Sounder wrote:Wintler2 wrote…You'd think a billion dollar 'perception management' industry could come with some new lines every decade or so .. but no.
That is just humor coming from you, Mr. you guys are pro-polluter Koch bros. loving swine.
Or is it more like, Stay on the bandwagon folks, this writer is a conservative shit so there is no need to consider the content of the article.
Sounder wrote:Yet the facts remain that Professor Garnaut is the go to guy on climate policy and the chairman of Lihir Gold.
publius wrote:"Notorious" Bias Affects IPCC Climate Models - Unable To Successfully Predict Abrupt Climate Changes
The IPCC climate models almost complete failure at climate prediction has become an embarrassing joke within the general science community as these money-eating simulation efforts starve other science projects of funds. Almost on a weekly basis there is new research revealing the climate model failure fiasco, which likely will remain the case for the foreseeable future, per a recent study.
Wan et al. analyzed the Atlantic tropical bias that exists in the major IPCC climate models that prevents the coupled models from accurately reproducing Atlantic equatorial sea surface temperatures. This failure will not be solved in the near future they determine, which precludes these models being able to "predict" abrupt climate change.
"The authors write that "the notorious tropical bias problem in climate simulations of global coupled general circulation models manifests itself particularly strongly in the tropical Atlantic,"... they state that "the climate bias problem is still so severe that one of the most basic features of the equatorial Atlantic Ocean -- the eastward shoaling thermocline -- cannot be reproduced by most of the IPCC assessment report models,...as they describe it, "show that the bias in the eastern equatorial Atlantic has a major effect on sea-surface temperature (SST) response to a rapid change in the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC)."...ultimate implication of Wan et al.'s findings is, in their words, that "in order to accurately simulate past abrupt climate changes and project future changes, the bias in climate models must be reduced." But if "little or no progress" on this problem has been made in the tropical Atlantic "over the past decades,"..." [Xiuquan Wana, Ping Changa, Charles S. Jacksonn, Link Jia, Mingkui Lia 2011: Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography]
The Consul wrote:Scream me the change unimagined in the fire of revolt. Let the poor and the bourgeois lock arms in an unstoppable rush of the castles. Scream what Kafka said so long ago “the world order is based upon a lie.” Let the fury of the masses rise in a flood to drown out the vile clowns of propaganda and let the politicians, bankers and kings, bow down before our feet and beg us for mercy as we instruct them on how to reorganize society and save some small piece of what we now call life for our progeny - for if we don't, in two generations there will be nothing left to breathe but fire.
So unless the system undergoes a massive overhaul, those that have much to gain from pushing the man-made climate change theory will continue to push their agenda, and corner the market on climate science.
publius wrote:Koch vs. Rothschild eh. I agree we need to follow all the money. That's because it is all about the money. There is no white hat in the room, only black hats fighting it out in a Mafia turf war.
Two professors of sociology think they can explain why “Climate Deniers” are winning. But Riley E. Dunlap and Aaron M. McCright start from the wrong assumption and miss the bleeding obvious: the theory was wrong, the evidence has changed, and thousands of volunteers have exposed it. ...
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/10/map-th ... chine-the.. Reference: Climate Money, Science and Public Policy Institute, 2009.
slimmouse wrote:Nice thread here on the successful testing of the Rossi E-Cat, which of course illustrates one of the many areas where our collective minds should perhaps be focusing, instead of the usual out of context bickering we all too often indulge in (even here) ;
http://www.overunity.com/11404/first-fr ... -here/165/
Mystery blue box sank 'cold fusion' for Dick Smith
THE engineer charged by entrepreneur Dick Smith with examining the plausibility of "cold fusion" technology being spruiked by a NSW retiree has detailed a string of reasons why he believes the mooted invention is flawed.
Aerospace engineer Ian Bryce said sloppy procedures, shoddy set up and a mysterious power supply to the contraption developed by an Italian inventor all pointed towards it almost certainly not working as hyped.
Italian scientist Andrea Rossi claims to have invented "cold fusion" technology, which could solve the world's energy problems by producing almost limitless power.
The claims and the contraptions -- of which Mr Rossi claims to have sold several for about $2 million each -- have been met with deep cynicism from the scientific community.
Mr Smith, a self-described long-time sceptic of outlandish technological claims, has offered $200,000 to NSW north coast man Sol Millin -- who is spruiking the technology locally -- if he can prove it actually works.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/he ... 6248815868
I find the quickest way to tell is that the PR flacks never provide links or evidence, relying entirely on their rhetoric. Works for some, apparently.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 25 guests