Climate change: Is it a hoax or is it true?

Full story: Hampton Roads Daily Press

NASA Langley researcher Bruce Wielicki is convinced the world is warming. By PATRICK LYNCH 247-4534 June 5, 2008 Bruce Wielicki has been researching the Earth's atmosphere and its changing climate since the ...
Comments
1 - 20 of 125 Comments Last updated Oct 9, 2011
First Prev
of 7
Next Last
Walther

Hampton, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Jun 5, 2008
 

Judged:

1

1

Yeah yeah yeah. Sure, this guy says it's happening. Unfortunately, 31,000 other scientists with excellent credentials also just signed a paper stating it's all a hoax. So,,,do we believe the 31,000 scientists whom say it's happening, vs. the other 31,000 whom say it's all a bunch of hooey? For sure, we should go very very slowly on this. For example, about 20 years ago, the "experts" were all saying we were in danger of freezing the planet from global cooling. Remember, these "experts" are all using computer MODELS, not facts, to say global warming is happening. These guys can't forecast weather a day in advance, never mind 20 years. Our dopey senator Warner just co-wrote a bill which under the guise of stopping global warming would actually end up sending ALL manufacturing to other countries. Talk about putting the last nail in the coffin of the USA!
Avatar

Bangkok, Thailand

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Jun 5, 2008
 
This is what will happen.

The environmentalists will say:

1. There was never a cooling scare (1984 style)

2. Computer models are more reliable than the real world.
Bill

Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Jun 5, 2008
 
Avatar wrote:
This is what will happen.
The environmentalists will say:
1. There was never a cooling scare (1984 style)
2. Computer models are more reliable than the real world.
1) The "cooling scare" was exaggeration by the popular press. Global warming is an accepted mainstream concept taught in university climatology programs around the world.

2) Computer models are more reliable than gut feelings about the real world.
Walther

Hampton, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Jun 5, 2008
 

Judged:

2

1

1

No, actually computer models are no more reliable than gut feelings. Proven that computer models DON'T work. Remember the last 2 years of hurricane predictions based on computer models? Totally and completely wrong! Don't buy into the hype. Global warming is all about pulling down the western world and putting us on the same level as developing countries. The cooling scare was not exagerated by anyone. Back then, the scientists "all agreed" their computer models proved that global cooling was happening. Yeah right.
Fairness

Virginia Beach, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Jun 5, 2008
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Bill wrote:
<quoted text>
1) The "cooling scare" was exaggeration by the popular press. Global warming is an accepted mainstream concept taught in university climatology programs around the world.
2) Computer models are more reliable than gut feelings about the real world.
1) And the press isn't exaggerating this too???
2) LMAO, prove that one. "Garbage in, garbage out" I'd be willing to bet a Farmers Almanac is more accurate that most of these "computer models" out there..
Will Kofa

Virginia Beach, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Jun 5, 2008
 

Judged:

1

When proponents of something like global warming work so hard to shutdown debate you have to wonder what they are hiding. I think there may be something to warming but the shrill cries of its' advocates shouting down criticism has raised doubts.
jjrg7

Raleigh, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Jun 5, 2008
 

Judged:

1

Tha fact is that any ecologically defined environment is in constant change and needs to be that way to remain healthy. This is what is natural and is suppose to be. If you try to hold static an environment that needs to be in constant flux, certain other areas of the environment will have to change (and maybe not in a good way) to make up for what needed to happen in the first place. For example, introducing a non native species to get rid of a pest often results in the non native species becoming more of a harm than the initial pest was in the first place. Every environmental change, no matter how good some environmentalist thinks it is, has a negative effect on someone else. This could be in terms of the costs outweighing the good gained or even directly harming some other species or group. Climate change is not a hoax, its been happening since the beginning of time. It is what needs to be. Imagine the disasters that we will face by preventing the climate from ever changing and balancing itself.
Mountaineer

Hampton, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Jun 5, 2008
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Part of my job entails a smattering of sim and modeling. Models are only as accurate as the algorithm. If the algorithm is wrong, so is the model. Guess where the algorithm is derived? Answer: From a weighted hypothesis. And who develops and determines values within the hypothesis? Answer: The person who is attempting to convey, convince or communicate the presumption. So, if I were a scientist convinced that my theorem is accurate, I assign a set of values and plug them into a model. My model simply restates the theory. My point is modeling is not the end all. Junk science in computes to junk science out.
With regard to global warming, we don’t have a good grasp as to what, where, or why it is occurring…we only know that it appears to be occurring. Please use that big beautiful deductive human brain to accept or reject without being scared or intimidated into an uninformed reaction. Good Lord some intellectualists are really not that intellectual.

