SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Mainstream Politics and Economics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: koan who wrote (22455)8/6/2012 7:19:34 PM
From: Brumar892 Recommendations  Respond to of 85487
 
It hasn't been established that there's been an increase in major hurricanes in the world as a whole. If that's wrong, show me. It would be strange for hurricane activity to rise over all but fall within the US over a 150 year period.

You do that a lot, take one example that has nothing to do with what he said.

It's called contrary evidence. Versus taking what someone says on blind faith. I picked hurricanes because after Katrina hit, the authorities claimed we would be hit by more hurricanes and they'd get more powerful .... heck, Gore even put a few super-hurricanes on the cover of his book to illustrate what "the science" supposedly said was going to happen. But it's true of other things, droughts, heat, forest fires, etc etc.



To: koan who wrote (22455)8/7/2012 9:58:54 AM
From: sm1th2 Recommendations  Respond to of 85487
 
You accept they can put a vehicle on Mars, and cure cancer, but think they can't figure AGW. Amazing.

A useful model of the climate is several orders of magnitude more complex than a Mars mission, and last time I checked, cancer had not been cured. No, I do not accept that current science can produce a useful, predictive climate model.