Saturday, June 09, 2007

When will we come back to the global cooling theory?

I love throwing out this article:




9 comments:

Realism said...

What I want to know is, when will we come back to the flat earth geocentric theory. That one is due for a comeback.

Jim said...

If I'm not mistaken, that article is from 1975. I don't suppose computer modeling power and capabilities and observational data has changed at all in 32 years.

PCD said...

Jim,

I don't think you've had a single independent thought since 1975. The Game made a point that goes over your head.

And liberals wonder why liberalism is being called a mental disease?

Realism said...

Sybil knows all about mental deseases. She sits in her mothers basement, in the corner, masturbating and drooling for hours on end.

PCD said...

Phil,

You, also, have a problem being original and thinking for yourself.

blamin said...

Jim

I’ll grant you that one.

What hasn’t changed is the tendency of some environmental scientist to make wild forecasts based on very questionable assumptions. Another thing that hasn’t changed is their attempts (with the help of the usual suspects) to silence other scientist with valid questions, and differing opinions.

Which should be obvious to anyone that’s even made a small attempt to study both sides of the debate.

Jim said...

Have YOU actually studied both sides of the debate? I offered to pay for you to see an Inconvenient Truth, but you wouldn't do it. Will you do it now that it is free on cable or satellite?

blamin said...

Yes of course; give it a try.

No you didn't.

No, If I wanted to immerse myself into the fantastical, it’d be more entertaining to watch a good old science fiction movie or even the 'toon channel.

Mark my words; a few decades from know “An Inconvenient Truth” is going to be ranked right up there with “Reefer Madness”.

People will get together, get stoned, watch this movie, and laugh their asses off at the comedic hysteria, while making fun of all the brown pants that fell for it.

Chet said...

The Game made a point that goes over your head.

Really? What was it, exactly? "Scientists were wrong, once, when they made some predictions based on very little data; therefore, they'll always be wrong no matter how much data they accumulate?"

Do you guys wonder, sometimes, why conservatives are held to be anti-science? This is why. Science is a process that learns from mistakes - but I guess that's completely incompatible with conservatism.

Game - you should consider posting that article less and reading it more. And then compare it with contemporary analysis, like the IPCC Third Assessment Report. I think you'll find that the difference in rigor and sheer amount of data is several orders of magnitude.

Or did I just go over your head?