Skip to comments.
Climate change odds much worse than thought
MIT News ^
| 19 May 2009
| David Chandler,
Posted on 05/26/2009 1:55:35 PM PDT by Sgt_Schultze
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-69 next last
Apparently, if you continue to tweak the "models" you can heighten the severity and the alarm.
We are so freaking screwed (and doomed).
To: Sgt_Schultze
Whose data are they using to further falsify this junk science?
2
posted on
05/26/2009 1:57:09 PM PDT
by
TommyDale
(Independent - I already left the GOP because they were too liberal)
To: Sgt_Schultze
And yet not one of these climate models replicates the glacial periods and thaws that are the overwhelming bulk of the last million years.... Anyone who buys into this crap needs their heads examined.
To: Sgt_Schultze
The fewer people who believe in Global Warming the more the fear mongers ratchet up the fear.
4
posted on
05/26/2009 1:58:44 PM PDT
by
yazoo
(Conservatives believe what they see. Liberals see what they believe.)
To: Sgt_Schultze
The situation is a hundred million times worse that I imagined! We're all going to die! Horribly! AAAGGGGHHHH
Geez, these people are caricatures of themselves.
5
posted on
05/26/2009 1:58:48 PM PDT
by
lafroste
(gravity is not a force. See my profile to read my novel absolutely free (I know, beyond shameless))
To: Sgt_Schultze
So it’s going to be twice as bad as nothing ... that means, umm, just working this out, bear with me ...
NOTHING
so I say relax.
To: Sgt_Schultze
...i watched a part of that documentary last night on my lemur ancestor and it said Germany used to be rain forests...
To: Sgt_Schultze
It's an academic research program that needs to keep the red flags flying to keep the money coming in for support. There is no reason to be objective. That would just kill the money tree. Their pecuniary motive kills their credibility.
8
posted on
05/26/2009 1:59:18 PM PDT
by
Myrddin
To: Sgt_Schultze
Hey, if the models say so it musts be true, after all, there is no way models can be manipulated to a deliver particular result.
To: HamiltonJay
The fact that globull warming is bull can be summed up in one image, the most current one (but basically the same for the last year or more):
10
posted on
05/26/2009 1:59:41 PM PDT
by
C210N
(A patriot for a Conservative Renaissance!)
To: TommyDale
Whose data are they using Data? We don't need no steenkin' data!
We got models!
11
posted on
05/26/2009 1:59:47 PM PDT
by
Izzy Dunne
(Hello, I'm a TAGLINE virus. Please help me spread by copying me into YOUR tag line.)
To: lafroste
But it does keep the money flowing to the “research” universities
12
posted on
05/26/2009 2:00:10 PM PDT
by
Sgt_Schultze
(Si vis pacem, para bellum)
To: Sgt_Schultze
Another “model” that is devoid of actual Data.
What a crock.
By my model my 401K should be 11.8% higher this year than last. Actual data may prove different.
13
posted on
05/26/2009 2:00:12 PM PDT
by
Mikey_1962
(Obama: The Affirmative Action President)
To: Sgt_Schultze
indicate a median probability of surface warming of 5.2 degrees Celsius by 2100, with a 90% probability range of 3.5 to 7.4 degrees.Except for the pesky fact that the planet has been static since 2002, and has recently been cooling.
14
posted on
05/26/2009 2:00:24 PM PDT
by
lafroste
(gravity is not a force. See my profile to read my novel absolutely free (I know, beyond shameless))
To: Sgt_Schultze
15
posted on
05/26/2009 2:00:43 PM PDT
by
dfwgator
(1996 2006 2008 - Good Things Come in Threes)
To: Sgt_Schultze
Lets just cut to the chase and say its one trillion times worse than we ever believed.
16
posted on
05/26/2009 2:00:57 PM PDT
by
cripplecreek
(The poor bastards have us surrounded.)
To: Izzy Dunne
We don’t need no stinkin’ models.
17
posted on
05/26/2009 2:01:24 PM PDT
by
unkus
To: C210N
18
posted on
05/26/2009 2:01:59 PM PDT
by
lafroste
(gravity is not a force. See my profile to read my novel absolutely free (I know, beyond shameless))
To: Sgt_Schultze
I would be impressed if we fed the past 50 years data into the MIT model and it accurately predicted last year’s weather worldwide.
Did it do that?
To: C210N
20
posted on
05/26/2009 2:02:15 PM PDT
by
Sgt_Schultze
(Si vis pacem, para bellum)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-69 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson