigners who hoped that doubts would have been silenced by a report last year by more than 2,500 scientists for the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which found a 90 per cent chance that humans were the main cause of climate change and warned that drastic action was needed to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
Lest there be any doubt that the government has an agenda separate from providing unbiased information:
'It's disappointing and the government will be really worried,'
Then note the transition from 90 per cent chance above to this statement from the government:
In response to the poll's findings, the Department for the Environment issued a statement: 'The IPCC... concluded the scientific evidence for climate change is clear and it is down to human activities. It is already affecting people's lives - and the impact will be much greater if we don't act now.'
I am going to go on a limb here and predict that the next IPCC report will state that there is a 95 per cent or greater chance that global warming is mainly caused by humans. It will be all about the science of course, not politics.
____
This forum is going to be a place of civil discourse, and those who wish to foment hate and discord are no longer welcome here. -- slowman 11/8/04
Art Franke
Raptor
Jun 22, 08 6:06
Post #2 of 26 (424 views)
Re: Andrewmc, why so many British deniers? Global Warming poll. [ajfranke]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
It is interesting that the climate change has increased with the increase of solar sunspots. Since the 1900s, sunspot activity has been at an all time high. Since the 1900s is when we started having global temperature increase. I wonder if the two may be related?
And I wonder why global temperatures have been decreasing for the last three years.
(This post was
edited
by Raptor on Jun 22, 08 6:08)
ajfranke
Jun 22, 08 6:17
Post #3 of 26 (419 views)
Re: Andrewmc, why so many British deniers? Global Warming poll. [Raptor]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
After the obvious 'we just don't know squat,' the sunspot theory is my favorite. If you dig in, you don't really find a basis for the small solar variations to explain seemingly larger climate changes though, so you again get back to 'we just don't know squat.'
Maybe the CO2 stuff is right. I am skeptical, but then I never believed the CFC eating the ozone layer stuff either. How can a gas that is so heavy it sinks like a lump of lead in water be responsible for high altitude atmospheric changes? It is getting tougher every year to deny the validity of the predictions that banning the gases would slowly restore the ozone layer though, so maybe it is right.
Similarly, global warming theories would be more persuasive if we had, like, maybe, some warming going on.
____
This forum is going to be a place of civil discourse, and those who wish to foment hate and discord are no longer welcome here. -- slowman 11/8/04
Art Franke
jtaylor1O24
Jun 22, 08 7:30
Post #4 of 26 (403 views)
Re: Andrewmc, why so many British deniers? Global Warming poll. [Raptor]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
It's amazing. I wonder if anyone is studying sunspot activity as related to global warming? Someone call the Max Planck Institute.
In a related note how about the billions of tons of CO2 that we put in the air each year at a 1,000,000 year high. I wonder if the two can be related?
----
Don't hold back
JT
Reduce your carbon footprint - burn less stuff,
http://www.carbonfund.org
Don't complain, just work harder. - Randy Pausch
(This post was
edited
by jtaylor1O24 on Jun 22, 08 7:39)
jtaylor1O24
Jun 22, 08 7:44
Post #5 of 26 (393 views)
Re: Andrewmc, why so many British deniers? Global Warming poll. [ajfranke]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
Similarly, global warming theories would be more persuasive if we had, like, maybe, some warming going on.
Back to your chart. It shows a dip last year... if for the next several years it keeps going down that probably means one thing. Likewise if it goes back up I'm curious how that might change your opinion?
----
Don't hold back
JT
Reduce your carbon footprint - burn less stuff,
http://www.carbonfund.org
Don't complain, just work harder. - Randy Pausch
ajfranke
Jun 22, 08 7:57
Post #6 of 26 (389 views)
Re: Andrewmc, why so many British deniers? Global Warming poll. [jtaylor1O24]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
If the facts change, my opinion would likely change.
When projections are made which are consistently wrong, I tend to be less likely to believe the underlying hypothesis. When predictions are made that later prove to be true, I am more likely to believe the reasoning. I am funny that way. How about you?
I used to think the big bang theory was mostly nonsense though it had some general validity. COBE comes along to find wacko radiation patterns predicted by the theory and my opinion changes.
