Forum Home | Log in | Signup | My Page | Rules | FAQ | Boards | Members | Search
« POPE Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: zimblerRe: Clinton in Arctic to see impact of climate change 

By: Zimbler0 in POPE | Recommend this post (2)
Wed, 06 Jun 12 3:10 AM | 60 view(s)
Boardmark this board | (The) Pope's for real stock market report 		Msg. 60045 of 65535
(This msg. is a reply to 59938 by DigSpace)
Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

DigSpace> I have no idea if what you say about systematic data manipulation is true, I suspect not.


DS,
Why were the 'recorded temperatures' . . . 'adjusted'?

Why would the original data be destroyed?

If you have no idea why the original data just might
be so valuable . . . well, no hope for you.

And then the whole ball of wax is based upon
. . . . . .'COMPUTER MODELLING' . . . . .

I've programmed computers. And a 'computer model'
is, at best, a overgrown collection of computer
programs. And computer programs can be manipulated
to give whatever answer one wants.

Need some 'global warming' attributable to CO2?
Just adjust the constant for how much the atmosphere
warms up if CO2 goes up. Bingo - right answer.
(Never mind that nobody knows for sure what the
constant is supposed to be . . . .. .)

But the biggest problem of all . . . .

The clowns screaming "YOU MUST DO" have utterly
failed to see that the things that ought to get
done get done.

Instead, they seem bent on using this 'climate change'
as an excuse to steal my money and give it to somebody
else. (Obama and his help poor people with their
higher electric bills . . . solyndra . . . )

You want me on board?

Start by castrating the thieves.

Then get the things we ought to be doing that would do
something about the problem going.

Then talk to me.

Zim.




Avatar

Mad Poet Strikes Again.

» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
zimblerRe: Clinton in Arctic to see impact of climate change
By: DigSpace in POPE
Tue, 05 Jun 12 7:43 PM 		Msg. 59938 of 65535

I have no idea if what you say about systematic data manipulation is true, I suspect not.

The models actually predict that some places will get colder, it seems odd to remove data consistent with the model.

Global Climate change was inserted to replace Global Warming, because for those who cactually look into it, the modelling is that some places will get warmer and some will get colder ... that the NET effect isone of global warming, but that for some the phrase was confusing because if they could find a weather station where it did not occur they would hunker down in denial.

There is no doubt that aspects of the modelling are troubling, and indeed, that components of causality are well challeneged (and seeing that causality is at the core of the argument, that is by no means trivial).

To me, in the end, whether observed reality is a consequence of human activity or not is only barely relevant, as that activity is largely extant, and I have no theories, plans or ideas to suddently make human deliberately less successful for the sake of targeting a particular global temperature, sea level or whatever.

Again, successful species invariably have significant impacts on their environment. I don't think it is something to be ashamed of (the left) or deny (the right). It is entirely expected, natural, and dare I say proper. WE SHOULD AFFECT THE ENVIRONMENT. That is what success means.

Still, that we do requires us to understand it, accomadate it, and in the case of serious biblical type stuff, seek to prevent it if we reasonably can (I have seen little to suggest that we can reasonably amend current matters).

« POPE Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next