Bill wrote:
<quoted text>
1) The "cooling scare" was exaggeration by the popular press. Global warming is an accepted mainstream concept taught in university climatology programs around the world.
2) Computer models are more reliable than gut feelings about the real world.
Kennymang Skulls rule

Chicago, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Jun 5, 2008
 
Umm guys....why are we worrying about Global Warming anymore? Duh, as soon as Obama gets elected, he will fix Global Warming forever and I think he'll do it in his first 100 days! So let's party y'all!!
Fairness

Virginia Beach, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Jun 5, 2008
 
Mountaineer wrote:
Part of my job entails a smattering of sim and modeling. Models are only as accurate as the algorithm. If the algorithm is wrong, so is the model. Guess where the algorithm is derived? Answer: From a weighted hypothesis. And who develops and determines values within the hypothesis? Answer: The person who is attempting to convey, convince or communicate the presumption. So, if I were a scientist convinced that my theorem is accurate, I assign a set of values and plug them into a model. My model simply restates the theory. My point is modeling is not the end all. Junk science in computes to junk science out.
With regard to global warming, we don’t have a good grasp as to what, where, or why it is occurring…we only know that it appears to be occurring. Please use that big beautiful deductive human brain to accept or reject without being scared or intimidated into an uninformed reaction. Good Lord some intellectualists are really not that intellectual.
<quoted text>
Don't get me wrong, science has done alot for humankind. The problem is those who worship it as a religion without really understanding it.
Don

Canton, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Jun 5, 2008
 

Judged:

1

Fairness wrote:
<quoted text>
1) And the press isn't exaggerating this too???
2) LMAO, prove that one. "Garbage in, garbage out" I'd be willing to bet a Farmers Almanac is more accurate that most of these "computer models" out there..
I agree. When is the last time you saw a computer program with several million lines of 100% accurate code. And these computer models are based on "assumptions" to begin with. There are also computer models out there that show another ice age is coming.

Since: May 07

Canterbury, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Jun 5, 2008
 

Judged:

1

Mountaineer wrote:
Part of my job entails a smattering of sim and modeling. Models are only as accurate as the algorithm. If the algorithm is wrong, so is the model. Guess where the algorithm is derived? Answer: From a weighted hypothesis. And who develops and determines values within the hypothesis? Answer: The person who is attempting to convey, convince or communicate the presumption.
The hypothesis is based on observations of the climate and established physical laws. Hence this is what the models are based on.

They are effectively physical simulations of current quantifiable human understanding of physics behind climate.
So, if I were a scientist convinced that my theorem is accurate, I assign a set of values and plug them into a model. My model simply restates the theory.
Not at all, the climate model output can be compared with reality and therefore the hypothesis directly tested. This is no different than other branches of science where a model is made to explain some physical phenomenon and then the model is further tested against observations to refine it.
With regard to global warming, we don’t have a good grasp as to what, where, or why it is occurring…we only know that it appears to be occurring.
The best current understanding of climate indicates a likely cause. Certainly I haven't heard of anyone building a model of the climate that reproduces 20th century trends without greenhouse effect enhancement.
Bill

Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Jun 5, 2008
 

Judged:

1

Mountaineer wrote:
Part of my job entails a smattering of sim and modeling. Models are only as accurate as the algorithm. If the algorithm is wrong, so is the model. Guess where the algorithm is derived? Answer: From a weighted hypothesis. And who develops and determines values within the hypothesis? Answer: The person who is attempting to convey, convince or communicate the presumption. So, if I were a scientist convinced that my theorem is accurate, I assign a set of values and plug them into a model.
You're telling us that if you were a scientist you'd be an unethical one. How would you prevent other scientists from catching your fraud?
Dave Y