We have had nothing but global cooling since this global warming bandwagon really got rolling. I would have a little more belief in the analysis here if GW advocates would just admit such a pattern was completely unexpected and at least gives them a moment's pause.
I don't get that reaction. Why is that? Do you think that is why public opinion is starting to move in the opposite direction? Do you think the public is so stupid as to indefinitely swallow opinions presented as definite facts which are clearly not definite at all?
____
This forum is going to be a place of civil discourse, and those who wish to foment hate and discord are no longer welcome here. -- slowman 11/8/04
Art Franke
Andrewmc
Jun 22, 08 8:30
Post #7 of 26 (378 views)
Re: Andrewmc, why so many British deniers? Global Warming poll. [ajfranke]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
I could not possible answer that question as I do not know what the populous as a whole think. That said, I myself as a cynic, so thats one possibility........
Francois
Jun 22, 08 8:44
Post #8 of 26 (374 views)
Re: Andrewmc, why so many British deniers? Global Warming poll. [ajfranke]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
If you ever lived in England and saw how shitty the weather is, you'd know why they can't know about global warming...
More seriously, you want to talk about justifying facts with public polls? How about 75% of americans certain that Iraq has WMD and 'we even know where they are here are the pictures'...
you gotta do better than that Art.
There was a poll in 2003 showing that 30% of americans between 18 and 40 believed that Iraq has a border with the US...must be true too...
ajfranke
Jun 22, 08 8:51
Post #9 of 26 (371 views)
Re: Andrewmc, why so many British deniers? Global Warming poll. [Francois]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
"
you want to talk about justifying facts with public polls?"
No, I don't. That is not what I am doing here.
When Dan and others come on here and liken man made global warming skeptics to Holocaust deniers, asking why there are so many stupid people in Great Britain seems like a fair question by comparison.
The answer is also obvious in that in GB the agenda of using global warming to expand government control of the economy and extract ever increasing taxes has become particularly transparent.
Polls don't determine scientific reality, as I readily admit. Will you also admit that scientific consensus doesn't either?
____
This forum is going to be a place of civil discourse, and those who wish to foment hate and discord are no longer welcome here. -- slowman 11/8/04
Art Franke
Francois
Jun 22, 08 8:53
Post #10 of 26 (370 views)
Re: Andrewmc, why so many British deniers? Global Warming poll. [ajfranke]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
I'm not naive enough to believe scientists are more intellectually honest than others..
slowbern
Jun 22, 08 10:07
Post #11 of 26 (342 views)
Re: Andrewmc, why so many British deniers? Global Warming poll. [ajfranke]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
If the facts change, my opinion would likely change.
When projections are made which are consistently wrong, I tend to be less likely to believe the underlying hypothesis. When predictions are made that later prove to be true, I am more likely to believe the reasoning. I am funny that way. How about you?
Art,
Just believe, man, just believe. What you think and know becomes less important that way.
Bernie
_______________
"Hold on one second, sweetie."-Barack Obama
jtaylor1O24
Jun 22, 08 10:13
Post #12 of 26 (342 views)
Re: Andrewmc, why so many British deniers? Global Warming poll. [ajfranke]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
When projections are made which are consistently wrong, I tend to be less likely to believe the underlying hypothesis. When predictions are made that later prove to be true, I am more likely to believe the reasoning. I am funny that way. How about you?
Yep. And right now the vast majority of evidence still points to man made GW. When the vast majority of evidence of a given point suggests one outcome I tend to believe the reasoning. I'm funny that way. You on the other hand chose to ignore the vast majority of the current research and blindly latch on to your own theories that have little or no acceptance in the scientific community (probably 99% for political reasons). We had a huge effect on the atmosphere with some hairspray and refrigerators yet adding billions of tons of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses per year are tough for you to accept as a serious force on the climate? Think about that for a second.
We have had nothing but global cooling since this global warming bandwagon really got rolling.
Case it point. One chart and around one year out of 100s that show and increase in temperature over the last several years... You can't look at one small piece of data and ignore because it helps support your point. You even asked me to selectively remove data from your graph to help illustrate your point. It doesn't work that way. Let it keep falling for several years...
