Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Climate change ceased to be a scientific issue (Score 1) 585

Its 2011 I remember perfectly well when climatologists were saying I would be under a glacier by now because people were burning fossil fuel.

I also remember how we got more global warming because people cleaned up the emissions from burning fossil fuels.

I guess the future isn't what it used to be.

Comment Re:No the models they mean are like these... (Score 1) 585

I have to think you are trolling.

Because there is no way anyone could read.

you are picking a hundred year window, and saying anyone that uses a different window is wrong. If we were to take a 1000 year window we would be in decline.

and fail to graph that the person making that comment understood there were longer term and shorter term cycles and was pointing them out.

If you haven't subtracted out the natural cyclic variance from the signal you don't have anything that you can actually attribute to CO2.

Comment Re:No the models they mean are like these... (Score 1) 585

Where are the error bars on those graphs? Scientists don't predict future data with considerable noise without using error bars. I also note that the end points have been cherry picked in both cases to end on a colder than average year to give the impression to statistically ignorant people that the temperature will continue downward instead of bouncing back up.

It looks like you're linking to cases of "lies, damn lies and statistics".

Specifically those graphs have been manipulated to mislead people like you.

I wish I could do a smiley. Because you just came to the conclusion that those graphs were manipulated, by eyeballing them without looking at the original data, then you accused other people of being statistically ignorant.

Comment Re:No the models they mean are like these... (Score 2) 585

Why should we care about the IPCC predictions from their first report in 1990 when they put out an updated report in 2007? Knowledge advances and we get better information. If you're going to try to shoot down the IPCC then use their current reports, not something that's been superseded since the 2nd report in 1995.

Hansen's 1998 model used a climate sensitivity of 4, which was not a bad value for the time. Now we believe the sensitivity is around 3. If you used 3 for the climate sensitivity in Hansen's 1988 model the results would be closer to what really happened.

Look science is about making PREDICTIONS not postdictions

Lets look at the premise here human releases of CO2 are driving the warming we have been experiencing since The Little Ice Age.

You have a model that makes predictions about the rise of temperature over time.

What happens in the mean time CO2 emissions rise faster than the model predicted but temperatures not only didn't rise faster they actually stopped and still are stopped. The rise has been stopped for 13 years now. Despite all that CO2 pumped into the atmosphere.

At some point you have to ask just what does it take to say they didn't have a clue when they were yelling the sky is falling and to ask for some proof when they are doing it again.

Comment No the models they mean are like these... (Score 3, Informative) 585


Those are the IPCC predictions from 1990 out to now. Gee for some reason we are well under the temperature they predicted.

Or Hansen's 1988 model



Comment Why you can't talk to greens (Score 1, Interesting) 585

This is what your climate skeptic had to say

"... "back in the early ’80s, I resigned from the Sierra Club over the issue of global warming. At that time, they were opposing nuclear power. What I wrote them in my letter of resignation was that, if you oppose nuclear power, the U.S. will become much more heavily dependent on fossil fuels, and that this is a pollutant to the atmosphere that is very likely to lead to global warming."

So lets just ignore the part that the greens were pushing about the climate skeptic who had a come to god moment.

Lets look at what one his team members had to say about his come to god paper.

"But today The Mail on Sunday can reveal that a leading member of Prof Muller’s team has accused him of trying to mislead the public by hiding the fact that BEST’s research shows global warming has stopped.
Prof Judith Curry, who chairs the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at America’s prestigious Georgia Institute of Technology, said that Prof Muller’s claim that he has proven global warming sceptics wrong was also a ‘huge mistake’, with no scientific basis.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2055191/Scientists-said-climate-change-sceptics-proved-wrong-accused-hiding-truth-colleague.html#ixzz1eTMUgUpc"

Comment Climate change ceased to be a scientific issue (Score 0, Troll) 585

Long ago, the emails have just demonstrated that the people pushing it understand that perfectly well.

As things stand not one of the models that foretold our doom has held up over time. What we get is every 10 years a new set of predictions and models explaining why the last 20 years models and predictions weren't correct but we are still doomed anyway.

And every time there is evidence that it is just a political con game


As the hockey stick was, as the emails demonstrating knowledge of the fraud that was ongoing did you just get the greens closing ranks and hoping if they keep a united front up, the ludites hatred of all things tech, and the political class's willingness to profit from crisis will carry their position forward.

Comment Re:Why do you want more government (Score 1) 954

You have an assumption that congress people will do what they said they would once they have your taxes.

As to paying for the government we have, current government spending as a percentage of GDP is higher than it was during WWII ? Did they save Hitlers Brain ? Is WWII still ongoing ? Are Nazis from the moon planning to invade ?

No what we need is much less government. Much Much Much less.

Slashdot Top Deals

It is much harder to find a job than to keep one.