« Back to story "MIT Scientist smacks down FOX global warming "flip-flop" rumor"

Story Comments

Posted by: CRYMTYPHON 1 year, 7 months ago

This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.

All Comments Share Story Report

Neutral
CRYMTYPHON1 year, 7 months ago

This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »

A scientist is not a priest or a political pundit.
It is no shame for them to say 'My old model was wrong, here is a better one'.
The Foxes assummed he was rejecting the overall hypothosis that CO2 created global warming which causes climate change.
They were wrong.

(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 2) (recursion depth : 1) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
Reply
5 Replies

loading ...
- Neutral
  bill29361 year, 7 months ago
  
  This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
  
  Then the next time say:
  'My 'new' old model was wrong, here is a better one'.
  They seem to be wrong alot.
  
  (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 3) (recursion depth : 2) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
  Reply
  4 Replies
  
  loading ...
  - PsychoHosebeastComment removed: Spammer, Abusive3 Replies
    - Neutral
      bill29361 year, 7 months ago
      
      This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
      
      But what if their wrong conclusions send everyone down the wrong path? Would you be okay with 'I made a mistake' as an excuse after you drove you car off the cliff? Before one goes out and sacrifices jobs, livelihoods, and tax money; be real certain of their numbers.
      
      (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 5) (recursion depth : 4) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
      Reply
      1 Reply
      
      loading ...
      - Neutral
        capn_caveman1 year, 7 months ago
        
        This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
        
        So would you rather wait a few decades until we actually see people lose their jobs, their livelihoods, and see people dying before we do anything at all? At that point, the problem is vastly more difficult and expensive to fit. Global warming models are in constant revision. Because hurricane activity and global warming isn't as strongly correlated as once believed, there still isn't much dispute that the global temperatures are going to rise very significantly in the next century. The temperature rises alone will be destructive to the world economy and to many human beings.
        
        (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 6) (recursion depth : 5) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
        Reply
        0 Replies
        
        loading ...
    - Neutral
      capn_caveman1 year, 7 months ago
      
      This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
      
      I wouldn't even go as far as to call the previous model a 'mistake'. The only thing changing here is that the new model is predicting less of an increase in hurricane activity than what you would expect based on extrapolating 30 years of data. But the scientist still says there will be an increase.
      
      (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 5) (recursion depth : 4) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
      Reply
      0 Replies
      
      loading ...