Booksmoore

3 Comments

• 

  chadamoore
  September 14, 2009 at 4:44 pm

  “You can’t cite accuracy (that agrees with your cause) from a group (or scientist) you later say is basically inaccurate. ” – I get that. Latif was correcting their view as new evidence appeared – an honest scientist. That’s definitely a good thing. The point is that if what he’s saying now is true, then the popular conception of global warming is a myth.

  Btw, I don’t have much stake in the whole global warming thing one way or another, idealogically. It’s just science…we can know empirically whether the earth is warming up or cooling down. The causes of that are a lot harder to determine and science has a long way to go (and they are working hard at it) to get there.
• 

  chadamoore
  September 14, 2009 at 4:39 pm

  Brady,

  Yeah, may statement, “so much for the predictive omnipotence of science,” was a bit over the top. And that article was not a work of art imo either, but interesting as it pointed to Mobij Latif’s statements about a period of global cooling for the next couple of decades.

  I suppose what is interesting to me is that, for one, global temperatures and climates are far more complicated than we’ve been led to believe. If meteorologists can’t predict the weather right half the time, then why expect accuracy when it comes to computer models of an entire century of climate patterns forecasted into the future? Obviously, global warming is real, as the records show, however, their connection to greenhouse gases and human pollution is the controversial point. A period of global cooling lasting several decades would be a major defeater for that connection (greenhouse gases caused by human pollution = global warming), at least in common opinion! And if they completely missed out on such an event in their predictions, how much are their predictions for the decades after that?

  Really, who knows? We will know in thirty years! Which again, is sorta like the weather….
• 

  Brady Gillihan
  September 14, 2009 at 2:48 pm

  Predictive omnipotence?

  Really Chad?

  Sounds to me like an honest scientist. Ironically, the author of the article uses Prof. Latif’s current stance as the basis for incendiary remarks on the entire landscape of “alarmist scientists”, but by page two, claims Latif’s other predictions as bogus.

  Either Latif is credible or he’s not.

  It’s like the Pentecostals saying, “Even the Catholics preach abstinence,” and then explaining that the Catholics are going to burn in hell because they don’t speak in tongues. The key word here is ‘even’.

  You can’t cite accuracy (that agrees with your cause) from a group (or scientist) you later say is basically inaccurate. Well, you can, but you appear pedantic when doing so. (Not you personally, Chad)

  And why did I bring religion into this? Because I’m bored