Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Borat writes:

With respect, I tend to go with people who have been studying this
for years and overall there are more scientists supporting the global
warming prognosis.

Nothing makes people who have been studying something for years honest
or objective (even with themselves).

Scientists have to eat, and they soon learn that one good way to eat
is to do studies that reach acceptable and desirable conclusions.
Doing studies that reach unpopular conclusions leads to ridicule and a
loss of income.

Right now, global warming is where the money and glory are. So
scientists study global warming, and they make sure that they reach
the right conclusions.

What has changed is the availability of even more powerful computers
available to model various scenarios.

Computer power is not the problem. Accurate models are the problem.
Nobody knows how to create an accurate model of global climate.
Nobody even has a clue, in fact. There are too many variables and the
climate is too complex. Nobody knows which factors are important;
indeed, nobody knows all the factors to begin with. There is no way
today to predict the climate 100 years from now, or even a year from
now, no matter how powerful the computers.

Scientists can't even predict local weather 24 hours from now.

Global warming is not about what happens on a day by day basis but
over long periods of time.

And that's why we really know nothing about it. We can only watch and
observe.

You would be well ****ed if they started telling you how to be an inn
keeper.

Most people get upset whenever anyone questions their competence.
That doesn't mean that competence should not be questioned.

Thirty years ago, scientists were predicting a new ice age. Where's
the ice?


In your brain and nuts?

Bertie