Sleep on this, herd nation.
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/global-warming-computer-models-co2-emissions/
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/global-warming-computer-models-co2-emissions/
Global Warming Studies Exaggerated By 45%
- Thread starter i am herdman
- Start date
IBD, where everyone gets their science news 
So I did what rational folks, do....google what is up with this paper. Seems they simply took the lowest probabilities in models and ran with that as gospel (and compared it to the highest probabilities). I'm pretty sure if a paper did the same with the highest probabilities Raleigh wouldn't post a silly gif, he would instead post an angry gif
I don't really get into climate models, it has no fun factor for me on a daily basis. But I do get into weather models. There's a reason the models "come into agreement" the closer one gets to an event day/time: the outliers in probabilities are eliminated...kind of like this single paper based on an outlier probably should be. And yes, I would say the same about "worst case scenarios".
The lesson here: non-science sources written for non-science people, especially ones with a bias, probably shouldn't be what intelligent people base their knowledge on.
So I did what rational folks, do....google what is up with this paper. Seems they simply took the lowest probabilities in models and ran with that as gospel (and compared it to the highest probabilities). I'm pretty sure if a paper did the same with the highest probabilities Raleigh wouldn't post a silly gif, he would instead post an angry gif
I don't really get into climate models, it has no fun factor for me on a daily basis. But I do get into weather models. There's a reason the models "come into agreement" the closer one gets to an event day/time: the outliers in probabilities are eliminated...kind of like this single paper based on an outlier probably should be. And yes, I would say the same about "worst case scenarios".
The lesson here: non-science sources written for non-science people, especially ones with a bias, probably shouldn't be what intelligent people base their knowledge on.
follow the money i say. First it was the earth was going to freeze. Then we had the global warming hysteria. Today we call it Climate change. I am not worried about it. That doesn't mean I am in favor of polluting the earth either. I just am not worried about a cow farting or grandma driving to the store for groceries.
I just wonder how many of those nice ocean front homes in Duck, NC outer banks will be ocean homes in 20-30 years. lol! Love when the media uses the fear card to rile up the masses.
sort of like a high school student trying to dictate to a nation the reason we need to abolish the second amendment?LMAO!
An editorial from a business rag about science?
I'm pretty sure if a paper did the same with the highest probabilities Raleigh wouldn't post a silly gif, he would instead post an angry gif
Angry? Shit. Folks like you continue to post the most "angry" and "hateful" type responses to everyone else on here when you disagree. Its gotten pretty comical to see just how some of you bitches will meltdown next.
No. I would just state that such a story was most likely posted in a liberal rag (because that always seems to be a standard liberal rebuttal to cons based articles) and that the idea of "consensus" in this type of dynamic, (politically motivated) science, should be continually questioned.
Think about this. If businesses thought all this global warming stuff was as bad as you say they would be figuring out how to make more money of it and protect their business interests.LMAO!
An editorial from a business rag about science?
I like corned beef hash. I don't think I would like it in a MRE.
Just FYI - this is just an article reporting on the study. The study itself is in a peer reviewed journal. Peer review helps but it’s not without its flaws.
I’ve been a reviewer before and ultimately publication is based on the editors opinion...and reviewer comments aren’t currently available to the public - though there is a push for this now.
I’ve been a reviewer before and ultimately publication is based on the editors opinion...and reviewer comments aren’t currently available to the public - though there is a push for this now.
Here’s the thing about the science of global warming ...there are ranges of predictive models of future possibilities based on current evidence and then there’s that evidence itself.
What herdman linked was a study that falls within one extreme of predictive models. He is selecting that model because it fits his agenda. But when you look at the entire range of predictive models I believe it’s prudent to take in the entire body of work. There is just a tremendous amount of work out there in regard to predictive models of future weather. I’m not so sure that the outliers...both the extremely pessimistic and optimistic...should be where we land our opinion. I would hope this new study is correct for obvious reasons, but I’m not naive enough to cherry pick such a small amount of existing studies and allow my ideological inclinations to blind me from the overwhelming amount of evidence to the contrary. It would be like walking Antarctica for days looking for land and when you happen upon a small strip of exposed earth shouting out...see...I told you there isn’t any ice here.
But predictive models of future events are only one aspect of the science. If the world is in trouble now...100 years from now...or 500 years from now...is that really the issue? At some point this needs dealt with. The flip side of it is the actual evidence itself. That’s the stuff they feed into the computers to create these predictive models. The actual evidence is based not on computer modeling but on tangible measurements. If an ounce of googling was done to support or dismiss GW in this thread you guys would be literally tripping over mountains of studies that show evidence for concern. The most recent is the fact that we just passed 400 months of worldwide temperature exceeding the average. I could link 100 articles from legitimate scientific endeavor from all over the world for supporting the concern of GW for every single contrarian study. And the majority of contrarian studies I easily link to conservative think tanks sponsored by energy companies.
