Climate change odds much worse than thought

MIT News ^ | 19 May 2009 | David Chandler,

[Reeses]

a detailed computer simulation of global economic activity

It's so detailed it has the USA going bankrupt from leftist politics on July 4th, 2017.

[dennisw]

As far as their computer models.... GIGO....Garbage in, garbage out

[central_va]

WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!!!!!!!!!!

[1010RD]

Great catch. That alone undermines their claims to science. Government is political by nature, therefore so is its funding. Hence, these results from once respected institutions.

Appeal to authority is a standard logical fallacy employed by the left. It broke the Grey Lady and it will eventually do the same to NASA, MIT, et al unless corrected aggressively and publicly.

[mo]

THE only utility of any of this GW nonsense is that it is an extremely accurate gauge of one’s gullibility threshold.

[Waco]

I can hardly wait.

[steelyourfaith]

Enough with the computer climate models already. If the modelers can't even input honest temperature data (see Watts' exposé), and they don't comprehend precisely how all the factors that create climate interact (which no one does) the climate models are useless scientifically ... their only purpose being to achieve a political end, i.e., grow greedy Big Government ever bigger. Period. Only an absolute blithering idiot or a Big Government stooge could possibly claim that GI/GO computer climate models represent anything resembling "sophisticated researchers on the subject are doing, increasingly sophisticated computer models based on fundamental physics".

 

Beam me to Planet Gore !

[wbill]

I think that weather forecasting has come a long way, just in my lifetime. Satellites help.

I think that weathermen are usually *generally* right. A "Rain Today, Sunny Tommorrow" type prediction. Of course, my great-uncle...a farmer and outdoorsman...could make the same prediction, with the same level of accuracy, just by reading the sky. Unc was pretty sharp, at least in that regard.

However, any attempt to make a *specific* prediction still fails miserably. And that's EXACTLY what these fools are doing. A prediction like "Temps will be up .4 degrees per decade, over the next eight decades" is doomed to fail as soon as they come out with it. If they undershoot and temps go higher, their very constituents hang them out. If they overshoot and temps are lower, then their critics say "See, I told you so". Idiots are playing roulette and betting that they'll pick the right number every single time. It's a lose-lose game.

[bt_dooftlook]

Well, yea, the Earth might work in practice, but will it work in theory? Just askin’...;)