|
|
#1
09-16-2005, 10:48 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Arctic ice-free by 2070
Looks like we may re-build New Orleans only to lose it to rising sea levels in a few years:
[ QUOTE ] Current computer models suggest that the Arctic will be entirely ice-free during summer by the year 2070 but some scientists now believe that even this dire prediction may be over-optimistic, said Professor Peter Wadhams, an Arctic ice specialist at Cambridge University. [/ QUOTE ] Global warming 'past the point of no return' Nothing to see here. Move along. Go back to listening to Rush. 
|
|
#2
09-16-2005, 10:50 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Arctic ice-free by 2070
Right, because those climate models have been spectacularly accurate in the past.
|
|
#4
09-16-2005, 11:05 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Arctic ice-free by 2070
You need to fix your picture. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]
|
|
#5
09-16-2005, 12:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Sky is Falling!
It's worse than you think! Everything you know is wrong!
The Coming Ice Age! Read the Book! Watch the Movie!
|
|
#6
09-17-2005, 01:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Square root of doom
Read the texts of all those folks who dismiss, on the basis of past performance, all kinds of warning about the environment. You can bet they are mostly ignorant of concepts such as Risk of Ruin.
|
|
#7
09-17-2005, 01:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Square root of doom
[ QUOTE ]
Read the texts of all those folks who dismiss, on the basis of past performance, all kinds of warning about the environment. You can bet they are mostly ignorant of concepts such as Risk of Ruin. [/ QUOTE ] Im not ignoring all the warnings. I am directly confronting the usage of computer models which have a very poor rate of success in the past of predicting any sort of major climate change. Anyone that wants to be honest in a debate about global warming has to admit that these models are a weakness in their argument. And yes several of our more learned brethren on here have admitted as much. But go on making ridiculous claims like someone who frequents 2+2 is mostly ignorant of the concept of Risk of Ruin.
|
|
#8
09-17-2005, 03:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Doom\'d
[ QUOTE ]
Go on making ridiculous claims like someone who frequents 2+2 is mostly ignorant of the concept of Risk of Ruin. [/ QUOTE ]You are misquoting me. What I wrote is that those folks who "dismiss, on the basis of past performance, all kinds of warning about the environment are mostly ignorant of concepts such as Risk of Ruin". I don't know why you did not get it the first time. There are numerous 2+2 posters (perhaps the majority - I wouldn't know) who understand the RoR concept. But those who foolishly dismiss the threat of Earth ruin are indeed ignorant. No matter how many bankroll equations they have memorised.
|
|
#9
09-17-2005, 03:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Doom\'d
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Go on making ridiculous claims like someone who frequents 2+2 is mostly ignorant of the concept of Risk of Ruin. [/ QUOTE ]You are misquoting me. What I wrote is that those folks who "dismiss, on the basis of past performance, all kinds of warning about the environment are mostly ignorant of concepts such as Risk of Ruin". I don't know why you did not get it the first time. There are numerous 2+2 posters (perhaps the majority - I wouldn't know) who understand the RoR concept. But those who foolishly dismiss the threat of Earth ruin are indeed ignorant. No matter how many bankroll equations they have memorised. [/ QUOTE ] good post
|
|
#10
09-17-2005, 05:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Doom\'d
[ QUOTE ]
What I wrote is that those folks who "dismiss, on the basis of past performance, all kinds of warning about the environment are mostly ignorant of concepts such as Risk of Ruin". I don't know why you did not get it the first time. [/ QUOTE ] If dismissing an idea "on the basis of past performance" makes a person ignorant -- what would you consider an acceptable, or an informed basis for dismissing an idea?
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
