Then of course, you have to assume that even if you did get out to another universe, whether or not the physical laws are similar to ours, or even if it is stable or not.
For instance, let's say you wind up in another universe where the Coloumb constant is only 1/10th what it is in ours. You, your ship, and all matter that came along ith you would explode apart.
Plus, travelling inside a black hole has some strange consequences. If a black hole is large enough then the gravitational differential would be small enough for someone to survive. But inside a black hole both space and time are distorted, so you may be travelling in both (and not necessarily the same "direction" we do in normal space).
Indeed. The power from these laser might get to the point of lethality if one were not wearing any reflective/dispersive clothing. But even wearing poorly reflective "armor" would probably change a lethal weapon into a mere annoyance.
Hand held laser weapons need a good powersource to generate a laser of any reasonable power, and we're still a ways away from that.
How did this ignorant paranoid tripe get modded insightful?
Level 1 war? What kind of war do you consider level 1. No wars in we have ever fought could possibly be considered a level 1 war. In Vietnam we carpet bombed, napalmed, and generaly destroyed large swaths of territory indiscrimnantly with significant casualties. Vietnam wasn't humane, nor was it necessary.
Geneva convention war my ass. WW2 was a total war. Entire cities were completely leveled. Millions died and we even nuked two cities in Japan, consisting mostly of civilians. Korea wasn't a victory either. It was fought to an agreed standstill.
Even the Iraq conflict has involved massive civilian casualties.
"The scary thing for me is that as they get nukes, and they will one way or another, there is no way to do MAD style containment."
You have absolutely no idea what MAD is. MAD is not a containment strategy. It's a "if we go down we're taking you with us" strategy. If a nuke goes off on American soil and the government goes into panic mode, 20,000 nuclear missles launch (each with multiple warheads), all at targets predetermined for maximum destruction. MAD is MUTUALLY ASSURED DESTRUCTION. It's a civlization destroying strategy, not a containment strategy.
If you honestly think the military would sit around worrying about national boundries if a nuke goes off here? You know nothing of the military. Our ICBMs would be in th air in less than 30 minutes.
Sack Washington? And how would you propose they would do that. There's a country of 300 million people with the most advanced militay in the world and the largest economy in world with which to fund said military. How could they even get enough "soldiers" here to attempt such a thing?
Do not confuse extremism and Islam. You only make yourself like a braying ass. Stop drinking the neocon koolaid.
~X~
Of course it's a manufactured hell. How else do expect anyone to sell any products?
If you're content and happy, then you don't really need ot go out and buy the super ultra deluxe double-plus good turbo nuclear powered SUV.
Companies make money by selling solutions to problems. If there aren't enough problems, they are "created" so they can sell more stuff.
In the US, most of our "manufactured problems" deal with keeping up with the Jones's; "Buy me if you want to be on top of the social ladder" kinda stuff.
Our economy is powered by problems. The bigger the problem, the bigger the profit.
Is that your final analysis, our do you need to do a wider search. You may need to dig deep, as assumptions are detrimental to ascertaining whether you have the whole truth or not.
"Yes mankind is producing more CO2, but still it's insignificant compared to other natural sources such as volcanoes and vegetative decay. Your views on our industrialization, and the slightly increasing temperature is a loose correlation."
Current CO2 output by man currently produces 150 times more CO2 than all natural sources (including volcanoes) combined. RTFSR (read the friggin' science report.
"So what if we've just had the warmest winter in years? That means absolutely nothing on its own, particularly when you consider the fact thta it's an El Nino (El Nina? I forget wihch is wihch) year, and that the respective seasons are going to be less severe."
On its own, no it doesn't mean anything. However, combined with other global observations over the last few decades and one might begin to see a pattern.
BTW, it was a mild El Nino, which liklely saved many peoples asses this past year by preventing hurricane formations and blowing the ones that did form way across the ocean. The formation of an El Nino results in increased wind shear across the tropics which prevents storms from getting too organized.
El Nino does not ensure milder weather. For certain regions in the north it usually results in milder winters. That being said, with this mild El Nino the northern US and northern Europe remained snow free abnormally long periods of time (even for an El Nino) and multiple records were set as far as temperature goes (NY city hit 74 in the middle January).
"Maybe some people remember how mild last summer was? I don't believe there was a single day last summer when I didn't feel comfortable to wear long sleeves."
Um...yeah maybe where you were. However, triple digit temperatures set records where I was and at least for a good portion of the Northeast US. It was HOT.