Do you think that is why public opinion is starting to move in the opposite direction? Do you think the public is so stupid as to indefinitely swallow opinions presented as definite facts which are clearly not definite at all?
None of the IPCC reports present anything as "definite facts"? If you actually read the reports you will see that many of your points are seriously considered and are aggressively researched right now. There just isn't enough evidence to support your theories yet. Don't you think that solar scientists have some sort of money stake in proving that billions of tons of CO2 don't do anything but tiny variations in solar activity are responsible for GW? Why don't most solar scientists think that CO2 has no effect on the climate?
----
Don't hold back
JT
Reduce your carbon footprint - burn less stuff,
http://www.carbonfund.org
Don't complain, just work harder. - Randy Pausch
ajfranke
Jun 22, 08 10:41
Post #13 of 26 (333 views)
Re: Andrewmc, why so many British deniers? Global Warming poll. [jtaylor1O24]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
This whole situation is no different that what they say in CSI: Follow the evidence.
The evidence is that there have historically been huge variations in climate and we have no idea why. The evidence is also that the scientists are unable to make any prediction that can be tested during their professional lifetime, and thus no matter what they say they can not be proven wrong. Sorry, that isn't science in my book.
No, the IPCC didn't present anything as definite facts, but you and most others including the above article act as if they did. You categorize skeptics as comparable to Holocaust deniers. You think that is science? They presented a 90% probability. That number has nothing whatever to do with science and everything to do with what a group of politicians negotiated with each other for PR purposes. The next number from the next report will be higher, again for PR purposes. That isn't science.
Our crack scientists, whether from the Max Planc Institute or elsewhere, have no freaking idea why the Pioneer space crafts are over a quarter of a million miles off course. They can't even model a bucket of bolts hurdling through a vacuum. You actually think they can model the Earth's climate? Please get real.
As we sit here today, the planet is substantially cooler than it was 10 years ago, to the extent that we can measure that parameter anyway. This simple fact is completely, 100% in contradiction of all predictions 10 years ago. Does that even give you a moments pause? I have no idea which way that graph will wiggle in the future. I laugh at those who profess to know.
____
This forum is going to be a place of civil discourse, and those who wish to foment hate and discord are no longer welcome here. -- slowman 11/8/04
Art Franke
lunchbox
Jun 22, 08 11:28
Post #14 of 26 (323 views)
Re: Andrewmc, why so many British deniers? Global Warming poll. [ajfranke]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
The evidence is also that the scientists are unable to make any prediction that can be tested during their professional lifetime, and thus no matter what they say they can not be proven wrong. Sorry, that isn't science in my book.
Odd, I didn't know there was a time limit. Doesn't hold water.
They presented a 90% probability. That number has nothing whatever to do with science and everything to do with what a group of politicians negotiated with each other for PR purposes. The next number from the next report will be higher, again for PR purposes. That isn't science.
Confidence intervals. That's statistics, which is a huge part of experimental analysis. Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it's the case. CI's increase as you become more certain of a given result. If you want 100%, I suggest that you NEVER undergo any medical treatment. No OTC drugs, nothing.
Our crack scientists, whether from the Max Planc Institute or elsewhere, have no freaking idea why the Pioneer space crafts are over a quarter of a million miles off course. They can't even model a bucket of bolts hurdling through a vacuum. You actually think they can model the Earth's climate? Please get real.
All this says is that there is some unaccounted for force at work. Now the task is to analyze the data and begin to figure out why the spacecraft is off course. More data=better predictions. Same w/ climate change.
I'm definitely not one to say "socialize everything, scrap our current way of life" to fix it, but you're really just ignoring some overwhelming evidence here.
******************************
If I don't, who will?
ajfranke
Jun 22, 08 11:58
Post #15 of 26 (314 views)
Re: Andrewmc, why so many British deniers? Global Warming poll. [lunchbox]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
"
Odd, I didn't know there was a time limit. Doesn't hold water."
I thought the whole idea of science was to make and test hypothesis that can be proven or disproven. The standard you imply means they can never be proven wrong. That isn't science; it's religion.
Confidence intervals. That's statistics, which is a huge part of experimental analysis.