Antioch, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Jun 5, 2008
 

Judged:

1

1

I think its normal and good that people question if global warming exists and how this answer is derived. In fact, its a very difficult question to answer. But ...damn!... educate yourself on the subject a little before making sweeping generalizations and using vague terms. "They" think this and "computer model" says that. Be clear on which agency or organization is stating what fact and what computer model you're referring to. Anything else makes your point moot and depicts your opinion baseless. IPCC reports are the foundation of the claims supporting CC. I can at least agree that a change in the atmospheric makeup of GHG can lead to changes in biota and animals. Is it conceivable that an increase in the emissions of GHG are caused by manmade activities? I'd say yes. Are those manmade emissions enough to increase the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere to a degree that it affects biota and animal life? I don't know. Are natural shifts in CC, not caused by manmade activities? Yes. Are the uneducated rants on this message board even slightly useful or productive? No.
GOPVOTER

Chicago, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Jun 5, 2008
 

Judged:

1

My bible don't say nuthin about no global warming
Mountaineer

Gloucester, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Jun 5, 2008
 

Judged:

1

Oh my Bill,
What world do you live in? Institutions of academia, government organizations, and industry are all guilty of influencing the outcome of studies such as mod and sim outcome. NTSB does it (as does the auto industry) pitting engineer against engineer. It is no fraud, it is the ability to prove or disprove one's theorem
Bill wrote:
<quoted text>
You're telling us that if you were a scientist you'd be an unethical one. How would you prevent other scientists from catching your fraud?
JRS

Milwaukee, WI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Jun 5, 2008
 

Judged:

1

GOPVOTER wrote:
My bible don't say nuthin about no global warming
Yes it does, big time "global warming." But not according to the AGW crisis peddler plan. The elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. 2 Peter 3:(KJV)

the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,

12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?
Mountaineer

Gloucester, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Jun 5, 2008
 
I agree with your basic premise of empirical data and observable science however we know that one scientist's theory generally runs afoul of another. Look at the varied debates of the physical properties and elements occurring within the universe or the changing premise within manipulation of time and space. How many phenomenon have we thought over the years were true yet as time passed, realized the theory was all wrong? In the 1950s radioactive isotopes were thought to behave and react within a defined set of rules. Today we know that is not the case and as a result a new door has been opened. Directed energy is another example of what was once difficult to control or consistently reproduce, now we can control sine wave length, cycle, and duration and apply it to lethal and non lethal weapons technology. My point is generally whatever rule set is most accepted at the time is what we accept in the model. If the theory is wrong or misrepresented by an improper value, the outcome is flawed as well.
Cthulhu wrote:
<quoted text>
The hypothesis is based on observations of the climate and established physical laws. Hence this is what the models are based on.
They are effectively physical simulations of current quantifiable human understanding of physics behind climate.
<quoted text>
Not at all, the climate model output can be compared with reality and therefore the hypothesis directly tested. This is no different than other branches of science where a model is made to explain some physical phenomenon and then the model is further tested against observations to refine it.
<quoted text>
The best current understanding of climate indicates a likely cause. Certainly I haven't heard of anyone building a model of the climate that reproduces 20th century trends without greenhouse effect enhancement.
Glasnos

Winter Park, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21
Jun 5, 2008
 

Judged:

1

1

1

All you need to know is the Polar bear has been designated as endangered, despite the polar bear population has steadily increased over the last 50 years .... all based on computer models.

With this designation, based on a computer model, the democrats want the USA to pay carbon taxes to the UN.

Come on america ... you can't be this stupid ... can you?
EyeOpener

Newport News, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22
Jun 5, 2008
 

Judged:

1

1

1

It's hard to believe how many people still don't believe the planet is heating up and water levels are rising. Let's believe the right-wing religious kooks instead of the scientists. Yea, that makes sense.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 7
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••