Maths and climate change (Here, here village idiots)

[sasguru]

http://plus.maths.org/issue46/featur...ams/index.html

SG in <<sitting back and waiting for the village idiots>> mode.

[oracleslave]

http://plus.maths.org/issue46/featur...ams/index.html

SG in <<sitting back and waiting for the village idiots>> mode.

Yawn

[shaunbhoy]

"Some of the implications of an ice free Arctic haven't even been dreamed up yet," says Wadhams, "The modelling of the impacts is still in quite a primitive state."

Nothing a sizeable injection of public research money can't overcome though eh? Honestly sg, where do you dig these quacks up from?
And why would you be attempting to attract additional village idiots to your banner? Don't you have enough already?

[Diver]

Yes! but statistically speaking.......................................... .................................................. ............................. Waiting

[DimPrawn]

If the recent warming in global temperatures is human-made — as scientists now accept

Well that's that settled without a doubt.

[sasguru]

Nothing a sizeable injection of public research money can't overcome though eh? Honestly sg, where do you dig these quacks up from?
And why would you be attempting to attract additional village idiots to your banner? Don't you have enough already?

I have volunteered to look after all your (village idiots, that is) pastoral and educational requirements.

[shaunbhoy]

I have volunteered to look after all your (village idiots, that is) pastoral and educational requirements.

Well give us irrefutable evidence, not the crazed musings of some turnip-headed number-crunching slack-jawed frostbitten imbecile with his zany crackpot theories then.

[Diver]

Well give us irrefutable evidence, not the crazed musings of some turnip-headed number-crunching slack-jawed frostbitten imbecile with his zany crackpot theories then.

WOW!

[DimPrawn]

I have volunteered to look after all your (village idiots, that is) pastoral and educational requirements.

http://environment.newscientist.com/...mg18524861.400

It is at this point, however, that uncertainty starts to creep in. Take the grand claim made by some climate researchers that the 1990s were the warmest decade in the warmest century of the past millennium. This claim is embodied in the famous "hockey stick" curve, produced by Michael Mann of the University of Virginia in 1998, based on "proxy" records of past temperature, such as air bubbles in ice cores and growth rings in tree and coral. (see "Hotly contested") Sceptics have attacked the findings over poor methodology used, and their criticism has been confirmed by climate modellers, who have recently recognised that such proxy studies systematically underestimate past variability. As one Met Office scientist put it: "We cannot make claims as to the 1990s being the warmest decade."

There is also room for uncertainty in inferences drawn from the rise in temperature over the past 150 years. The warming itself is real enough, but that doesn't necessarily mean that human activity is to blame. Sceptics say that the warming could be natural, and again they have a point. It is now recognised that up to 40 per cent of the climatic variation since 1890 is probably due to two natural phenomena. The first is solar cycles, which influence the amount of radiation reaching the Earth, and some scientist have argued that increased solar activity can account for most of the warming of the past 150 years. The second is the changing frequency of volcanic eruptions, which produce airborne particles that can shade and hence cool the planet for a year or more.


For the true hard-liners, of course, the scientific consensus must, by definition, be wrong. As far as they are concerned the thousands of scientists behind the IPCC models have either been seduced by their own doom-laden narrative or are engaged in a gigantic conspiracy. They say we are faced with what the philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn called a "paradigm problem".

"Most scientists spend their lives working to shore up the reigning world view - the dominant paradigm - and those who disagree are always much fewer in number," says climatologist Patrick Michaels of the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, a leading proponent of this view. The drive to conformity is accentuated by peer review, which ensures that only papers in support of the paradigm appear in the literature, Michaels says, and by public funding that gives money to research into the prevailing "paradigm of doom". Rebels who challenge prevailing orthodoxies are often proved right, he adds.


HTH

[sasguru]

Well give us irrefutable evidence, not the crazed musings of some turnip-headed number-crunching slack-jawed frostbitten imbecile with his zany crackpot theories then.

That's the best description of your posts I've seen yet.
Don't be so hard on yourself.