JFK, MLK, RFK and the Continuing Unspeakable with Regard to Global Warming Denial

[Greg Burnham]

Again, the idea that a dynamical system's "phase change" can be PREDICTED at all flies in the face of Chaos Theory, by definition. Even if we had developed a perfect set of equations to model future climate behavior (which we have yet to do) -- but, even if we had a perfect model, we would still require 100% precise mathematical values to enter into those perfect equations to properly represent exact INITIAL CONDITIONS -- otherwise the resultant outcome will be randomly flawed. Imagine the sheer volume of 100% precise data that would be necessary to enter into such equations in order to have a glimmer of possibly making an accurate prediction. It is astronomical in scope.

Last year I posted a very long list of extremely hostile climactic events that occurred prior to the increase in CO2 of recent decades. It was quite extensive...and revealing. I have seen no evidence that current climactic hostility exceeds the climactic hostility of pre-high CO2 levels.

That's rubbish Greg and you are trying to divert the real arguments into sophist rumination and philosophy. Your method is similar to Kennedy Assassination conspiracy deniers who insist on universal total perfection in order not to answer the obvious. You need to explain how this present CO2 rise could be the only one in Earth's history to not be accompanied by a temperature rise and why.


Greg is dishonest because he is positing that we somehow need a perfect model to make any kind of credible prediction. But that isn't nearly true. It's a spurious argument that's being used as an excuse for the things Greg refuses to answer. The truth is that Earth is a closed system with predictable enough scientific factors that are good enough to make basic predictions. Greg ignores the fact that Global Warming prediction has already verified in the short term and is the most accurate of all predictions so far. He ignores that the ice core samples are a good enough gauge for CO2 levels and their relationship to temperature. So far he hasn't explained why they aren't.


All people need to know is that Greg can't back what he said about my input and can't answer my points. Anything else is just dishonesty no matter what excuse you make for it.

Albert --

I should have chosen my words more carefully when I suggested that you were attempting to make yourself appear knowledgeable. That is obviously not the case. My apology. I am free to criticize your post and label it gibberish, as that is my opinion. I have not attacked you personally. I suggest you edit your posts and remove the ad homs, particularly those that speak to my integrity.

I further suggest that you remove your implication that Jim is somehow less than a real man. There is no need to get personally insulting.