North King said:
I suppose you've been ignoring how Tulavu *is* starting to be covered more and more by the waves? How more and more every year new systems are installed on major waterways to keep back high tide because it is simply becoming too high? How coral around the world are being bleached white (aka dying) because ocean temperatures are rising too much? How weather patterns are changing around the world? How global average temperatures are rising?
- Still, all in the list you made in your last post are predictions.
- You have to rule out continental drift.
- You have to demonstrate that it is anthropogenically driven.
An ice age *can* occur from global warming, you know.
Sorry, it is one or the other, or nothing. And in either case, you have to demonstrate that is our fault.
The issue isn't as black and white as some would make it out to be.
Hey!, I am the skeptic, I am the one who is saying that the issue isn't black and white. You seemed to be very sure about the doomsday scenario.
OK, honestly, what would scientists gain from faking evidence of global warming? They get more funding yes... on a very limited scale, into renewable energy, which is a worthy goal in and of itself (see Peak Oil). What else do they gain? Satisfaction from having scared the world's citizens? Yes, I'm sure. Notereity? I doubt they want to be known in two hundred years as idiots trying to scare the people into something. Do they have some greater agenda via the Illuminati?
Wrong question. What did the scientists expect to gain when they were denying continental drift? Nothing either. It is not about profits, it is about knowledge.
Besides, the issue is highly politized, you cannot deny it.
Seriously, folks. The scientists aren't doing this for kicks. They don't sit around their TVs, watching the hysterical news and laughing. These are the best in their fields, and they don't just pull massive practical jokes. They may live for funding, but a gigantic scam? Nah, there are too many scientists which could disagree with them to pull it off. They won't have some "uniting the world" agenda. They're making their best guess as to what's happening.
There is not such thing as consensus about the causes of climate change.
Computational models on world climate are not reliable. Climate is too complicated and earth is too big to simulate, even in today's supercomputers. And the models are not and cannot be validated. How do you expect to validate a simulation that runs over 30 years? The only way is to run the simulation, wait for 30 years and then see how the model fits with the experimental result.
Has it been done? Yes, once, 30 years ago, and guess what happened. They predicted a new ice age. Now, the doomsday scenario has changed.
Fortunately, not all scientists rely on computational models more than in experimental results.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_model said:
[Computer models were initially used as a supplement for other arguments, but their use later became rather widespread. The physicist Richard Feynman, was not fond of such models and once called them "a disease"
http://www.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il/~naor/COURSE/feynman-simulating.pdf
North King said:
And who are we, really, to say that their best guess is wrong?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_model said:
The reliability and the trust people put in computer simulations depends on the validity of the simulation model, therefore verification and validation are of crucial importance in the development of computer simulations. Another important aspect of computer simulations is that of reproducibility of the results, meaning that a simulation model should not provide a different answer for each execution. Although this might seem obvious, this is a special point of attention in stochastic simulations, where random numbers should actually be semi-random numbers.
Well, I don't know who you are. I can say that I am a scientist who uses computational models to study protein shape, structure and funtion. Luckily, my models are very easy to validate, just run the simulation, look at the structure of the protein and compare it to the REAL X-ray or NMR structure. Design a molecule that could interact with the protein, synthesize it, and test it. If the prediction is correct the compound should have a measurable biological activity. The more active the compound, the better the simulation.
Protein models are much easier to simulate than the Earth climate for the next 30 years. It is just a 50-400 aminoacids protein submerged in a box of water molecules. (And still, there are some "scientists" who make the simulations in a
continuous solvent model when it has been proven wrong for protein folding)
Computational modelling seems easy to do, much easier than simulating Earth climate, the models are tiny and easy to handle by computers, the validation is easy. Still, there is not a drug in the market designed
ab initio by computer modellers. If it were that way, The drug market should have been flooded by new 'computer designed' drugs. Computational chemistry is just an aid for drug design, but not the panacea.
Now, go figure what I think about computational predictions of Earth climate for the next 30 years.