You really need to go back to day one of your statistics course. You seem to have lost forest for examining the trees. The idea of statistics is to take samples of a given situation with the expectation that more and more samples will allow you to converge on the parameter you are trying to measure. Again you compare to experimental science when there are no experiments. If you had a few hundred Earths on which you controlled emissions and set them at different levels, you would have experiments and be able to run statistics.
There is no confidence interval governed by statistics. This number was just made up by a bunch of people in a room and chosen for PR consumption. The terminology was borrowed from statistics, but has no statistical basis whatever. It is meant to deceive, and, in your case, since you just don't understand what they are doing, it worked really well.
All this says is that there is some unaccounted for force at work.
No, it doesn't actually say that at all. That is one possibility. It could be any number of other things including measurement or other error.
Going with that possibility though is instructive. If there is some unaccounted for force unknown to our scientists who can't model a bucket of bolts moving in a vacuum, do you think there might be unaccounted for forces driving the Earth's climate? Do you think that would explain their crap forecasts that make our seasonal hurricane forecasts look good by comparison?
No politics involved in science for sure. Let me think, spend billions of dollars year after year putting men up in the same low Earth orbit we have been in for 50 years now where we learn nothing new, or spend a few hundred million putting together a probe that will examine this fundamental physics phenomenon? No contest. Let's do more and more of the same thing, secure in the knowledge we will keep getting the same results. Great science.
There is finally a proposal to send up a probe for this purpose. It might go by 2015. NASA can't be bothered, so the Europeans are considering it. No politics, just science.
____
This forum is going to be a place of civil discourse, and those who wish to foment hate and discord are no longer welcome here. -- slowman 11/8/04
Art Franke
lunchbox
Jun 22, 08 12:18
Post #16 of 26 (310 views)
Re: Andrewmc, why so many British deniers? Global Warming poll. [ajfranke]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
I thought the whole idea of science was to make and test hypothesis that can be proven or disproven. The standard you imply means they can never be proven wrong. That isn't science; it's religion.
LOL. You should know how I feel about religions. This is just an "experiment" that is going to take longer to see results. And no, I'm not advocating taking a Pascal's Wager type of stance- it's crap in other areas, so I won't apply it here either.
If you had a few hundred Earths on which you controlled emissions and set them at different levels, you would have experiments and be able to run statistics.
Either you have no clue, or you are intentionally trying to obfuscate the truth (my personal thought here). What we do have is correlational historical data; we all (or at least should) know that correlation is not causation. In this case, we do see CO2 levels rising a lot, so at the least, a temperature increase is likely, because it's a correlation that has happened every time. Why would this be the ONE TIME that is different? I'm not saying that can't be the case, but I want a reason that works before throwing my lot in w/ something.
As for CI's, where do you get that they just made up 90%? 90% is "pretty good"- not enough to get a drug past the FDA, but when the consequences are this grave, it warrants action.
Going with that possibility though is instructive. If there is some unaccounted for force unknown to our scientists who can't model a bucket of bolts moving in a vacuum, do you think there might be unaccounted for forces driving the Earth's climate? Do you think that would explain their crap forecasts that make our seasonal hurricane forecasts look good by comparison?
Truthfully, I'd say it's certain that there are forces that work on climate that we don't know about yet. That being said, greenhouse gases do the preponderance of the work. It's what we know about, and can thus start working to correct.
******************************
If I don't, who will?
ajfranke
Jun 22, 08 12:33
Post #17 of 26 (303 views)
Re: Andrewmc, why so many British deniers? Global Warming poll. [lunchbox]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
"
As for CI's, where do you get that they just made up 90%?"
You have seen the statistics from which the 90% pops out? Can you explain why it is 90% rather than 80% or 95%? Wasn't this parameter a big topic of discussion among the people trying to put the executive summary together? Wasn't it arrived at by negotiation? That is the way I remember it, with some lobbying for a higher number. It came together as the report went to press. You might as well put a "confidence interval" on whether your girl friend really loves you, it would be equally scientific.
That describes a legislative process, not a scientific one.
