You develop a model by running it and then comparing the output with real life data. There is no climate model that has been verified against real life data. And this is because climate is a complex system, it would be arrogant to think that we can model ...
Computer models are not empirical data. They only have validity once they have been run out against real life data.
"You keep spouting the same BS that's been thoroughly disproved" Now you're just making things up. "It's not so much that you're a climate change denier but that you're a reality denier" Look out your window, that is reality.
"the science shows that another degree or so and we'll tip the climate into run-way warming." I'm sorry but thats not science, it's conjecture.
Again, Bright Red, Take 1998 out of the data set and the warming period from 1980-1995 has abated and 1995-2010 is pretty much flat.
1980-1995 is no better a 'trend' than 1995-2010. 80-95 is the only period of warming on record since 1940. I have heard 30 years given as a statistically significant period of time for global climate. Temperature flattening since 2000 is very much a 'watch...
What track record of correctly predicting climate does James Hansen have? I do recall him being censured by NASA for mnisrepresenting their views though. I think you may be confusing the large amounts of research showing the effects of warming which is ...
"If you saw 100 doctors and 98 of them said you were ill would you take steps just in case you were ill?" If I saw 100 naturopaths(however well-meaning or experienced) and 98 of them told me I had bad chi, I wouldn't believe them. "Do you really believe ...
OK, What was the CO2 in ppm in 1985-1995 and in 1995-2005 because that is what I was actually refering to.
Your argument is a strawman. The trend of recent flat temperatures does not rely on the 1998 data, in fact take it out and you've still got the same trend. Temperature has no up or down trend since 2000. Here is the hadcrut data since 2000: 2001 +0.409 ...
I have taken a look at feedback loops. They are called ice ages and optimum warm periods.
There are no anthropogenic climate change experts. If we take the nobel prize for physics winners from 1901-1950 which would be a reasonable representation of the best scientific minds of the time, are any of them experts in nanotechnology? They may have ...
Only because the records haven't been kept for very long. Over the history of human civilisation the 14 warmest years have been spread out over thousands of years.
Some issues I have: How do CO2 emissions compare between the periods 1988-1995 and 1995-2005? How do temperature trends compare over the same periods? If the temperature rise from 1985-1995 was caused by CO2 emissions, why are considerably greater ...
So temperature trends have been basically flat for 10 years?
Like in the decades 1940-1980
This problem is already solving itself. http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_shows_the_best_stats_you_ve_ever_seen.html
But all government jobs are work for the dole under a different name. These jobs have some value but any additional employment by government is fundamentally work for the dole, they still require a private sector job to provide the tax to pay for it.
What are these steps?
The government can't create jobs. It can avoid destroying jobs and it can offer work for the dole.
"So what's your suggestion mate?" I think what he is infering is that economic growth should always be a priority because the good times of high tax income never last forever
Thanks Labour for 9 years of failed economic policies
Recent Comments