sassanellat
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2014
- Messages
- 125
- Reaction score
- 101
Weather is a large multifactorial problem and scientists have very little understanding of how the factors relate ... numerical solutions are interesting but without some way to verify their accuracy they're completely questionable.
Not so much anymore. they'd accurate modeled and *predicted* storms exactly like Hurricane Sandy seven ears earlier using models for the changes they were seeing for that window in time. Is it easy? Nope. But we have satellites now that track the temperature of every square meter of the surface of the planet. And they aren't speaking of modeling the weather at your house for the next three years, but the large scale of global warming, the greenhouse gasses, etc. they have nailed down. Humans have never seen a 99%= accordance: it's as much fact as witnessing a car run into a tree, and more reliable than your memory of seeing it.
If you're referring to "global cooling" perhaps you should obtain the body of information developed by Carl Sagan, who was a huge proponent/mouthpiece of the "global cooling" doomsday community. I have some serious doubts he was sponsored by big oil.
Actually, I was referring to the major source of the textbook changes which was funded by Big Oil. The account of that was actually covered in a documentary on the subject recently, but for the life of me, I can't remember the name. Regardless, they were working with computers the size of buildings that were hand cabled and punch carded. The difference in data and tech is like a medieval village lighting their way with a burning ember and using a LED flashlight. I don't think people really understand how much has changes even since 1980 - the growth has been exponential in ways that most people don't grasp well.
I subscribe to the idea that we should use our resources wisely (which collectively we are not)
Me, too!
But yes, you can choose to believe in what you want. It is a free country.
Yes, you can believe in what you like, but that really only matters in religious or unknown subject areas. The science is the science whether people 'believe' in it or not - something that Neil DeGrasse Tyson (an intellectual scion of the brilliant Sagan) famously pointed out earlier this year and something Sagan talked about all the time. I even saw him express that I've before he died (seriously, Sagan was the BEST lecturer that I've ever seen).
Anyway, I think we're off-topic, and I was mostly just curious since Susie is a nurse, and I was interested in her training since I train them. As always, people can think as they choose.