"The reason global warming has no credibility is because of reactionaries, yes, but also because the arguments made have not been internally or scientificially consistent for 30 years. You cry wolf long enough bolstering your points with manipulated data, and nobody is going to believe a word you say. Whether it's 'global cooling' from 30 years ago, 'global warming' a year ago, or what they're calling 'global climate change' today (yeah, apparently calling it global warming or cooling doesn't work anymore, because nobody believes a word of it), it doesn't matter the slightest."
Ehm...no. They're calling it global climate change because...well...it's global climate change. Some areas are going to warm up, others may cool off. Some areas will get drier, others will get soaked. The only thing that is relatively certain is that the global temperature average is going up.
"It's inconsequential to most people, in no small part to the fact that we've passed a dozen 'population extinction' dates for not only Earth becoming a huge desert, ocean, or desert, but claims that the world's population is going to surpass what the planet can provide (claims which often go hand-in-hand with the global warming hysteria)."
To my knowledge, they only "population extinction" dates I've ever read about are very gross estimations (planetary impact, sup-er-volcano eruption, etc.). The population support issue is actually something to be concerned with, as there is only a finite amount of resources on this planet.
"Nevermind the readily observeable information that while not only Earth's climate is getting warmer, so is Mar's - due to the rotational temperature changes in the Sun. IE, there's not a fucking thing we can do about it, and worrying about it, let alone doing anything for it, is just reactionary fear mongering."
I love have hypocrites like you will fight tooth and nail against the terabytes upon terabytes of data we have clearing showing climate change then turn around and use the paltry amount of climate data we're getting back from a couple of satellites around Mars to justify their position.
The scientists are INFERRING that warming MIGHT be happening on Mars. The scientists are MEASURING the KNOWN warming on Earth. We have countless satellites and models all gathering data, measuring, probing just about every aspect of our planet we can. By comparison we know absolutely JACK SHIT abou how the martian climate operates. Comparing Earth's climate dynamics to those of Mars is like comparing a blue whale to a football.
In the end, we may not be able to do anything to reverse it, ho
All babies born beginning in 2008 will have the arms, legs, teeth and brain removed. This will prevent children from ever possibly injuring themselves and greatly reduce crime and copyright infringement.
It was a tough compromise. The bill originally had the skeletal structure removed but with the brain still intact. It was argued however that the possesion of a brain could still perform copyright infringement and aid the terrorists.
Today's bill brought to you by Corporate America, Ranchers for Gelatinous Meat Sacks, and the letters W, T, and F.
"Your article was from 2005, through 2006 there was far more evidence showing Mars was warming (including reports from NASA and other groups saying exactly that)."
Oh. And, uh, exactly how many weather/climate satellites are there orbiting Mars?
How many ground stations are there on Mars recording meterological and climatological data?
Hmmm. And exactly how many atmospheric probes are there recording the atmospheric composition on Mars?
You see, there is a big difference between INFERRING and measuring. NASA is inferring warming is taking place on Mars based on the relatively small amount of data they are getting back from a handful of sensors.
NOAA and NASA are MEASURING the warming and it's effects at multiple levels of the atmosphere and collects terabytes of data a day backing that up on Earth.
And comparing the warming on Earth to Mars and Jupiter is like comparing an apple to a spiked dildo and an albatross. Atmospheric composition, climate forcings, planet composisition and overall dynamics are all completely different.
No, you can't reverse such as a system. But you can cause a trend in such a system to bring it back to the general state it was in before.
Example: Take a ballon filled with air. The molecules within the balloon follow brownian motion (chaotic). Heat the balloon, and the balloon expands. We have influenced said chaotic system. Now remove the heat, and the balloon will eventually shrink back down.
Did we reverse the system? Definately not. The molecules within the balloon are most likely no where near where they started. But we did bring the state back to something similar to where it started.
Same concept with our atmosphere. Add more of a gas that absorbs infrared energy, and the atmosphere will warm up. Remove it and it will cool off.
But it's not quite that simple.
As the atmosphere warms, other changes happen. We lose ice-pack for example, which causes the earth to reflect less energy. So in order to "cool" the atmosphere we would have to reduce the heat-trapping gas to the point that it would balance out the energy now being captured due to lack of reflection.
And that's just one part of the system. You throw one part out of balance, and it's not long before other parts of the system follow.
Does this mean we shouldn't try to reduce emissions? Of course not.
