[QUOTE="SUD123456"]

Normally I like to make fun of and mock the ridiculous nonsense that TC is prone to writing; however, in this case many of you are underselling the potential impact of this update. It is entirely possible that the basic assumptions underpinning the primary models that are used as the basis for the concept of global warming are wrong. Not just slightly off, but potentially wrong. Period.

worlock77

Sure it's possible. It's also possible that that's the case for our concept of gravity as well.

-Nobel Laureate Richard P. Feynman

itt.. science at work.comp_atkins

So scientists are doing exactly what they are supposed to do and updating their models based on new data, while Hokie is proving himself not to be a scientist and still ignoring the data.chessmaster1989

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

 They will admit past predictions have been wrong and CO2 isn't nearly as influential as predicted. They will admit they picked the highest estimates in the past and based their reports on it which resulted in doom and gloom.

They will likely predict more doom and gloom for the future, but will at least have to admit past mistakes. Their models simply didn't match observations and warming was statiscially insignificant.

HoolaHoopMan

In other words its nothing more than scientists including new data sets to improve climate models for more accurate predictions in the future, while simultaneously still holding true to man made emissions having a measureable effect.  

Go home Hokie, science isn't your forte, or keeping bets on leaving when you're dead fvcking wrong either. 

The science is catching up to their past doom and gloom predictions which is a good thing.

And they could no longer ignore the elephant in the room.

So there will still be warming and climate change, but it may be less than originally stated, now that there are better models and forecasts. Good to know.

I'd like to see a scientist's take on the science, rather than a blogger or news reporters take on leaked info. 

I particularly don't like the phrasing in the WSJ article. 50/50 chance of climate change being good? Um, if you cherry pick the increase of arable land in certain areas and ignore loss in other places, and ignore changes in weather, then you can paint a rosy picture.

jimkabrhel

But yea I don't expect these same people to all of a sudden say human aren't involved. That would be a bridge too far for now.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="Master_Live"]Like the scientist that we are we continue to gather data and make adjusment to predictions when necessary. So is all good. HoolaHoopMan

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"] Oh, so some estimates were off, yet the trend of a warming Earth is still on par and directly correlated to human emissions. Good to know. HoolaHoopMan

So you're willing to bet that the IPCC report will conclude that humans have no impact on climate change at all then?  Is that what you're saying?

They will likely predict more doom and gloom for the future, but will at least have to admit past mistakes. Their models simply didn't match observations and warming was statiscially insignificant.

Like the scientist that we are we continue to gather data and make adjusment to predictions when necessary. So is all good. Master_Live

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]Just show us some graphs, interpret them incorrectly, drag the thread out a few hundreds posts, then go to bed. Sound good enough? HoolaHoopMan

Just show us some graphs, interpret them incorrectly, drag the thread out a few hundreds posts, then go to bed. Sound good enough? HoolaHoopMan