The Best Global Warming Videos on the Internet |
Posted on 10/30/2008 7:48:01 AM PDT by ZGuy
Only 18 percent of survey respondents strongly believe that climate change is real, human-caused and harmful.
Yes you read that correctly, it is all in this article on the Nature Conservancy webpage. And that goes along with what was discovered in June this year by the newspapers UK Guardian and Observer, which reported that:
The majority of the British public is still not convinced that climate change is caused by humans - and many others believe scientists are exaggerating the problem…
The Nature Conservancy story citing 18 percent, is citing the American Climate Values Survey (ACVS), conducted by the consulting group EcoAmerica It also found that political party affiliation is the single largest indicator as to whether people see climate change as a threat.
It seems it is all political, as there are some other fascinating tidbits. For example:
Eighteen percent even seems high. That means almost 20% are idiots.
That does not seem to go along with their graduation rates.
‘Twould be interesting to see how many of the skeptics have science - based background vs how many believers. I, and virtually all of my colleagues having very strong backgrounds in physics, etc. are skeptics. Big skeptics.
After having slogged through some of the papers describing their models, it’s painfully apparent that they don’t understand feedback equations and have simply plugged in control variable values that give stable results.
Translated: The models aren’t stable, and require custom tuning to work at all. The tuning does not appear to match reality.
...
Compund questions like this aren't the best way to figure out what people think on these issues.
For example, I believe that climate change is real, human activities may play a part and that the long-term effects will be mixed.
OCALA FLORIDA 10-29-2008
- Twice the temperature dipped to freezing at the Ocala International Airport early Wednesday before it began making a gradual climb to the mid-60s.
Bruce Ackerman/Star-Banner Frost covers a field off U.S. 27 northwest of Ocala on Wednesday. Temperatures in the Ocala area dipped into the mid-30s overnight.Though there was a reading of freezing or below throughout northwest Marion County, Wednesday morning’s official low temperature was 33 degrees.
It was a record for Oct. 29 and the second lowest temperature ever recorded in October since 1850. Ocala’s official weather site is at the city water treatment plant on Southeast 24th Street.
Until Wednesday, Oct. 29’s record temperature was 37 in 1943 and a close second was 38 degrees in 1957.
And about 20% are in the hard core leftist camp.
BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LONDON: Snow fell as the House of Commons debated Global Warming yesterday - the first October fall in the metropolis since 1922.
Drudge 10-30-2008
Something seems to be incorrect!
How is 18% calculated given that the table states that:
_______________________________
Convinced it’s happening: 54 percent of Republicans, 90 percent of Democrats.
Think that weather has gotten more severe: 44 percent of Republicans; 77 percent of Democrats.
Noticed the climate changing: 54 percent of Republicans; 84 percent of Democrats.
Trust Al Gore when he talks about global warming: 22 percent of Republicans; 71 percent of Democrats.
Trust environmentalists who talk about global warming: 38 percent of Republicans; 71 percent of Democrats.
Trust anyone who talks about global warming: 39 percent of Republicans; 75 percent of Democrats.
??What other huge group of people vote for zero, to arrive at an average of 18%, given the above distribution???
Thanks for the information. I think I owe you another Guinness!
As a recovering scientist, I really enjoyed reading Spencer’s CLIMATE CONFUSION book, which does a great job of helping one understand feedback models — and their paucity and weaknesses in the Climate Alarmists’ models.
This survey also illuminates the fact that “Global Warming” is fundamentally a political movement, not a scientific one. Thus the correlations to political party.
LOL...I think 20% is way low!
png
“After having slogged through some of the papers describing their models, it’s painfully apparent that they don’t understand feedback equations and have simply plugged in control variable values that give stable results.
“Translated: The models aren’t stable, and require custom tuning to work at all. The tuning does not appear to match reality.”
This needs to be repeated over and over. Models built this way produce fine results on data that is already known. But the sure sign of “tuning” is when the models keep getting adjusted as new data comes in because they don’t do a very good job on new data. It’s the epicycles problem all over again.
In my business, we call it “modeling myopia.” A modeler can get so attached to his model that he completely abandons known and tested model validation techniques in favor of continual tweaking of the model. He “knows” the model is right and just needs one more little change before it is perfect.
That’s why validation of the models against reality is an absolute necessity before you start using the model for practical purposes. And, imho, that’s why the AGW modeling community is completely uninterested in empirically validating their models. In fact, they seem to do everything in their power to make them difficult to validate.
An interesting recent attempt to validate an AGW model was published in the Journal of Hydrological Sciences, 53(4), August 2008. The conclusion was that the AGW model at issue there did a pretty good job at predicting temperature and precipitation one month out, given a beginning state. But it was useless for making predictions one-year and thirty-years out.
That’s about the result I would expect from models that were prepared with so little attention to proper modeling techniques.
The Best Global Warming Videos on the Internet |
Go to the Internet and use one of those free programs to see how much you should be saving per month for retirement. There are variables that you have to input that are largely based on your judgment. How much do you think you will need per month in retirement and how long will you live, for instance?. There are several values that require hard data like, when were you born and how much money have you made. If you start by deciding at what age you want to retire, then you fill in the rest of the data to fit that model. If instead you start with how much money you want to have saved before you retire, you put in the dollar value and work in the rest of the data to fit that model. If you fill in what you expect to save based on your future expected income and investments and spending, the data will tell you how much you will have and when. It was explained that climate modeling is same way. Keep working the variables out until the results match a pre-established opinion of the projections and garners consensus. Publish the results and have a bunch of scientists agree that this is the correct model based on scientific methods, facts and data.
For example, I believe that climate change is real, human activities may play a part and that the long-term effects will be mixed. “
I believe that climate change is real and has been through earth’s history (as a natural phenonemon), that ‘global warming’ has been massively hyped and human activities play a small part in hte climate today, and that there is no crisis requiring instant change in our behavior. I also know that there are many positive impacts from increased CO2 that are often ignored.
I also know more about this topic than your average journalist, so I am quite frightened that most people “know” about global warming through the nonsense of journalists.
How this would play out in a poll is mixed.
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.