Except that it has been shown that throughout history humans, left to their own, are more than willing to do rather despicable acts to one another in order to become prosperous. It is only in response to some external threat do humans act togther for a common good.
The assumption that humans are fundamentally "good" is incredibly naive and ignores our rather colorful history, not to mention our baser instincts to preserve and get ahead. The only difference now is that we have a rationalization process, e.g. how much can I get away with before the penalties become so great as to not be worth it.
Humans, left to their own, certainly become prosperous...at the expense of others. Indeed, many places in Africa show what happens when humans are left to their own.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for less government (especially since all the crap that has resulted from 9/11). But it must be done within reason and with plenty of thought.
OpenMP is targeted at shared memory, multi-processor systems. For example, OpenMP could be used on the dual and quad core systems. For distributed systems, such as super-computing clusters you need the capability to pass messages quickly and efficiently between nodes (different machines). In this case, you use a message passing library (MPI being the most common).
This sounds like it can do both, as well as determine what parts of the code can be parallelized.
"Well a mission to the Moon and Mars, bent on colonizing planets outside of our native planet, would be extremely beneficial and would pay off tremendously if Earth was ever faced with a crisis that we could not prevent."
Pluto will continue to "warm" until what little atmosphere the planet has refrozen.
Even on earth, our planets warmest days are not the first days of summer nor is our coldest days the first days of winter. Climates lag orbital dynamics.
If you want to get into observations, we have numerous weather satellites and countless weather stations on this planet monitoring changes in climate and weather. Terabytes of data every single day. This same data is criticized by the very same ones saying that a comparitively small number of inferred observations show that other planets are warming so it's not "our fault".
Horeshit.
Until we have somewhere near the climatological coverage we have on Earth, I doubt that many will take these results seriously. Unless, of course, one has no problem with employing double standards on data that support their cause.
Do you listen to weather reports? When they say it will snow tomorrow, do you go out in a t-shirt and shorts?
Don't attribute failure to something for a goal it wasn't designed to achieve. Saying that the current climate models are useless because they can't match a 100,000 year cycle is like saying the invention of the car is useless because it can't do inter-stellar travel.
The current crop of models are trying to predict the effects of temperature rise due to changes in atmospheric composition in the SHORT term. And yes, believe it or not, the scientists who develope these models are smart enough to also incorporate events like reduced snow/ice pack, flora growth, seasonal variations, and solar variations. They also model atmospheric composition, oceanic effects, and radiative transfer.
In short, they are fairly complex. They won't tell you the weather for October 3,2076, but taht isn't their aim. Their trying to model the possible changes in overall atmospheric temperatures based on various factors (CO2 being a big one right now).
You should not presume to debunk an entire branch of scientific research just because you happen to think it is not accurate enough for your tastes.
You said:
"The only thing that's really certain is that we're witnessing an unprecedented rise in CO2 levels, and that the extra CO2 is undoubtedly a contributing factor for any climate change. And that's it. That's all we know. The rest is supposition, and the results from our GCM simulations cannot be accepted as gospel because they are quite severely limited, and do not match history, and we know it."
I doubt any atmospheric scientist will tell you their results are "gospel", as they are fully aware that their models are SIMULATIONS and are not 100% ACCURATE. This is why they continue to do RESEARCH and REFINEMENTS and RE-EXAMINE. This is why they continue to SUBMIT PAPERS to their PEERS so that they can VERIFY their RESEARCH.
That is what science is. They have models and data. They make predictions. They observe to see if their predictions match what is happening. Then they do it again, and again, so on and so forth.
Simply handwaving away an entire scientific discipline's research because you don't think their models are good enough is as naive as it is stupid.
Any person who knows basic physics and chemistry can tell you that adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will make the planet warmer just from an intuitive standpoint. Determining the impacts requires a far deeper understanding, well beyond what you or I possess.
Slashdot Mirror
Then of course, you have to assume that even if you did get out to another universe, whether or not the physical laws are similar to ours, or even if it is stable or not.
For instance, let's say you wind up in another universe where the Coloumb constant is only 1/10th what it is in ours. You, your ship, and all matter that came along ith you would explode apart.
Plus, travelling inside a black hole has some strange consequences. If a black hole is large enough then the gravitational differential would be small enough for someone to survive. But inside a black hole both space and time are distorted, so you may be travelling in both (and not necessarily the same "direction" we do in normal space).
