Even the Pope sides with Futurecurrents

Discussion in 'Politics' started by nitro, Jun 16, 2015.

  1. WeToddDid2

    WeToddDid2

    Fraud,

    Try to keep up with the most recent political propaganda. It is no longer "global" warming because that isn't happening. It is now regional warming.
     
    #1601     May 31, 2016
  2. WeToddDid2

    WeToddDid2

    Deniers correct again!

    Ten-Year Gap in Major Hurricanes Continues

     
    #1602     May 31, 2016

  3. Your brain is regionally warming.
     
    #1603     May 31, 2016

  4. There is a ten year gap in your brain.
     
    #1604     May 31, 2016
  5. gwb-trading

    gwb-trading

    Just more insults. Never any reasonable evidence that AGW exists. It is the same old sloganeering and parroting from our resident alarmist, futurecurrents.
     
    #1605     Jun 1, 2016
    WeToddDid2 and Tom B like this.
  6. WeToddDid2

    WeToddDid2

    Some excerpts below.

    Global-Warming Alarmists, You're Doing It Wrong


    http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-06-01/global-warming-alarmists-you-re-doing-it-wrong


    The arguments about global warming too often sound more like theology than science. Oh, the word “science” gets thrown around a great deal, but it's cited as a sacred authority, not a fallible process that staggers only awkwardly and unevenly toward the truth, with frequent lurches in the wrong direction. I cannot count the number of times someone has told me that they believe in “the science,” as if that were the name of some omniscient god who had delivered us final answers written in stone. For those people, there can be only two categories in the debate: believers and unbelievers. Apostles and heretics.

    This is, of course, not how science works, and people who treat it this way are not showing their scientific bona fides; they are violating the very thing in which they profess such deep belief. One does not believe in “science” as an answer; science is a way of asking questions. At any given time, that method produces a lot of ideas, some of which are correct, and many of which are false, in part or in whole.

    __________________________________________________

    This meant that they were stuck guessing from observational data of a system that was constantly changing. They could make some pretty good guesses from that data, but when you built a model based on those guesses, it didn’t work. So economists tweaked the models, and they still didn’t work. More tweaking, more not working.

    Eventually it became clear that there was no way to make them work given the current state of knowledge. In some sense the "data" being modeled was not pure economic data, but rather the opinions of the tweaking economists about what was going to happen in the future. It was more efficient just to ask them what they thought was going to happen. People still use models, of course, but only the unflappable true believers place great weight on their predictive ability.

    This lesson from economics is essentially what the "lukewarmists" bring to discussions about climate change. They concede that all else equal, more carbon dioxide will cause the climate to warm. But, they say that warming is likely to be mild unless you use a model which assumes large positive feedback effects. Because climate scientists, like the macroeconomists, can’t run experiments where they test one variable at a time, predictions of feedback effects involve a lot of theory and guesswork. I do not denigrate theory and guesswork; they are a vital part of advancing the sum of human knowledge. But when you’re relying on theory and guesswork, you always want to leave plenty of room for the possibility that your model's output is (how shall I put this?) … wrong.
     
    #1606     Jun 2, 2016
    Tom B likes this.
  7. Tom B

    Tom B

    Excellent article.
     
    #1607     Jun 2, 2016
    WeToddDid2 likes this.
  8. When you’re relying on theory and guesswork, you always want to leave plenty of room for the possibility that your model's output is (how shall I put this?) … wrong.

    What the hell does this idiotic statement and article even mean? I'll tell you. Nothing.

    He's conflating climate science with economics because he knows nothing about climate science.
     
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2016
    #1608     Jun 2, 2016
  9. Gee let's see about the author. I'm sure she must have a graduate degree in geophysics or something like that....

    Megan McArdle is a Bloomberg View columnist who writes on economics, business and public policy. She is the author of "The Up Side of Down." McArdle previously wrote for Newsweek-the Daily Beast, the Atlantic and the Economist. She founded the blog "Asymmetrical Information." She has a bachelor's degree in English literature from the University of Pennsylvania and an MBA from the University of Chicago. She lives in Washington.


    Wow, an MBA !!! I
     
    #1609     Jun 2, 2016
  10. gwb-trading

    gwb-trading

    And your climate alarmist hero John Cook is a Cartoonist.
     
    #1610     Jun 3, 2016
    WeToddDid2 likes this.