What we do have is correlational historical data
Except for the last few years, our historic data is crap. If there were a heat wave in central Asia in March, 1908 the way their was in March, 2008 that bumped the average global temperature, how would you know? We don't have historic data accurate to a fraction of degree. We have only guesses and suppositions. I doubt our data going back even 50 years can be compared with that degree of accuracy.
____
This forum is going to be a place of civil discourse, and those who wish to foment hate and discord are no longer welcome here. -- slowman 11/8/04
Art Franke
Francois
Jun 22, 08 12:40
Post #18 of 26 (299 views)
Re: Andrewmc, why so many British deniers? Global Warming poll. [ajfranke]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
In Reply To
There is no confidence interval governed by statistics.
you need to read a bit more before saying this...for instance the whole field of interval computations developed by Moore and all the work done by Vladik Kreinovich.
ajfranke
Jun 22, 08 12:42
Post #19 of 26 (296 views)
Re: Andrewmc, why so many British deniers? Global Warming poll. [Francois]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
I really don't think I do since I watched the process that created that number. I remember it being a subject of great speculation right up until press time, settled in the middle of the night like an earmark slipped into an appropriations bill.
Do I remember incorrectly?
____
This forum is going to be a place of civil discourse, and those who wish to foment hate and discord are no longer welcome here. -- slowman 11/8/04
Art Franke
MoJoe
Jun 23, 08 5:04
Post #20 of 26 (243 views)
Re: Andrewmc, why so many British deniers? Global Warming poll. [ajfranke]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
(not specifically to aj)...
How come everyone talks about the CO2 in the atmosphere, and skips the process of how it got there? How many billions, trillions, and gadzillions of BTUs were produced in the process of burning of gas, oil, coal that generated this CO2? Who knows the # of BTU in a gallon of gas or barrel of oil without Google'ing, to be able to say we put X trillion BTU into our environment each year?
Might that have something to do with the increased temperature of our environment?
- Joe
ajfranke
Jun 23, 08 5:17
Post #21 of 26 (237 views)
Re: Andrewmc, why so many British deniers? Global Warming poll. [MoJoe]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
I can't answer that I am afraid, though it is a reasonable question.
I can say that and other urban development effects really call into question some of the these temperature comparisons to 50 or so years ago. If you develop around a temperature monitoring site, you are going to raise that sites temperature because of retained heat from the buildings and asphalt and the like. I am guessing our old temperature data is mostly from our cities, not from Joe's back 40, so that most of these temperature measurement locations have been affected by urban heat.
Presumably the temperature gurus have tried to correct for this effect, but I have no idea how one would actually accomplish this with any degree of confidence. We don't have old temperature measurements from Joe's back 40 or from central Asia in 1908. Year to year comparisons are not a problem, but you have to wonder about some of those graphs even from the relatively recent past.
____
This forum is going to be a place of civil discourse, and those who wish to foment hate and discord are no longer welcome here. -- slowman 11/8/04
Art Franke
ajfranke
Jun 23, 08 6:54
Post #22 of 26 (223 views)
Re: Andrewmc, why so many British deniers? Global Warming poll. [lunchbox]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
Confidence intervals. That's statistics, which is a huge part of experimental analysis. Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it's the case. CI's increase as you become more certain of a given result.
Apparently scientific knowledge is advancing very rapidly. Despite the record rate of cooling in the past year, the confidence interval has tightened dramatically from 90% to 99%. No actual statistics presented to back this up, but we do have this from Hansen today, so it must be true:
Hansen's speech to Congress on June 23 1988 is seen as a seminal moment in bringing the threat of global warming to the public's attention. At a time when most scientists were still hesitant to speak out, he said the evidence of the greenhouse gas effect was 99% certain, adding "it is time to stop waffling".
Oops, my bad. Apparently the confidence interval has shrunk since 1988 from 99% to 90% in last years IPCC report. Since Hansen wants to put oil execs on trial for being Global Warming Deniers, (assuming the Guardian is reporting accurately, a big assumption I grant) apparently the interval has tightened again.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/...lfuels.climatechange
I really don't understand this confidence interval stuff. Maybe you can explain it to me, because it really looks like the scientists are just picking numbers out of the air.
