Doesn't it seem pointless to waste all of our time "modeling" climate change, when the coming chaotic maelstrom will wipe us all AWAY?
Articles comments on new climate study indicating we are beginning to have LOWEST average heat levels consistently higher than they were in the last half of the 20th C.
>Michael Honeycutt
Okay folks, lets all settle down a tad here. I do NOT deny that global warming seems to be taking place here. Nor am I refuting the evidence that our (as in human) consumerism and throw away lifestyles play a role in making things worse. BUT, our understanding of solar activity and it's effects on this planet are really in their infancy. Science is not a God to be worshipped, nor is technology. We have advanced significantly in our abilities to measure things and model things from where we were even 50 years ago but it is the height iof arrogance to suggest that we and our science have it all figured out yet. If we did, models would not need revision, and yet they are constantly being revised. We are only BEGINNING to get a handle on the plethora of variables involved in global warming and, as yet, any truthful scientist would have to admit that knowing what the variables are and understanding exactly what their effects are are a far cry from each other. We gather data voraciously and it will take years to understand exactly what that data means in the big picture. So it seems to me that stating positively that global warming is anthropomorphic in nature is jumping the gun. Also, statements that all this warming is purely natural in origin meets the same criteria. We can make well educated guesses about statistical trends but we must also admit that statistics can be manipulated to support almost any hypothesis. So where does this leave us? Arguing politics and berating each other. Well that's really going to help clear this up. Let's keep the egos and political rants about Al Gore or G.W. Bush out of the science. What ever happened to OBJECTIVITY in scientific pursuits? Any GOOD scientist can talk about what he believes are significant trends in data analysis. No harm, no foul, even if you may disagree with his thoughts on the matter. But not one single individual out there can conclusively prove anything about climate science when it comes to finding a solution to global warming. There are simply TOO MANY VARIABLES to consider. So we should study and do our best to interpret the data as we collect it. We may even debate what that data may mean. Such is scientific evaluation. But lets lose the arrogance and name calling on BOTH sides of this argument. It does nothing but distract us from the goal at hand.
Articles comments on new climate study indicating we are beginning to have LOWEST average heat levels consistently higher than they were in the last half of the 20th C.
>Michael Honeycutt
Okay folks, lets all settle down a tad here. I do NOT deny that global warming seems to be taking place here. Nor am I refuting the evidence that our (as in human) consumerism and throw away lifestyles play a role in making things worse. BUT, our understanding of solar activity and it's effects on this planet are really in their infancy. Science is not a God to be worshipped, nor is technology. We have advanced significantly in our abilities to measure things and model things from where we were even 50 years ago but it is the height iof arrogance to suggest that we and our science have it all figured out yet. If we did, models would not need revision, and yet they are constantly being revised. We are only BEGINNING to get a handle on the plethora of variables involved in global warming and, as yet, any truthful scientist would have to admit that knowing what the variables are and understanding exactly what their effects are are a far cry from each other. We gather data voraciously and it will take years to understand exactly what that data means in the big picture. So it seems to me that stating positively that global warming is anthropomorphic in nature is jumping the gun. Also, statements that all this warming is purely natural in origin meets the same criteria. We can make well educated guesses about statistical trends but we must also admit that statistics can be manipulated to support almost any hypothesis. So where does this leave us? Arguing politics and berating each other. Well that's really going to help clear this up. Let's keep the egos and political rants about Al Gore or G.W. Bush out of the science. What ever happened to OBJECTIVITY in scientific pursuits? Any GOOD scientist can talk about what he believes are significant trends in data analysis. No harm, no foul, even if you may disagree with his thoughts on the matter. But not one single individual out there can conclusively prove anything about climate science when it comes to finding a solution to global warming. There are simply TOO MANY VARIABLES to consider. So we should study and do our best to interpret the data as we collect it. We may even debate what that data may mean. Such is scientific evaluation. But lets lose the arrogance and name calling on BOTH sides of this argument. It does nothing but distract us from the goal at hand.
12
keywords: the,they,Why,Models,be,scientific,in,if,after,have,bother,to,at,soon,very,revised,making,sense,Why bother at making Models [in the scientific sense] if they have to be revised very soon after