Moonbox

Problem is that we clearly don't understand the causes, have proven we CANNOT predict the effect and thus our conclusions are nothing better than guesses.

All I understand is that the models were WRONG. It doesn't matter whether they were too conservative or too aggressive. They weren't accurate. This isn't evidence that we are not warming the Earth, but it IS evidence that the models aren't reliable.

Wyly think about what you're saying. The models were obviously wrong. They were unable to project how much temperatures have risen. They therefore clearly weren't a reliable measure. Any bad climate model is going to either guess low or guess high. The fact that a bad model guessed high (it had a 50% chance of doing so) is hardly proof for global warming.

Haha burned.

I don't understand what you're getting at here.

I don't think you're grasping my problem with the models. It doesn't matter if you run them a hundred thousand times backwards and forwards. We barely understand the data we're putting in to them and the assumptions that are being made and thus the predictions they provide are little more than giant guesses.

Depends on where they are. Some of the factories out in rural areas perhaps not but the ones in the city most definetly have access to public transportation usually.

People living in the suburbs wouldn't all of the sudden be unable to commute because their gas costs twice as much. They would likely spend less elsewhere and buy smaller and more efficient cars. A $400,000 commuter home isn't all the sudden going to be worthless because it costs $80 instead of $40 to fill a tank of gas. LOL

When you are modelling airplanes and rockets, however, you are expected to account for and understand the variables. The engineers and physicists who build these fully understand the properties of the materials they are working with and can control the variables in their simulations and testing FULLY. They don't send a man into the air or into space on assumptions and guesses. There are very serious limits to what a computer model can tell you. If you tosses a rubber duck into the ocean and asked the computer to tell you where it will wash up on the shore, I doubt many of the 'scientists' would bet big money on the predictions. Why? Because there's no way to reliably program the variables. A big wave could make the difference. It's the same with climate models. Computer models right now can't even reliably predict the weather a few days from now yet we're trusting them with modelling what our climate will be like 100 years from now? How do you account for the sun? If the earth is warming, and as a result we see more clouds, rain and storms, can the computer tell us what effect that will have in cooling the planet? Can the computer tell us what the effect will be of larger oceans, more arable land and thus presumably more trees? Can it reliably predict air and ocean current change? Not as of yet. If the computer can't even reliably predict the smaller pieces of the puzzle, why are we so CONVINCED that it can solve the puzzle as a whole?

That's one of the weakest analogies I've seen here in some time. Be glad you're not a lawyer, because your comparison doesn't even make sense. I'm embarrassed for you that you wrote that.

Sounds PRICEY!

I doubt it lol

I understand what you're saying Machjo, I simply don't agree with it. It's not at all the urban infrastructure that makes life hard for the poor. If anything, it helps them. Public transit, however meagre it might be, allows the poor to find work further away than usual. 100 years ago you couldn't work anywhere that was outside of walking distance. Today you can. Sure the areas are more spread out, but it's easier to move around now. In 1910 if you were poor and you couldn't find a job within walking distance you were screwed.

I don't really think there was ever much question about that. Anyone who's saying we should just cut off welfare outright is suggesting thousands starve and freeze to death. It does not, however, have a whole lot to do with the suburbs but rather with society completely reinventing itself over the last century. Your challenge is pretty pointless though. Had welfare never come to be, we'd have less slums and more people either dead or starving. Welfare wasn't our ticket to expand our urban centres and sprawl all over the continent. Simple want and desire was. Not paying welfare, if anything, would have the double effect of freeing up a lot of money for further urban infrastructure and also removing a lot of poor votes from politics. Homeless people don't have a strong voter turnout. Less poor votes shifts the political centre to the right which promotes even more urban growth. I suggest you re think what you're saying here.

No! He's way more thoughtful and analytical. He would first ask you what the daily inflation rate is before deciding don't you think?

No I'm not prepared for that and you don't even make sense. A hundred years ago those same poor would have probably spent more time hungry and in the cold than they do now. They still live in the city now and today they have bus service instead of having to walk everywhere. Relative to a poor person 100 years ago, things are better for them. Yeah totally.... It's all the fault of the suburbs. Damn all those greedy hard working people who made a living for themselves and pay their taxes so that today's poor can be looked after.

Topaz the US economy tanked further and thus a faster rate of recovery is not surprising. The Feds in the US are also pumping WAY more money (relatively) into their economy than we are here. I don't expect you to understand any of this though...

Or you could take what the 'scientists' say with a grain of salt and use your 'brain' for a second. I realize that, as I'm not a climate scientist, I can't really say either way what's going on. What I can do, however, and do intelligently, is question how a few years of computer modelling with a laughingly small amount of (relative) data proves that our VERY small and VERY short term history of temperature increase is man-made. I'm not saying we're not warming the planet. I'm saying we might be. While we should continue to fund climate research and clean energy alternatives, it's beyond stupid to claim the debate is over and that anything is even close to certain at this point. Myata you've already told everyone here we're not scientists. I know that so get over it. I'm extremely well educated, however, and I find it's better not to shut my brain off because an 'expert' told me what's what. That's your MO obviously, and I sure hope that's working out for you.

Yep that ALWAYS works. I mean, it's not like the 'scientists' have ever been wrong before. The world is flat right? That Ice Age we were heading for in the 70's sure was cold. You don't know anything about the science yourself and therefore your statement that we should 'trust the professionals' is nothing more than a matter of faith. You're saying nothing more than, "They are professionals. How can they all be wrong?" You've deferred the critical thought process and simply believe whatever the media and a very passionate and politically motivated 'scientific' community tells you. You've also decided that anyone who questions these 'scientists' is worth ridiculing. I'm REALLY failing to see the difference you 'distinguished'.

It's just speculators cashing in on short term gains. They'll drive it back up again and then sell again over and over.

Yeah I don't know why that got into my head

I was going to make a bankruptcy joke but then I thought it would be inappropriate. Oops.

GUYS! THE HEALTH INSPECTORS ARE COMING TO TAKE ME AWAY! HALP! REVOLT!

Most people have some knowledge in the subject area. NONE of the scientists have comprehensive knowledge of the Earth or it's climate. Climate science is broken up into so many disciplines that putting it altogether is in itself a crazily difficult task. As for people who criticize it, among them are plenty of PhD's and even Nobel Prize winners. Their questions go unanswered, however, and they are marginalized as a result.

That made me laugh well said Like I said before, my problem is not with the micro science of weather, oceans, geology etc, but rather the macro study of long term climate change and the use of unreliable computer models to 'prove' global warming has been caused by CO2. Some of the more famous skeptics out there aren't exactly kooks. Among them are some of the most respected scientists in the world. Ivar Giaver has a Nobel Prize for physics, and says that the 'studies' and 'proofs' for global warming aren't even close to as compelling as the action plans are calling for.