BUZZ ALDRIN REJECTS GLOBAL WARMING FEARS

[Gawdzilla Sama]

So if no-one is able to do this, then why on earth should Buzz Aldrin's trashing of global warming predictions be in any way noteworthy - or even remotely credible?

Al Gore got a Nobel peace prize for his silly film. He's not a climate scientist, he's a failed politician. But schoolkids are made to watch his rubbish.
Is all that ok?
Buzz Aldrin is responding to Al Gore trying to hijack the pride that americans feel for the Apollo program. There is no similarity whatsoever.
The GW alarmists constantly trumpet the "consensus" argument, so Aldrin and others are now speaking out, making the point that there is no "consensus".

The consensus is among people who know what they're talking about. Hence you would excluded.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

[quote="mistermack] We can't even predict the weather more than a few weeks ahead.

Oh, surely not this?[/quote][/quote]
I predict it will be hotter than is it now next summer.

[mistermack]

You keep saying that, but it just isn't true. They use historical natural experiments to test the models that create the predictions. They don't just keep fiddling with models until the give the results they want (as you keep saying).

Of course they do. How else could you construct a model? Are you claiming their models matched historical figures, first time every time?
I don't blame them for using this method. It's the only logical way to refine a model. How else could you improve a model? And eventually, they might get to a point where they could make good predictions.
It's a perfectly valid thing to do. What's not valid is to call what they've done a prediction.
If youve used historical data to refine your models, you shouldn't be surprised when your models match historical data.
By all means use modelling, but don't make extravagant claims.
Predicting the future is waaaaaaaaaaay harder than matching the past.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You keep saying that, but it just isn't true. They use historical natural experiments to test the models that create the predictions. They don't just keep fiddling with models until the give the results they want (as you keep saying).

Of course they do. How else could you construct a model? Are you claiming their models matched historical figures, first time every time?
I don't blame them for using this method. It's the only logical way to refine a model. How else could you improve a model? And eventually, they might get to a point where they could make good predictions.
It's a perfectly valid thing to do. What's not valid is to call what they've done a prediction.
If youve used historical data to refine your models, you shouldn't be surprised when your models match historical data.
By all means use modelling, but don't make extravagant claims.
Predicting the future is waaaaaaaaaaay harder than matching the past.

until the give the results they want

Reading the entire sentence keeps one from looking stupid. :endhint:

[Xamonas Chegwé]

... Likening global warming dissent to moon landing scepticism is taking a moronic liberty

I was only highlighting the choice of words, nothing more - something which I thought should be patently obvious to any intelligent reader of my post, and thus needing no explicit qualification. Are you by any chance calling me a moron, or just accusing me of acting moronically?

I was actually referring to Al Gore. He was the one who originally said it. I wasn't aware you said it, and I still can't find it, something which I thought should be patently obvious to any intelligent reader of my post, and thus needing no explicit qualification.

Nobody's saying these guys are climate scientists. But they are well qualified to evaluate the global warming arguments. It's hardly rocket science.
.

Shame. Because if it were rocket science, then Aldrin's degree in astrophysics might actually be relevant!

[mistermack]

We can't even predict the weather more than a few weeks ahead.

Oh, surely not this?

Yes this. Because it illustates how little we know about climate.
Nobody can predict an El Nino, or an Nina. How come? We can predict climate 100 years into the future, but we don't understand what is happening now?
Don't make me laugh.

[PsychoSerenity]

You keep saying that, but it just isn't true. They use historical natural experiments to test the models that create the predictions. They don't just keep fiddling with models until the give the results they want (as you keep saying).

Of course they do. How else could you construct a model? Are you claiming their models matched historical figures, first time every time?
I don't blame them for using this method. It's the only logical way to refine a model. How else could you improve a model? And eventually, they might get to a point where they could make good predictions.
It's a perfectly valid thing to do. What's not valid is to call what they've done a prediction.
If youve used historical data to refine your models, you shouldn't be surprised when your models match historical data.
By all means use modelling, but don't make extravagant claims.
Predicting the future is waaaaaaaaaaay harder than matching the past.

Again, you keep trying to make a point on this, but it's just nonsense. How do you think they make models in cosmology? Are you going to start saying that they're all useless too?

[mistermack]

Shame. Because if it were rocket science, then Aldrin's degree in astrophysics might actually be relevant!

You got the joke then? Well done!
I'd be a lot more impressed with degrees and doctorates, if they all agreed on AGW.
But there are HIGHLY qualified climate scientists who disagree. It's clearly not a case of understanding the theory, or data, it's disagreement about what conclusions you can draw. You don't need a climate science degree to see through Al Gore's bullshit.

[mistermack]

Again, you keep trying to make a point on this, but it's just nonsense. How do you think they make models in cosmology? Are you going to start saying that they're all useless too?

There's no comparison. You're as bad as Al Gore, and you're using his own silly tactic.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Again, you keep trying to make a point on this, but it's just nonsense. How do you think they make models in cosmology? Are you going to start saying that they're all useless too?

There's no comparison. You're as bad as Al Gore, and you're using his own silly tactic.

111684cdc4364b7b17.gif

[Clinton Huxley]

We can't even predict the weather more than a few weeks ahead.

Oh, surely not this?

Yes this. Because it illustates how little we know about climate.
Nobody can predict an El Nino, or an Nina. How come? We can predict climate 100 years into the future, but we don't understand what is happening now?
Don't make me laugh.

[Beelzebub]

Guys, this is just an argument from authority!
Who cares what anyone's opinion is? What matters are the observed facts! - and those strongly indicate human causality in global warming.
I did notice that Jack Schmidt claims (2008) that there is "current cooling" - when all the stats indicate otherwise!
Don't be swayed by personal belief or testimony, however 'important' the person may seem to you. Check out the facts instead, and make up your own mind!!
(This obsession with celebrities is puzzleing - whether Al Gore, Buzz Aldrin or the Queen of England, it is all just opinion, and as such, not worth a hill of beans!)

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Guys, this is just an argument from authority!
Who cares what anyone's opinion is? What matters are the observed facts! - and those strongly indicate human causality in global warming.
I did notice that Jack Schmidt claims (2008) that there is "current cooling" - when all the stats indicate otherwise!
Don't be swayed by personal belief or testimony, however 'important' the person may seem to you. Check out the facts instead, and make up your own mind!!
(This obsession with celebrities is puzzleing - whether Al Gore, Buzz Aldrin or the Queen of England, it is all just opinion, and as such, not worth a hill of beans!)

We're just abusing mistermack, that's why he's here.

[Beelzebub]

Oh, sorry chaps
Carry on!

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Oh, sorry chaps
Carry on!

We usually do.