Yet this one study is enough to over turn the mountain of studies that say otherwise? And herdman...follow the money indeed. If you believe that businesses and industry worldwide aren’t reacting to the evidence of global warming you’re simply uninformed. A simple google search will uncover tons of companies that are adopting business models to combat a changing environment. Agriculture, businesses affected by water supply, coastal businesses, etc. are reacting. The oil companies themselves are even reacting and have recently admitted the reality of GW in court.
Anyway...cherry picking to form your opinion doesn’t always lead to the truth even if it is an easy way to lock yourself firmly in your ideological boxes.
What herdman linked was a study that falls within one extreme of predictive models. He is selecting that model because it fits his agenda. But when you look at the entire range of predictive models I believe it’s prudent to take in the entire body of work. There is just a tremendous amount of work out there in regard to predictive models of future weather. I’m not so sure that the outliers...both the extremely pessimistic and optimistic...should be where we land our opinion. I would hope this new study is correct for obvious reasons, but I’m not naive enough to cherry pick such a small amount of existing studies and allow my ideological inclinations to blind me from the overwhelming amount of evidence to the contrary. It would be like walking Antarctica for days looking for land and when you happen upon a small strip of exposed earth shouting out...see...I told you there isn’t any ice here.
But predictive models of future events are only one aspect of the science. If the world is in trouble now...100 years from now...or 500 years from now...is that really the issue? At some point this needs dealt with. The flip side of it is the actual evidence itself. That’s the stuff they feed into the computers to create these predictive models. The actual evidence is based not on computer modeling but on tangible measurements. If an ounce of googling was done to support or dismiss GW in this thread you guys would be literally tripping over mountains of studies that show evidence for concern. The most recent is the fact that we just passed 400 months of worldwide temperature exceeding the average. I could link 100 articles from legitimate scientific endeavor from all over the world for supporting the concern of GW for every single contrarian study. And the majority of contrarian studies I easily link to conservative think tanks sponsored by energy companies.
Yet this one study is enough to over turn the mountain of studies that say otherwise? And herdman...follow the money indeed. If you believe that businesses and industry worldwide aren’t reacting to the evidence of global warming you’re simply uninformed. A simple google search will uncover tons of companies that are adopting business models to combat a changing environment. Agriculture, businesses affected by water supply, coastal businesses, etc. are reacting. The oil companies themselves are even reacting and have recently admitted the reality of GW in court.
Anyway...cherry picking to form your opinion doesn’t always lead to the truth even if it is an easy way to lock yourself firmly in your ideological boxes.
So if the oceans are going to rise in a few years why do Real Estate folks build on ocean front property still? Why do Bankers loan money to projects that will go under?
Not many credible studies suggest that this will happen in a few years. But if you don't believe the real estate markets along the coast isnt reacting to the likelihood of rising oceans you're not looking very hard. A quick google search of "Miami real estate and global warming" and you will come up with hundreds of articles on just that one city. Real estate values in areas susceptible to rising oceans and increased intensity of severe weather events are already declining. Harvard did a study on this...
http://www.gsd.harvard.edu/2017/08/...enan-talks-miami-in-vice-scientific-american/
Yep. Some people just find a preponderance of the evidence convincing and just blindly follow the 90% plus of the most informed people on the planet. But not you man...you ain’t falling for it...cause Trump. And we all know how in depth his knowledge is of global warming. I mean...very smart...maybe the smartest ever of all presidents...
“It's really cold outside, they are calling it a major freeze, weeks ahead of normal. Man, we could use a big fat dose of global warming!"
Twitter, 19/10/15
You're the one questioning supposed actions of bankers, moron. I'm not the one questioning them.
Aren't you a banker? so would you loan huge sums of money to a project that will be "under water" before the loan can be repaid? Of course not. That is why they keep building and loaning money near the ocean. They are not buying into all of the hysteria.
No I am stating the obvious. Bankers don't go out of their way to make bad loans. They wouldn't be loaning money to build on the coast if it would be under water in 10-15 years. Try again.
^^^bwaaaahaha!!
Less than 10 years after the Great Recession, and you're implying financial institutions are the go-to guys for financial wisdom advice. You are one stupid Cheetos puff.
Still trying to blame the government for the crimes of Wall Street. Good little puff.
Not necessarily, but there is blame to go around and if you think the govt is perfect well, shame on you.
You said the financial institutions are the go to guys for financial wisdom and I stated the govt is no better. The two entities I mentioned, which are govt sponsored and backed, have ahd their share of controversies. The govt is also deeply in dept and is bloated.The government forced banks to give bad loans, amirite.
So why can they be trusted more?
The government entities were doing fine until wall street decided they couldn't keep their hands out of the till any longer.
