So now the scientific consensus can reliably forecast the weather 1,500 years from now, but not next week? Add to global warming's awesome power the ability to make people a whole lot smarter.
I see this argument a lot but it's not convincing. I don't have a clue whether next week will be warmer or cooler than today, but I'm very confident any week next July will be warmer than today. My six month forecast is more accurate than my one week forecast, and if there are long term trends at work there's no reason a 1,500 year forecast couldn't also be more accurate.
You're able to recognize unconvincing arguments, take a look at your own. Forecasting that July, 3512 will be warmer than January, 3512 convinces you that 3512 will be warmer than 2012? As for "trends", depends on a starting point, no? The "trend" found by shoe salesmen posing as climate scientists was based on fudged data, which they admit to each other in confidence, and they still refuse to put their data out there for scrutiny. You find that convincing? 18,000 yrs ago the trend was, earth getting colder. Then the trend changed, earth warmed. What convinces you a current trend will continue for next ten yrs, never mind 1,500?
Perhaps you should reread my post - I didn't make or endorse any forecast for 3512. I just think there's a logical fallacy in saying that not being able to predict tomorrow's weather proves that no one can make any longer term forecasts.
Umm, that's not a fallacy; that's a fact. In economics, there's a saying, "Your forecast is only as good as your last forecast." Essentially, it's a warning that you shouldn't put too much faith in any of your forecasts. Unfortunately, for global warmists this appears to an exception to the rule, which is that long-term forecasts are almost always correct. THAT is a fallacious argument. Anyone can make a long-term forecast. I can say that 5,000 years from now, the Earth will be a giant ball of ice with robots running the place and the last humanoid like figure will be wanting to see his dead mommy. I think you would call me nuts were I to present this as an article of fact. Why can we not do the same when someone makes a prediction that is to occur 50 to 1,500 years from now?
CAPCHA is "seven ate nine". Heh, jokes on us that we put value in what global warmists say.
And no, your six-month forecast is not more accurate than your week long one because you now have to start factoring in more variables. If you have to factor for more variables, you have more variation in your forecast (fancy that). If you have more variations in your forecast, your forecast is even more unreliable.After all, TIME is the greatest variable that forecasters must contend with. To say that you can predict what is going to happen six months from now is a sign of unnerving arrogance. Perhaps you should be humble and consider that you are a human and not a god.
Yes, it will generally be warmer in July. But what will the temperature be on 11 January 2013?
You're arguing that because Summer is warmer than Winter (in the Northern hemisphere), the global warming crowd can predict the climate over 1,500 years. Even though they couldn't predict the climate over the last ten years.
This is off topic. Does NR have anything brewing on Mike & Chantell Sackett vs. the EPA? The EPA stopped construction of their house on a .63 acre plot in Idaho; saying the ground was part of a wetland inventory. The SCOTUS heard the Sackett's case today because 2 other courts said the couple couldn't get due process on an EPA compliance order.
Most Studies Have Nothing To Do With Empirical Science and Base Their Conclusions On Personal Perspective, Possibility Rather Than Proof, Biased Data Selection, And Tortured Analysis, Study Finds.
Everyone remembers that scientists in the '70s were talking about purposely increasing greenhouse gases for the purpose of staving off another ice age, right? That the next ice age was "already" underway?
Don't get excited, there appears to be some confusion. (Go figure!)
For instance, one warmy I know, upon reading this, immediately assumed that the presumed lack of a glaciation era MUST mean that the ice caps will completely melt away, drowning NYC, and possibly Newark.
It can't be! They are finally admitting that the climate is going to cool, not burn the earth to a crisp. Welcome back to the realm of reality.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo now the scientific consensus can reliably forecast the weather 1,500 years from now, but not next week? Add to global warming's awesome power the ability to make people a whole lot smarter.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI see this argument a lot but it's not convincing. I don't have a clue whether next week will be warmer or cooler than today, but I'm very confident any week next July will be warmer than today. My six month forecast is more accurate than my one week forecast, and if there are long term trends at work there's no reason a 1,500 year forecast couldn't also be more accurate.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou're able to recognize unconvincing arguments, take a look at your own. Forecasting that July, 3512 will be warmer than January, 3512 convinces you that 3512 will be warmer than 2012? As for "trends", depends on a starting point, no? The "trend" found by shoe salesmen posing as climate scientists was based on fudged data, which they admit to each other in confidence, and they still refuse to put their data out there for scrutiny. You find that convincing? 18,000 yrs ago the trend was, earth getting colder. Then the trend changed, earth warmed. What convinces you a current trend will continue for next ten yrs, never mind 1,500?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePerhaps you should reread my post - I didn't make or endorse any forecast for 3512. I just think there's a logical fallacy in saying that not being able to predict tomorrow's weather proves that no one can make any longer term forecasts.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseUmm, that's not a fallacy; that's a fact. In economics, there's a saying, "Your forecast is only as good as your last forecast." Essentially, it's a warning that you shouldn't put too much faith in any of your forecasts. Unfortunately, for global warmists this appears to an exception to the rule, which is that long-term forecasts are almost always correct. THAT is a fallacious argument. Anyone can make a long-term forecast. I can say that 5,000 years from now, the Earth will be a giant ball of ice with robots running the place and the last humanoid like figure will be wanting to see his dead mommy. I think you would call me nuts were I to present this as an article of fact. Why can we not do the same when someone makes a prediction that is to occur 50 to 1,500 years from now?
CAPCHA is "seven ate nine". Heh, jokes on us that we put value in what global warmists say.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd no, your six-month forecast is not more accurate than your week long one because you now have to start factoring in more variables. If you have to factor for more variables, you have more variation in your forecast (fancy that). If you have more variations in your forecast, your forecast is even more unreliable.After all, TIME is the greatest variable that forecasters must contend with. To say that you can predict what is going to happen six months from now is a sign of unnerving arrogance. Perhaps you should be humble and consider that you are a human and not a god.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYes, it will generally be warmer in July. But what will the temperature be on 11 January 2013?
You're arguing that because Summer is warmer than Winter (in the Northern hemisphere), the global warming crowd can predict the climate over 1,500 years. Even though they couldn't predict the climate over the last ten years.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is off topic. Does NR have anything brewing on Mike & Chantell Sackett vs. the EPA? The EPA stopped construction of their house on a .63 acre plot in Idaho; saying the ground was part of a wetland inventory. The SCOTUS heard the Sackett's case today because 2 other courts said the couple couldn't get due process on an EPA compliance order.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHeadline:
Most Studies Have Nothing To Do With Empirical Science and Base Their Conclusions On Personal Perspective, Possibility Rather Than Proof, Biased Data Selection, And Tortured Analysis, Study Finds.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseEveryone remembers that scientists in the '70s were talking about purposely increasing greenhouse gases for the purpose of staving off another ice age, right? That the next ice age was "already" underway?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDon't get excited, there appears to be some confusion. (Go figure!)
For instance, one warmy I know, upon reading this, immediately assumed that the presumed lack of a glaciation era MUST mean that the ice caps will completely melt away, drowning NYC, and possibly Newark.
So, y'know, good luck.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDoes this mean that global warming is no longer set to cause another ice age?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse