boxjaw 
|
Only to be expected from Forbes.
Reply #342. May 29 11, 8:24 AM
|
satguru
|
I'm very pleased I'm not the only one to notice this. Humans weren't designed to see the future, only extrapolate from existing and known systems. It is pure hubris and arrogance to dare to tell us not just what to expect in 10-20 years (check what was said in the early 90s to see how that turned out) but after we're dead. Like Camping the guessers (even in top political positions) can say what they like, it's the people who have to use their discretion and realise we can't see the future however we feel we want to, and just have to deal with what is here today and let the improved technology and knowledge ahead look after itself at the time.
Reply #343. May 29 11, 8:46 AM
|
daver852
|
Boxjaw, your profound analytical thinking leaves me speechless.
Reply #344. May 29 11, 9:34 AM
|
boxjaw
|
Why thank you daver. :^)
Reply #345. May 30 11, 6:35 AM
|
satguru
|
Having now read the piece I can't see how the source is relevant- they are a list of failed predictions we can all find for ourselves if we know where to look.
Humanity's desire to both know the future as followers and claim to know it as leaders is a weakness which can destroy society if not curbed. We have never learnt, this has been going on since history began and no one ever remembers the last one which went phut when the new ones come along. For example, if our temperature has risen 0.8C in 150 years how can they predict a positive feedback half way through the CO2 doubling process that has actually already failed to materialise? That's actually combining crying wolf with denying the present, so doubly criminal, and people swallow it so colluding to the crime. Without the credulity of the people none of these ridiculous imaginary guesses would be followed up with dangerous policies.
Reply #346. May 30 11, 7:21 AM
|
steelman86
|
I don't even trust the weather report for the next week, (because it is usually wrong) let alone anyone saying they can predict 20 years out.
Reply #348. May 31 11, 4:33 AM
|
| ga_jam831
|
Global warming my butt! I have seen snow 2 years in a row here!
Reply #349. May 31 11, 9:37 AM
|
satguru
|
Before this CO2 lark the system was built to see 60 days ahead maximum, many in the area said 30 was optimistic. Little if anything has changed since and as Dave's link pointed out 20 years have passed since the first predictions and...
...nothing's happened.
Great news about Kyoto, does four countries dropping out mean the penny's started to drop at last? We can only wait and see now.
Reply #350. May 31 11, 3:27 PM
|
turbotude
|
Agh-gh! I'm so tired of the horse-hockey! Oh, I forgot....Al Gore invented the internet, too!
Reply #351. Jun 01 11, 5:48 PM
|
boxjaw
|
Pretty darned hot in some areas of the U.S. I guess it's got to do with the same reasons why we had all the snow in some parts last winter, right daver?
Reply #352. Jun 09 11, 12:34 PM
|
satguru
|
I don't know why anyone's surprised to see a warm summer and a cold winter- the essence of climate is variations on a theme. Climate change would mean things like losing the cold winters altogether or changing all the seasons round. I'm not going to start looking for signs of that but plenty of people seem to be because their minds have been alerted to it. And when you're already looking for certain results it tends to colour many things normally accepted or overlooked with the bright red warning of climate change. But the regular severe events can and will only do what they always have and people will just have to deal with them. Unlike radiation or raw sewage in the sea, both 100% man made and avoidable, severe weather is natural and a lot less dangerous.
Reply #353. Jun 12 11, 8:46 AM
|
boxjaw
|
I'm sure you're right.
Reply #354. Jun 12 11, 9:02 AM
|
houston1127
|
The issue of man-made climate change will be moot when the Yellowstone caldera finally blows.
Reply #355. Jun 12 11, 11:23 AM
|
| Trademarc
|
A new ice age around the corner? And a link to a cruddy website, which doesn’t even bother to provide a source of this information. So why not check up on this to see if it has any truth? No source but not to worry I’ve gone to the trouble of finding the original article from the National Solar Observatory and here it is.
 http://www.nso.edu/press/SolarActivityDrop.html
So does it say anything about an imminent ice age? Nope.
To quote Dr. Frank Hill from the article - "We are NOT predicting a mini-ice age. We are predicting the behavior of the solar cycle. In my opinion, it is a huge leap from that to an abrupt global cooling, since the connections between solar activity and climate are still very poorly understood. My understanding is that current calculations suggest only a 0.3 degree C decrease from a Maunder-like minimum, too small for an ice age. It is unfortunate that the global warming/cooling studies have become so politically polarizing."
So even if there was a Maunder minimum there would only be 0.3 degrees cooling, hardly an ice age. Now we know why they didn’t bother linking to the source article because it basically totally contradicts what they are saying.
Potholer54 on youtube does an excellent job of dealing with this nonsense. Well worth subscribing to by the way for videos debunking global warming denial nonsense such as that spouted on this thread.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adAvYK1O-ic&feature=feedu
Reply #357. Jun 23 11, 3:43 AM
|
boxjaw
|
Great links Tradmarc. Thanks! :^)
Reply #358. Jun 23 11, 6:23 AM
|
boxjaw
|
Pardon me please. I meant Trademarc.
Reply #359. Jun 23 11, 6:25 AM
|
Saints2668
|
I believe in global warming... it's called the sun.
Reply #360. Jun 23 11, 2:10 PM
|
Legal / Conditions of Use
|
Play Now! 
: 