~X~
Indeed. The power from these laser might get to the point of lethality if one were not wearing any reflective/dispersive clothing. But even wearing poorly reflective "armor" would probably change a lethal weapon into a mere annoyance.
Hand held laser weapons need a good powersource to generate a laser of any reasonable power, and we're still a ways away from that.
~X~
How did this ignorant paranoid tripe get modded insightful? Level 1 war? What kind of war do you consider level 1. No wars in we have ever fought could possibly be considered a level 1 war. In Vietnam we carpet bombed, napalmed, and generaly destroyed large swaths of territory indiscrimnantly with significant casualties. Vietnam wasn't humane, nor was it necessary. Geneva convention war my ass. WW2 was a total war. Entire cities were completely leveled. Millions died and we even nuked two cities in Japan, consisting mostly of civilians. Korea wasn't a victory either. It was fought to an agreed standstill. Even the Iraq conflict has involved massive civilian casualties. "The scary thing for me is that as they get nukes, and they will one way or another, there is no way to do MAD style containment." You have absolutely no idea what MAD is. MAD is not a containment strategy. It's a "if we go down we're taking you with us" strategy. If a nuke goes off on American soil and the government goes into panic mode, 20,000 nuclear missles launch (each with multiple warheads), all at targets predetermined for maximum destruction. MAD is MUTUALLY ASSURED DESTRUCTION. It's a civlization destroying strategy, not a containment strategy. If you honestly think the military would sit around worrying about national boundries if a nuke goes off here? You know nothing of the military. Our ICBMs would be in th air in less than 30 minutes. Sack Washington? And how would you propose they would do that. There's a country of 300 million people with the most advanced militay in the world and the largest economy in world with which to fund said military. How could they even get enough "soldiers" here to attempt such a thing? Do not confuse extremism and Islam. You only make yourself like a braying ass. Stop drinking the neocon koolaid. ~X~
"Mathematics has a well known liberal bias."
Conservatives are bad at math.
~X~
Of course it's a manufactured hell. How else do expect anyone to sell any products?
If you're content and happy, then you don't really need ot go out and buy the super ultra deluxe double-plus good turbo nuclear powered SUV.
Companies make money by selling solutions to problems. If there aren't enough problems, they are "created" so they can sell more stuff.
In the US, most of our "manufactured problems" deal with keeping up with the Jones's; "Buy me if you want to be on top of the social ladder" kinda stuff.
Our economy is powered by problems. The bigger the problem, the bigger the profit.
~X~
Is that your final analysis, our do you need to do a wider search. You may need to dig deep, as assumptions are detrimental to ascertaining whether you have the whole truth or not.
~X~
Somewhere, a demon in the 7th circle of hell just snorted battery acid and gasoline all over his keyboard.
~X~
That's CANUKISTAN, you insesitive clod!
~X~
"What will happen to Kasparov? Will he end in the same fate?"
Polonium.
~X~
"Yes mankind is producing more CO2, but still it's insignificant compared to other natural sources such as volcanoes and vegetative decay. Your views on our industrialization, and the slightly increasing temperature is a loose correlation."
Current CO2 output by man currently produces 150 times more CO2 than all natural sources (including volcanoes) combined. RTFSR (read the friggin' science report.
~X~
Hmmm. Is this meant as sarcasm or troll?
~X~
Indeed, ignorance is an equal-opportunity employer.
~X~
"So what if we've just had the warmest winter in years? That means absolutely nothing on its own, particularly when you consider the fact thta it's an El Nino (El Nina? I forget wihch is wihch) year, and that the respective seasons are going to be less severe."
On its own, no it doesn't mean anything. However, combined with other global observations over the last few decades and one might begin to see a pattern.
BTW, it was a mild El Nino, which liklely saved many peoples asses this past year by preventing hurricane formations and blowing the ones that did form way across the ocean. The formation of an El Nino results in increased wind shear across the tropics which prevents storms from getting too organized.
El Nino does not ensure milder weather. For certain regions in the north it usually results in milder winters. That being said, with this mild El Nino the northern US and northern Europe remained snow free abnormally long periods of time (even for an El Nino) and multiple records were set as far as temperature goes (NY city hit 74 in the middle January).
"Maybe some people remember how mild last summer was? I don't believe there was a single day last summer when I didn't feel comfortable to wear long sleeves."
Um...yeah maybe where you were. However, triple digit temperatures set records where I was and at least for a good portion of the Northeast US. It was HOT.
