Why Global Warming is Probably a Crock

The American Thinker ^ | January 16, 2007 | James Lewis

[OB1kNOb]

Why Global Warming is Probably a Crock

There. I fixed it for ya. ;-)

[bmwcyle]

ping

[dinasour]

> The ultimate cop out is when they state waiting for difinitive proof would be too late to change it.

But doesn't their precious "Precautionary Principle" require that we wait for definitive proof before we do anything?

Even if they are right and we implement their solution (to every problem), World Socialism. When the economy collapses and everyone starts burning everything in sight just to survive, what then?

[maica]

liberals are devoid of common sense and feel their way through life !

*****

Recognizing this is the first step to engaging a lib in something resembling a conversation. Logic is perceived as a threat to them, so all questions must be phrased in a "how do you feel when..." or "how do you feel about..." style.

Ex: How do you feel about China's increasing prosperity?
[Leading in to China's huge use of high sulfur coal-fired factories]

[maica]

It is because of beautifully written posts like yours that I am addicted to FreeRepublic.

[Thermalseeker]

If hypercomplex systems were predictable, NASA would have foolproof space shuttles

If hypercomplex systems were predictable your local weatherman would provide hyperaccurate weather forecasts.....

[steve8714]

He's enough of a scientist to state the obvious correctly, without ever denying the possibility that the other side may be right. he just introduces a HEALTHY SKEPTICISM TO AN EMOTION CHARGED DEBATE.

[Leatherneck_MT]

"This is the clearest, most easily understood essay about why the climate models can't predict the future weather accuratily that I have ever read."

Definately a good read and good info. My stance on Global Warming has always been, when the Local weatherman can accurately predict a 5 day forecast 10 times out of 10, then I'll give some attention to Global Warming. Right now they are rarely better than 3 out of 10.

[tioga]

Weather forecasting is notoriously WRONG! He states the obvious, global warming is a theory. That's all it is. It is not proven science.

[steve8714]

Oops, overuse of caps lock..

[oh8eleven]

I would like to take the writer seriously but although he identifies himself as a scientist, I can't seem to find what his credentials, affiliation or even his specialty are.
What's the difference? Even if he's your newspaper boy, his explanations were simple and logical enough for anyone to understand.

[A. Pole]

Another global warming denier! He's an International criminal for daring to dispute the theology.

A hate crime?

[Ditter]

bump for later

[megatherium]

So you don't know what his credentials, affiliation or specialty are either.

[saganite]

If the annointed have their way it soon will be. I expect a movement to have Crichton's book taken out of libraries.

[megatherium]

Wrong. My brother has a Ph.D in atmospheric science and he BUILDS the computer models that you're talking about. His advice: "don't ever trust a weather forecast more than two days out."

Are the models he builds models for the weather, or models for climate?

Those models only worked after the fact.

This is the standard procedure for testing models, because you already have the data and you already have the outcome. Otherwise it would take far too long to verify a model's accuracy.

[driftless2]

I am skeptical of people like the global warming doomists who predict climate change and assert that it will be disastrous. Why wouldn't warmer weather in many extremely cold areas of the world be beneficial? Undoubtedly it would be. But the doomists are always ranting about a great disaster.

They actually have no definitive proof about three things concerning global warming: Number one that it's actually happening, two we're causing it, and three it will be a disaster. That's three unproven hypotheses that they're trying force down the throats of the world. And that is why I am a skeptic. Especially about their motivations.

[Ditto]

The article explains it very coherently and is an excellent common sense way to explain this to our liberal friends. Oops sorry, I nearly forgot; liberals are devoid of common sense and feel their way through life !

The moment you mention statistical probability, their eyes will glaze over.

[Gritty]

[veronica]

We're freezing in CA. Breaking records for cold. Brrrr......