Ok, perhaps sloppy language on my part. The paradigms that include man-made global warming seem to explain the data much better. Happy? ;)
On 8/10/07, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Ian wrote: > > But the problem is that once it is 100% Confirmed and Proven(R), one is > > looking at it historically > > EXACTLY! > > Dana - how could we possibly prove that "global warming" exists and is > man-made? We can't ever predict the weather 1 week from now. > > However therein lies the truth. We CAN model what we THINK will > happen based on what we know. 90% of those models show that GW exists > and is caused by CO2. There are known flaws in the models, however, > because they also predict that it should be warmer now than what it > is. > > Sam - Bush has actively squelched science - that's obvious. > > Specific to GW, there's all kinds of "lensing" going on from both > sides and, imo, the best report to date is the IPCC or whatever as > it's biggest critic is ITSELF! > > It's pure statistics at this point: > > 1.) year-over-year trend? Yes. > 2.) Proof of GW? No. > > Best guess? We need to do SOMETHING, but what ... > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Create robust enterprise, web RIAs. Upgrade to ColdFusion 8 and integrate with Adobe Flex http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion/flex2/?sdid=RVJP Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:239955 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
