More Climate BS...

#3,426
#3,426
OHvol40 said:
Right, the effects of a new drug are recordable and measurable, including in non-human subjects then you can base decisions off those effects. The same method can’t be used for climate, unless you scale models or model it in a computer based on historical data, then you adjust variables. It’s apples and oranges, no? It’s not like we can use Mars as a climate test subject.
Click to expand...
Ok. Now we are discussing. Great!

Complex systems with innumerable variables are too sophisticated to test with the scientific method.

We both agree on this point, correct?
 
#3,427
#3,427
OHvol40 said:
I have, lots of medical research projects when I was involved with organ transplants. Not so much now.
Click to expand...
So I asked a question earlier to which I don't recall you responding. What do you think should be done? A government takeover of the economy? Complete electrification of transportation based on what sources? What do we do with China and India?

Next question. Let's say all the predictions suddenly start being accurate. Why do we need the government to interfere? We'll just start growing cotton in Nebraska and oranges in the Tennessee Valley. They'll just grow more wheat in Canada. South Africa might get enough rain to have real rivers. Siberia Vladivostock becomes the next Cabo San Lucas. We don't need any government to figure that out.

We may get armadillos in Kentucky if they're not already there. That is the downside.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider
#3,430
#3,430
McDad said:
Ok. Now we are discussing. Great!

Complex systems with innumerable variables are too sophisticated to test with the scientific method.

We both agree on this point, correct?
Click to expand...
I’m doing something I hate, answering a question with a question, but I’m gonna go ahead and do it twice: How complex do you think model forecasting can be? Do you believe climate experts can reasonably forecast climate?

(Trying to avoid more long-winded banter. If we disagree on these points, then we just flat out disagree)
 
#3,431
#3,431
GroverCleveland said:
So I asked a question earlier to which I don't recall you responding. What do you think should be done? A government takeover of the economy? Complete electrification of transportation based on what sources? What do we do with China and India?

Next question. Let's say all the predictions suddenly start being accurate. Why do we need the government to interfere? We'll just start growing cotton in Nebraska and oranges in the Tennessee Valley. They'll just grow more wheat in Canada. South Africa might get enough rain to have real rivers. Siberia Vladivostock becomes the next Cabo San Lucas. We don't need any government to figure that out.

We may get armadillos in Kentucky if they're not already there. That is the downside.
Click to expand...
Lol, right. The government has no role in disaster response, the health of it’s constituents, addressing dramatic changes in our environment… they should stick to covering up international pedophile rings and meddling in the business of other sovereign nations.

Giving up on “climate change is a hoax” and pivoting to “there’s nothing we can do about it anyway” is not an improvement.
 
#3,432
#3,432
OHvol40 said:
I’m doing something I hate, answering a question with a question, but I’m gonna go ahead and do it twice: How complex do you think model forecasting can be? Do you believe climate experts can reasonably forecast climate?

(Trying to avoid more long-winded banter. If we disagree on these points, then we just flat out disagree)
Click to expand...
I understand the questions to be:
do i believe short term weather forecasts are accurate? And do I feel the long term climate forecasts are accurate ?

Am I understanding correctly?
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland
#3,434
#3,434
OHvol40 said:
Lol, right. The government has no role in disaster response, the health of it’s constituents, addressing dramatic changes in our environment… they should stick to covering up international pedophile rings and meddling in the business of other sovereign nations.

Giving up on “climate change is a hoax” and pivoting to “there’s nothing we can do about it anyway” is not an improvement.
Click to expand...
Why would growing cotton in Nebraska be a disaster? What "disasters" you speak of we cannot handle without government control of our lives? And to be clear, I have not pivoted. I asked questions to which you responded with nonsense.

You still have not answered the question: what do you think needs to happen?
 
#3,435
#3,435
McDad said:
I understand the questions to be:
do i believe short term weather forecasts are accurate? And do I feel the long term climate forecasts are accurate ?

Am I understanding correctly?
Click to expand...
No, no weather forecasting, just climate forecasting. Like this: Climate Models

Also, do you believe we have the general ability to forecast climate in general, using all available methods?
 
#3,436
#3,436
GroverCleveland said:
Why would growing cotton in Nebraska be a disaster? What "disasters" you speak of we cannot handle without government control of our lives? And to be clear, I have not pivoted. I asked questions to which you responded with nonsense.

You still have not answered the question: what do you think needs to happen?
Click to expand...
There are many things that need to happen, but the Paris climate accords is a good start with the goal being to keep atmospheric CO2 below 1.5c
 
#3,437
#3,437
OHvol40 said:
No, no weather forecasting, just climate forecasting. Like this: Climate Models

Also, do you believe we have the general ability to forecast climate in general, using all available methods?
Click to expand...
They can't accurately forecast the weather 7-14 days out. They sure as hell can't accurately forecast the climate, as has been proved repeatedly by the continued existence of ice at the poles every year since 2012.
 
  • Like
Reactions: volinsd
#3,445
#3,445
OHvol40 said:
No, no weather forecasting, just climate forecasting. Like this: Climate Models

Also, do you believe we have the general ability to forecast climate in general, using all available methods?
Click to expand...
Ok I understand the questions better. Thanks. I have an answer.

But since you don't like answering Qs with Qs and I asked you a question prior to yours which hasn't been answered, mind doing me the courtesy of answering mine a few posts back?
 
#3,446
#3,446
McDad said:
Ok I understand the questions better. Thanks. I have an answer.

But since you don't like answering Qs with Qs and I asked you a question prior to yours which hasn't been answered, mind doing me the courtesy of answering mine a few posts back?
Click to expand...
Sure, I don’t believe earth climate is too sophisticated to predict, especially the change of only a few variables (notably atmospheric composition).
 
#3,447
#3,447
GroverCleveland said:
Well, you're right. No way the satellites, airplanes that fly into storms, the thousands if not millions of sensors could be any better than sailing ships and a few tens of thousands of people in coastal Florida in cataloging and gathering data about major storms.
Click to expand...
Yep, there are millions of sensors world wide, with millions more added each year. And to think 400 years ago that number was zero… that’s right zero. The Butterfly Effect says that everything has an effect, the question is what cause how much negative impact. If the inefficient burning of hydrocarbons is so bad, then why does Al and all his fellow alarmist not concerned about their carbon footprint.
It’s that hypocrisy that fuels the deniers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider
#3,449
#3,449
Volnanza said:
Anything based on consensus is crap. Science doesn't do consensus. It is or it isn't. Facts! Consensus is how you pick an Oscar winner. One fact can destroy a thousand opinions.
Click to expand...
Not so much, Is trial by jury crap? Scientists study available facts and draw their conclusions on issues including climate change. If I'm not mistaken some scientists thought the first A bomb would trigger a chain reaction and destroy Earth, but the consensus was that it wouldn't.
 
#3,450
#3,450
Wireless1 said:
Yep, there are millions of sensors world wide, with millions more added each year. And to think 400 years ago that number was zero… that’s right zero. The Butterfly Effect says that everything has an effect, the question is what cause how much negative impact. If the inefficient burning of hydrocarbons is so bad, then why does Al and all his fellow alarmist not concerned about their carbon footprint.
It’s that hypocrisy that fuels the deniers.
Click to expand...
i would like less sensors... thx
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top