"The reason global warming has no credibility is because of reactionaries, yes, but also because the arguments made have not been internally or scientificially consistent for 30 years. You cry wolf long enough bolstering your points with manipulated data, and nobody is going to believe a word you say. Whether it's 'global cooling' from 30 years ago, 'global warming' a year ago, or what they're calling 'global climate change' today (yeah, apparently calling it global warming or cooling doesn't work anymore, because nobody believes a word of it), it doesn't matter the slightest."
Ehm...no. They're calling it global climate change because...well...it's global climate change. Some areas are going to warm up, others may cool off. Some areas will get drier, others will get soaked. The only thing that is relatively certain is that the global temperature average is going up.
"It's inconsequential to most people, in no small part to the fact that we've passed a dozen 'population extinction' dates for not only Earth becoming a huge desert, ocean, or desert, but claims that the world's population is going to surpass what the planet can provide (claims which often go hand-in-hand with the global warming hysteria)."
To my knowledge, they only "population extinction" dates I've ever read about are very gross estimations (planetary impact, sup-er-volcano eruption, etc.). The population support issue is actually something to be concerned with, as there is only a finite amount of resources on this planet.
"Nevermind the readily observeable information that while not only Earth's climate is getting warmer, so is Mar's - due to the rotational temperature changes in the Sun. IE, there's not a fucking thing we can do about it, and worrying about it, let alone doing anything for it, is just reactionary fear mongering."
I love have hypocrites like you will fight tooth and nail against the terabytes upon terabytes of data we have clearing showing climate change then turn around and use the paltry amount of climate data we're getting back from a couple of satellites around Mars to justify their position.
The scientists are INFERRING that warming MIGHT be happening on Mars. The scientists are MEASURING the KNOWN warming on Earth. We have countless satellites and models all gathering data, measuring, probing just about every aspect of our planet we can. By comparison we know absolutely JACK SHIT abou how the martian climate operates. Comparing Earth's climate dynamics to those of Mars is like comparing a blue whale to a football.
In the end, we may not be able to do anything to reverse it, ho
Recent bill passed in the senate:
All babies born beginning in 2008 will have the arms, legs, teeth and brain removed. This will prevent children from ever possibly injuring themselves and greatly reduce crime and copyright infringement.
It was a tough compromise. The bill originally had the skeletal structure removed but with the brain still intact. It was argued however that the possesion of a brain could still perform copyright infringement and aid the terrorists.
Today's bill brought to you by Corporate America, Ranchers for Gelatinous Meat Sacks, and the letters W, T, and F.
~X~
"I prefer furious masterbation"
What did your penis ever do to you?
*looks*
Well, that explains your fury. *badum-ching*
~X~
Why is this surprising? TV is the valium of th masses. Remember Rome? Keep the people happy and you can do whatever you want.
while(humans_exist)
{
history.repeat();
}
~X~
"Your article was from 2005, through 2006 there was far more evidence showing Mars was warming (including reports from NASA and other groups saying exactly that)."
Oh. And, uh, exactly how many weather/climate satellites are there orbiting Mars?
How many ground stations are there on Mars recording meterological and climatological data?
Hmmm. And exactly how many atmospheric probes are there recording the atmospheric composition on Mars?
You see, there is a big difference between INFERRING and measuring. NASA is inferring warming is taking place on Mars based on the relatively small amount of data they are getting back from a handful of sensors.
NOAA and NASA are MEASURING the warming and it's effects at multiple levels of the atmosphere and collects terabytes of data a day backing that up on Earth.
And comparing the warming on Earth to Mars and Jupiter is like comparing an apple to a spiked dildo and an albatross. Atmospheric composition, climate forcings, planet composisition and overall dynamics are all completely different.
~X~
No, you can't reverse such as a system. But you can cause a trend in such a system to bring it back to the general state it was in before.
Example: Take a ballon filled with air. The molecules within the balloon follow brownian motion (chaotic). Heat the balloon, and the balloon expands. We have influenced said chaotic system. Now remove the heat, and the balloon will eventually shrink back down.
Did we reverse the system? Definately not. The molecules within the balloon are most likely no where near where they started. But we did bring the state back to something similar to where it started.
Same concept with our atmosphere. Add more of a gas that absorbs infrared energy, and the atmosphere will warm up. Remove it and it will cool off.
But it's not quite that simple.
As the atmosphere warms, other changes happen. We lose ice-pack for example, which causes the earth to reflect less energy. So in order to "cool" the atmosphere we would have to reduce the heat-trapping gas to the point that it would balance out the energy now being captured due to lack of reflection.
