Text 11384, 76 rader
Skriven 2007-02-02 17:38:17 av Josh Hill (14823.babylon5)
     Kommentar till en text av rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Ärende: Re: Cath0licism and Creati=nism (was: Shades of offensive     language 
===============================================================================
On Fri, 2 Feb 2007 08:38:41 -0600, "Carl" <cengman7@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>
>"Vorlonagent" <nojtspam@otfresno.com> wrote in message 
>news:KvCwh.15585$ji1.3077@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net...
>> Been here, done this all in honor of the release of Al Gore's big movie.
>>
>> Just a quick revisiting.  I will not reply to any replies.
>>
><skip>
>
>> 7) Most global warming computer models are paid for by people who wish to 
>> prove or buttress the idea that humans are causing global warming.  Most 
>> of what's left are paid for by people out to DISprove the same thing. 
>> When the scientist is being paid to produce a result, the science is 
>> suspect.
>
>I've recently heard that none of the models that they're using to project 
>the
>effects of GW forward come anywhere close to where we are now
>if you start 50 or 100 years ago and plug in the actual data that we have.
>
>If this is not accurate, I'd like to see the data from model that accurately
>projects the past 100 years.
>
>Is there some reason that using the same models with actual data from an 
>earlier
>point should not be used to validate the model?  True, the accuracy of any 
>given
>year going back may not be accurate, but knowing where we are now and
>being able to estimate where we would have been 100 years ago seems likely
>to be more accurate than projecting where we will be in 50 or 100 years.

It sure would be, but we lack detailed data for the early part of the
century, in some cases even for more than a decade ago, and in any
case the models don't have to fully developed (no one claims they are)
to yield useful information.

In fact, there's apparently an even more important shortcoming in the
models -- they're /underestimating/ the rate at which the ice is
melting:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/02/science/02oceans.html

From what I've seen, the warming denial Lysenkoists take three
approaches in their attempt to undercut science:

- Claiming that the scientists are as sleazy as they are, a patently
ridiculous proposition given that there are thousands of scientists
involved and not even Exxon-Mobil could suborn them all, or even most
of them.

- Complaining that the models aren't perfect, when they know full well
that the models can't and don't have to be perfect, any more than the
weather report has to be infallible to tell us that it's probably a
better idea to plan your picnic for August than for February.

- Offering bogus "alternative" explanations that sound convincing to
the layman but have already been tested and discarded by the
scientific community.

The bottom line is that while many have tried, no one has come up with
scientifically serious models that don't predict a high probability of
global warming due to greenhouse gas emissions or that explain the
rapid warming that we're now experiencing.

-- 
Josh

[Truly] I say to you, [...] angel [...] power will be able to see that [...]
these to whom [...] holy generations [...]. After Jesus said this, he departed.

- The Gospel of Judas
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)