When I first saw her on TV I thought wrongly she was Bette Middler.

Evidently her brains drained to her chest to fill that up and gravity has since put them in their place.

"The ice cap melting rate has accelerated over the past 10 years. The
number of climate related natural disasters has increased several times
over the last 20 years. Increased CO2 traps more energy."

None of which proves man is causing global warming.

"All climate models predict warming from increased CO2. Ocean
temperatures have risen. There have been movements of plants and
animals into higher latitudes . This is evidence.What you have given is
NOT EVIDENCE!"

Wow, all those things, and yet, somehow, the world hasn't been destroyed!! How can that be?

Can I get someone to write me a computer model that predicts I will become a millionaire on New Years Day? If a computer model says it, it has to be true. Plus I could sure use a million dollars.

And by the way, all climate models don't predict warming from CO2. Yet another falsehood passed as fact that has become far too common from the pro-AGW camp.

You have zero knowledge of how computer modeling works yet keep presenting it as proof of AGW? Please STOP posting propaganda off of computer illiterate sites like Grist.

FACT: Only Computer Illiterates believe in "Man-Made" Global Warming.

People do not understand that there is no proof of "Man-Made" Global Warming without using irrelevant computer models. Yes computer models have a place in engineering but are utterly useless at fortune telling, I mean "climate prediction".

All the computer illiterates are convinced that because something is done on a "super computer" that costs "millions of dollars" it is infallible. The more complex the model the more "mysterious" it seems to the average person. Plugging in biased, incomplete or flat out wrong data combined with poorly understood climate physics into a "model" that includes god knows how many guesses and assumptions will give you junk. Garbage in = Garbage out. I am a computer analyst and can make a computer model do whatever I want by "tuning" it (adjusting variables until I get the answer I want or think is right). Testing a model against past climate is an advanced exercise in curve fitting, nothing more and proves absolutely nothing. Processing more complex data in more complex ways via guessing gives you more complex junk results. But since the models have been "tuned" (guesstimated or deliberately altered to get the results they want) they get results that "seem" likely or even convincing to the average computer illiterate, except it is all based on a complex serious of guesses and assumptions and absolutely meaningless for prediction.

The problem is computer models need exact information (accurate data and the correct procedure to process the data) to get exact answers, without that you get junk results, period. The public gives computer climate models this mystical aura because they are largely computer illiterate about how they actually work and when they hear the term "computer" they do not want to sound or feel stupid, so they nod their heads and go along with it.

Nothing is emotional about computers they are pure logical machines, 1 + 1 must = 2. Imagine trying to use random numbers to get a right answer on a calculator but you do not know if you are to add or multiply those numbers and you have no way to confirm that "right answer" except to wait 50-100 years. Sound crazy? Welcome to Global Climate Modeling.

What the modelers do is they keep playing with the numbers in a much more complex way until they think they guess right. A useless exercise. These same climate model computers are used to predict your weather and you know how accurate they are. But damn! Al Gore and Gavin Schmidt can certainly tell your what the climate will be 50-100 years from now! Give me a break. Don't be fooled that modeling climate is different than the weather or one is more accurate than the other long term. The difference is simply a matter of resolution and scale.

Why are we not turning to models to predict the future for everything? Because they can't, not even remotely. Some of them work "sort of" for the weather in very, very short term results (1-3 days) until all the data they are processing that is wrong combined with all the data they are missing and the millions of variables they are not accounting for start to kick in and grow exponentially the farther out the model runs and wham - the model is wrong. No kidding, there are simply way too many variables that they cannot account for and the computer power necessary to even start to take these variables into account does not exist.

You are expected to believe that they can "model" the climate 50-100 years in the future when they cannot even give you accurate weather 3 days out? Don't be fools, I do this for a living, Computer Models cannot predict the future with anything as complex as the Earth's climate.

Dyson: Climate models are rubbish (The Register, UK)

"My first heresy says that all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated. Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models. [...] But I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in. The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing their own models."
- Freeman Dyson - Professor Emeritus of Physics - Princeton University

Fighting climate 'fluff' (National Post, Canada)

"Prof. Dyson explains that the many components of climate models are divorced from first principles and are "parameterized" -- incorporated by reference to their measured effects.

Prof. Dyson soon abandoned this line of inquiry. Only years later, after Fermi's death, did new developments in science confirm that the impressive agreement between Prof. Dyson's model and Fermi's measurements was bogus, and that Prof. Dyson and his students had been spared years of grief by Fermi's wise dismissal of his speculative model. Although it seemed elegant, it was no foundation upon which to base sound science."
- Freeman Dyson - Professor Emeritus of Physics - Princeton University

I realize that you are computer illiterate but please stop proving it with each post.

The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource

Let’s do the math. Global warming predictions are based on
computer models which are nothing more than computer programs that provide
output based on input data. The validity of the output is directly proportional
to the quality of the input data. If the input is intentionally skewed then so
also will the output. Now if you are a scientist who operates on government
grants to study a perceived global treat then it is in your interest to make
sure it is a treat. Not hard to do when you control the input to the model.
Follow the money. It’s that easy.

Evidence is History???

November 28, 2007 - 16:48 ET by professor truth

Yes it is. Unless you have traveled in Algores Time Machine to collect evidence from the future, ALL evidence is collected from the past (aka, HISTORY). Evidence=Past, Predictions=Future. rimsky was merely making a prediction based on past evidence that the ice caps are not likely to melt entirely away in 23 years. He was making a lighthearted comment on a far-fetched statement. You shouted at him so I told you to get a grip.

So
someone who has never done something in his life will not do something
new in the future? Huh? The ice cap melting rate has accelerated over the
past 10 years. Possibly. Do you believe the last handfull of ice will be gone in exactly 23 years? The number of climate related natural disasters has
increased several times over the last 20 years. Thank you for finally getting this right in saying Natural Disasters, not Man-Made disasters. The "increased several times" is something you can back-up with "evidence"? Increased CO2 traps
more energy. All climate models predict warming from increased CO2. Ocean temperatures have risen. There have been movements of plants and
animals into higher latitudes . Adaptation is a wonderful thing. This is evidence.What you have given is
NOT EVIDENCE! Once again, get a grip.