And that's just one part of the system. You throw one part out of balance, and it's not long before other parts of the system follow.
Does this mean we shouldn't try to reduce emissions? Of course not.
~X~
Except that it has been shown that throughout history humans, left to their own, are more than willing to do rather despicable acts to one another in order to become prosperous. It is only in response to some external threat do humans act togther for a common good.
The assumption that humans are fundamentally "good" is incredibly naive and ignores our rather colorful history, not to mention our baser instincts to preserve and get ahead. The only difference now is that we have a rationalization process, e.g. how much can I get away with before the penalties become so great as to not be worth it.
Humans, left to their own, certainly become prosperous...at the expense of others. Indeed, many places in Africa show what happens when humans are left to their own.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for less government (especially since all the crap that has resulted from 9/11). But it must be done within reason and with plenty of thought.
~X~
OpenMP is targeted at shared memory, multi-processor systems. For example, OpenMP could be used on the dual and quad core systems. For distributed systems, such as super-computing clusters you need the capability to pass messages quickly and efficiently between nodes (different machines). In this case, you use a message passing library (MPI being the most common).
This sounds like it can do both, as well as determine what parts of the code can be parallelized.
~X~
Tobin's spirit guide. Online. Sweet.
~X~
"Well a mission to the Moon and Mars, bent on colonizing planets outside of our native planet, would be extremely beneficial and would pay off tremendously if Earth was ever faced with a crisis that we could not prevent."
You mean, like, ourselves?
~X~
Pluto will continue to "warm" until what little atmosphere the planet has refrozen.
Even on earth, our planets warmest days are not the first days of summer nor is our coldest days the first days of winter. Climates lag orbital dynamics.
If you want to get into observations, we have numerous weather satellites and countless weather stations on this planet monitoring changes in climate and weather. Terabytes of data every single day. This same data is criticized by the very same ones saying that a comparitively small number of inferred observations show that other planets are warming so it's not "our fault".
Horeshit.
Until we have somewhere near the climatological coverage we have on Earth, I doubt that many will take these results seriously. Unless, of course, one has no problem with employing double standards on data that support their cause.
~X~
Do you listen to weather reports? When they say it will snow tomorrow, do you go out in a t-shirt and shorts?
Don't attribute failure to something for a goal it wasn't designed to achieve. Saying that the current climate models are useless because they can't match a 100,000 year cycle is like saying the invention of the car is useless because it can't do inter-stellar travel.
The current crop of models are trying to predict the effects of temperature rise due to changes in atmospheric composition in the SHORT term. And yes, believe it or not, the scientists who develope these models are smart enough to also incorporate events like reduced snow/ice pack, flora growth, seasonal variations, and solar variations. They also model atmospheric composition, oceanic effects, and radiative transfer.
In short, they are fairly complex. They won't tell you the weather for October 3,2076, but taht isn't their aim. Their trying to model the possible changes in overall atmospheric temperatures based on various factors (CO2 being a big one right now).
You should not presume to debunk an entire branch of scientific research just because you happen to think it is not accurate enough for your tastes.
You said:
"The only thing that's really certain is that we're witnessing an unprecedented rise in CO2 levels, and that the extra CO2 is undoubtedly a contributing factor for any climate change. And that's it. That's all we know. The rest is supposition, and the results from our GCM simulations cannot be accepted as gospel because they are quite severely limited, and do not match history, and we know it."
I doubt any atmospheric scientist will tell you their results are "gospel", as they are fully aware that their models are SIMULATIONS and are not 100% ACCURATE. This is why they continue to do RESEARCH and REFINEMENTS and RE-EXAMINE. This is why they continue to SUBMIT PAPERS to their PEERS so that they can VERIFY their RESEARCH.
That is what science is. They have models and data. They make predictions. They observe to see if their predictions match what is happening. Then they do it again, and again, so on and so forth.
Simply handwaving away an entire scientific discipline's research because you don't think their models are good enough is as naive as it is stupid.
Any person who knows basic physics and chemistry can tell you that adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will make the planet warmer just from an intuitive standpoint. Determining the impacts requires a far deeper understanding, well beyond what you or I possess.
I'll side with researchers on this one.
~X~
Julia Roberts was never covered in hot corn nuts. Therefore she will never be hotter than Mila Jovivich covered in hot corn nuts.
~X~