____
This forum is going to be a place of civil discourse, and those who wish to foment hate and discord are no longer welcome here. -- slowman 11/8/04
Art Franke
cartsman
Jun 24, 08 12:45
Post #23 of 26 (163 views)
Re: Andrewmc, why so many British deniers? Global Warming poll. [ajfranke]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
I suspect it's largely because the British electorate are currently extremely disillusioned with their government and treat everything they have to say with a heavy dose of scepticism. The government is using global warming to justify a heap of taxes and most people suspect (probably quite rightly) that the taxes are more about plugging a large black hole in the national finances than they are about saving the planet. We're currently paying £1.30/litre (>$10/gallon) for petrol, annual road tax on high-polluting cars (i.e. all SUVs and performance cars) is about to go up to £400 ($800), and those same cars may face a £25 ($50) DAILY charge to drive in London, with other cities following suit. There are also additional sales taxes on bigger-engined cars in the pipeline, and the government is talking about a windfall tax on oil companies. While more efficient cars are taxed less, the reduction is not proportional so there has been a significant increase in the net total tax-take from 'green' taxes.
Another initiative that has really pissed people off is a reduction in waste collection to a fortnightly service in some areas. This is ostensibly to make people recycle more but is widely seen as a way for local authorities to cut costs. Not helped when accompanied by media stories of increased populations of rats and urban foxes thriving on the garbage.
We've also seen the government fail to take decisive action on some things that really would make a difference. For example, Britain's nuclear generating capability (not renewable but a lot cleaner than oil/gas/coal-fired power stations) currently accounts for 20% of electricity, however we haven't built a new nuclear power station in decades and the existing stations are all due for decommissioning in the next decade or 2. Yet the government has made no moves to replace with relatively clean generating capacity with either a new generation of nuclear power stations or serious investment in renewables. As a result, some estimates show Britain having a shortfall of up to 40% in generating capability by 2015. The government has also backed the building of an additional runway at Heathrow Airport (already the busiest in the world) and has done nothing whatsoever to reduce the amount of low cost air travel. They've also failed to sort out public transport so despite all of the taxes on cars, it is still often quicker, cheaper and far more pleasant to drive than to catch a train or bus. It seems that the government likes to be green when it comes to raising revenue, but not so much when it comes to spending that money or making difficult decisions that could cost it votes.
Of course the fact that the government is using global warming as cover for higher taxes should lead to the logical conclusion that they're a bunch of untrustworthy politicians and should have no bearing whatsoever on the validity of the global warming argument. Unfortunately, people always have a tendency to associate the message with the messenger and that's what's happening here. The likely next Prime Minister, David Cameron, portrays himself as a genuine environmentalist and there is a chance we may see some more balanced and principled green policies if he is elected. Not holding my breath though.
ajfranke
Jun 24, 08 12:55
Post #24 of 26 (162 views)
Re: Andrewmc, why so many British deniers? Global Warming poll. [cartsman]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
Really good analysis, and about what I had guessed. Thanks for fleshing it all out for me.
____
This forum is going to be a place of civil discourse, and those who wish to foment hate and discord are no longer welcome here. -- slowman 11/8/04
Art Franke
Old and Haggard
Jul 3, 08 4:02
Post #25 of 26 (95 views)
Re: Andrewmc, why so many British deniers? Global Warming poll. [ajfranke]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
In Reply To
Going with that possibility though is instructive. If there is some unaccounted for force unknown to our scientists who can't model a bucket of bolts moving in a vacuum, do you think there might be unaccounted for forces driving the Earth's climate? Do you think that would explain their crap forecasts that make our seasonal hurricane forecasts look good by comparison?
That "unaccounted force" is now accounted for, and is nothing special. Turns out the magnetic field generated by stars in the galaxy is stronger in one direction than in another, thus deforming the perimeter of the solar system.
The scientists modeled the "bucket of bolts" quite well, thank you.
http://www.nytimes.com/...CI-Solar-System.html
-----------------------------------
Ken Lehner
Weight-room free since 1995...
"reread klenher [sic] and pretty much skip the rest." - desert dude 5/25/2008
1
2
View All
Print Thread
MAIN
RULES &
LOG
