Can we really predict the weather? Well, in the short-term we can predict with very high probability just about anything, but like anything we have tough time prediction in the long-term. Weather, well we are good for about 2.5 days with high probability, anything past that and all bets are off. Just as mathematical algorithms doing derivative trading can get it mostly right most of the time in near term, it gets somewhat difficult to be exact in the long-term, even if you can surmise a possible trend. In walks climate science, Global Warming Theory and the new PR term they use; Climate Change.
Yes, very controversial indeed, and you can count on me to bring forth the most sound and fury possible as I watch the “friction of the day” so lets’ talk about chaos, controversy and climate change shall we?
The question was asked recently in an online Climate Change and Global Warming Theory Forum, copied from the Climate Dispatch Blog; “Do 97% of All Climate Scientists Really Believe Mankind is Causing Catastrophic Global Warming?” by Amy Ridenour, National Center blog on February 10 2014.
Immediately, out of the wood work someone posts: “You know that Friends of Science study was funded by petroleum geologists working on behalf of the oil industry, right? And the “evidence” in both this article and the report are highly biased and suspect. Ask yourself, why would the fossil fuel industry sponsor a study and report such as this? Could it be that they fund studies like this for the very same reason that tobacco companies funded studies that found no link between smoking and cancer?”
Followed up with another comment; “Exactly. Polluter-sponsored lies spread by scum.” In other words, let’s not debate the actual science, let’s just tell everyone it’s so complicated they wouldn’t understand, to trust the Global Warming Theory that humankind’s CO2 output is heating up the average ambient temperature to the point of a climate cliff for which there is no escape, then scare the bejesus out of them and shout them down into submission. Sorry folks, not buying.
Actually, I am amazed at the ground-swell campaigning and PR marketing the Global Warming crowd is putting out, and the social attempt at speech control is telling too. I think I side more with Richard Muller’s findings, those make way more sense to me. I don’t buy climate models purported as they are askew of Chaos Theory. If scientists who want work in the climate science venue don’t subscribe to the theory, they don’t get work, and Voila! Now they do? Who’d have thought?
The reality is that the climate scientists are speculating and busy trying to prove themselves right, and they know they must if they want continued research funding. We have a problem, with science, trust, statistics and fools. Please consider all this and think on it.
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/8311131