Bacterial Gene May Affect Climate And Weather

Science Daily ^ | 2-17-2007 | University Of Queensland

[Calvin Locke]

I think that's a tad anal. Past some given number of moves, remaining pieces, etc, there would be a bunch of "don't cares".

Think Alan Turing, state machines, etc.

[xcamel]

FReepmail me to get on or off

Click graphic for full GW rundown

Ping me if you find one I've missed.

~ more psudo science ~

[DBrow]

"would they allow the use of a GM organism that would stop global warming"

Global warming will stop the day that the left is completely in power. You will never hear of it again.

[MHGinTN]

Educating the public with the truth doesn't feed the desired hysteria necessary for mass manipulation of the populace in developed nations.

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

It's not hard to believe that you work with supercomputer modeling. You did an excellent job of articulating some of the myriad problems of attempting to model an immensely complex -- even chaotic -- system. I completely agree with you. No climate model will ever be climate.

IPCC does overstate the competence of models -- but, they at least admit that there are some weaknesses in the modeling, which is more than the GW true believers will ever admit to. (Of course, they point out the weaknesses in the context of a plea for more research funding.)

I recently delved into the documents posted on the IPCC site; and discovered how different the findings in this "consensus" document are from what the alarmists (like Gore and most of the MSM) are reporting. I decided that quoting directly from the IPCC documents is the best way to deflate the arguments of the alarmists. They simply sneer and dismiss any other sources as "right-wing propaganda, bought and paid for by the oil lobby" -- they have a much harder time disputing what the UN says through IPCC. (For the record -- I think that IPCC research is horribly biased in favour of GW; but it makes a good starting point in an argument.)

BTW, "consensus" is in quotes above, because it is plain that there is actually no consensus. The alarmists keep spouting off about "the scientific consensus" -- but the closest to an actual, official consensus document is the IPCC report. If you look at the reports, you see several climate models are being used -- and they produce a very wide range of results. IPCC simply average temperature and sea level predictions, and calls that a consensus forecast. It's like the old joke about statisticians shooting arrows at a target. (The first misses a yard to the left, the second misses a yard to the right, the third shouts "we got a bulls eye".)

[Kay Ludlow]

Then you'll get to see th environmentalists in the ultimate quandary - would they allow the use of a GM organism that would stop global warming,if it was available? I'm sure the answer is no.

Of course the answer is no! It isn't really about the climate - it's about government control of the means of production and redistribution of wealth.

Green = recycled Communism

[bjc]

You are right. We already have the technology to dramatically reduce our carbon footprint: Nuclear Power. But the posture of the envirofascists is as critics with no responsibility to generate practical solutions to the frequently imaginary problems they create.