Posted on 01/22/2015 10:34:44 PM PST by Steelfish
Here is another problem with 'models.'
Physicist Howard Hayden's one-letter disproof of global warming claims [pre-Climategate]Dear Administrator Jackson:
I write in regard to the Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act, Proposed Rule, 74 Fed. Reg. 18,886 (Apr. 24, 2009), the so-called "Endangerment Finding."
It has been often said that the "science is settled" on the issue of CO2 and climate. Let me put this claim to rest with a simple one-letter proof that it is false.
The letter is s, the one that changes model into models. If the science were settled, there would be precisely one model, and it would be in agreement with measurements.
Alternatively, one may ask which one of the twenty-some models settled the science so that all the rest could be discarded along with the research funds that have kept those models alive.
We can take this further. Not a single climate model predicted the current cooling phase. If the science were settled, the model (singular) would have predicted it.
(excerpted from Professor Hayden's letter to Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator Environmental Protection Agency. More at link.)
Time for the GOP electorate to wake up. This guy is a liberal. What more proof do they need? Yeah he can run an Olympics. Big deal.
Finny, you did the sensible thing all those years. You should keep doing it.
Our predicament isn’t the result of conservatives not sitting out enough elections. It’s the result of conservatives failing to turn enough people into conservatives. The fact that we’re always having to choose between lesser evils is a sign that we’re not winning the big argument with liberalism in the mind of the public.
That’s the bottom line. All this back and forthing about purity vs. pragmatism is just a symptom of our losing that argument. Win it, and the purity vs. pragmatism thing goes away.
Of course winning it means moving mountains in the way people think about things. The question is, are we willing to do that?
As for who’s accountable for what and who’s to blame for Obama versus Romney and all that — this is just low level squabbling that misses the real point.
No “Just for Men” hair dye in 2036?
CRUZ
Cruz for sure.
Just go away, Mitt.
Exactly accurately what a reptiloid would say!
Which means he’s got some money making angle to it.
NEXT!
Hey, Mitt—put a sock in it!
We are sick unto death of you and your idiotic pronouncements.
And stop pretending to be a conservative!
God almighty help us!... Will someone please tell “Mittens” to refrain from appearing even MORE STUPID than people already think he is.
Your post #26 gets FOUR STARS from me for both clarity and humor.
Mitt, Mitt, Mitt. Being a moron is not going to get you elected. We’ve already suffered through an Øbama, what makes you think we want to do it all over again?
Dang dude. You’re not only awesome on the physics thread, but you’re on your game with political comedy as well.
A multifaceted individual, with such a wide range, is truly a wonder to behold.
Tell my wife. She’s been deeply skeptical of my genius for thirty years.
Meh, women! They never listen. Ironic, considering that’s what they label us with. Just ask my LCW (little crazy woman). She’ll tell you.
Oh, the GOPe cheerleaders will be here in 2016, count on it.
As if I needed anything else....
What a jackass. And while I am more of a cynic every day - it does startle me that he fell for this nonsense - he’s a smart guy and I’d think he would know better.
There is a type of Republican I find slimier and more ridiculous than the Democrats - Romney is that type.
And yes- I voted for him.
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.