• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Weak Foundation of Calls for Climate Action

Buzz said:
What topic? The topic of Pat Frank being repeatedly debunked?
Click to expand...
That is your unsupported claim. The actual topic is the weak foundation of calls for climate action. Frank's critique shines a light on that weakness.
 
Jack Hays said:
And that's all you've got. Not enough.
Click to expand...
Show me where you have refuted anything I have said in this thread or the original Pat Frank thread. You will not because you have not. And neither did anyone else in either thread.

You live in a fantasy land of denialist lies and misinformation.
 
Since computer models must start at some initial state, it is not unreasonable to assume
that any uncertainty between step one and step two, should be accumulated as uncertainty into
the initial state as step two moves to step 3.
We see this all the time in Hurricane projections just days out, the cone of uncertainty grows larger, the further out you get in time!
 
  • Like
Reactions: PoS
Buzz said:
Show me where you have refuted anything I have said in this thread or the original Pat Frank thread. You will not because you have not. And neither did anyone else in either thread.

You live in a fantasy land of denialist lies and misinformation.
Click to expand...
What you have done, repeatedly, is simply join or link to denunciations by people you agree with. You don't make or offer arguments. It seems that you just want to lower the discussion level down to a sort of shouting match in which your number of shouters can compensate for the weakness of your arguments. Based on your record, I'm afraid you're in over your head here.
 
longview said:
Since computer models must start at some initial state, it is not unreasonable to assume
that any uncertainty between step one and step two, should be accumulated as uncertainty into
the initial state as step two moves to step 3.
We see this all the time in Hurricane projections just days out, the cone of uncertainty grows larger, the further out you get in time!
Click to expand...
Climate computer modeling reminds me of that episode in South Park:

AvG71y8.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom