An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth To Power (2017)- Official Trailer - Paramount Pictures

Not impossible if your livelihood depends on forecasting disasters - in

50 years...

Really, get a grip on yourself.

Go to the US government sources and check the facts, not the tripe put out by profiteers such as Mr. Nye and Mr. Gore.

John

He was laughably wrong in 2006, and he's still wrong.

But he is very, very rich.

--

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 
picosecond timing   precision measurement  

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com 
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

You miss the point of that type of film. It's not a science show.

You miss the point.

His "Truth to Power" phrase is catchy. Al is known for his originality.

--

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 
picosecond timing   precision measurement  

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com 
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

Fiction is more profitable than science films.

--

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 
picosecond timing   precision measurement  

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com 
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

You would fall for anything. Did you read "The Jupiter Effect"? Written by, I think, 3 educated men (possibly PhDs). I'll bet you fell for that one, too. When I read the book, I asked myself, has this alignment happened before? Of course it had and it had no effect.

Stupid.

Yeah, the military seems to be taking it seriously.

Is here some reason you can't find your OT: keys? Damn, you are a nuisance.

I hope you're wrong. But it is so, so sad this whole global warming thing has been so politicized and polarizing. Somehow there's an entire group of people out there with no science training whatsoever that don't believe wh at the vast majority of people who know more about this than any of us do.

What do you do, go to multiple doctors until you hear what you want? And p ick out the 1% of climate scientists who say it's not happening because tha t's what you prefer?

Pretty ridiculous if you ask me.

It turns out the over half of GP doctors' initial diagnoses are wrong. I had a problem recently and my regular MD was wrong, and then I went to an ENT, who used more sophisticated equipment and was also wrong. He said that my thing would never get better, and it did get better. I think he made the diagnosis based on my medical record, before he even saw me. I did get to see my vocal cords and nasal passages scoped in real time, which was sort of cool; so I figured it out.

Nonlinear simulation of complex chaotic systems with unknown forcings will usually, or always, be wrong. Hindcasting is really just curve fitting and is not predictive.

Economists are experts and are usually wrong. Without hard experimental verification, most scientists and "experts" are usually wrong.

--

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 
picosecond timing   precision measurement  

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com 
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

Versus 84% and up who say GW is manmade, not to mention the sample size bei ng much larger:

Yes, it is very difficult to predict.

Economists are dealing with the unpredictability of human behavior.

What experimental verification do you want? Pump as much CO2 into the atmo sphere as possible, wait awhile and see what happens, then if things are ba d say "oops, guess we shouldn't have did that"?

CO2 retains heat, that's a hard proven fact. CO2 levels have risen as pred icted by the amount of fossil fuels burned, since it is known how much is b eing extracted and burned. Even the carbon isotope in CO2 points to it bei ng from fossil origin, etc, etc. I mean really, what proof do you need.

I guess you don't care about the world you might be leaving for your descen dants. Human activity has in general not been all that good for other life and processes on Earth. To think we're somehow improving what nature has already set up is arrogant.

It did have an effect, it's just delayed. So many people want instant gratification.

This has nothing to do with any of that. The psychology of their objective demands an emotional reaction from the audience. So whatever it takes... Here, start with this and work your up :

One can make humor of anything... "Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?" Don't think, though, that 'he' is the issue, nor that your vague 'wrong' assertion is of any particular value.

Nothing you say relates to thermodynamics or a nearby planet. Science works on verifiable and falsifiable assertions, and there's no science backing up denial. So, you deflect. In abnormal psychology, that's called 'fugue'.

Again, doesn't relate to thermodynamics or a nearby planet. Any other attempts to change to a different topic ought to wait for a while, else you'll seem to be excessively neurotic.

g has been so politicized and polarizing. Somehow there's an entire group of people out there with no science training whatsoever that don't believe what the vast majority of people who know more about this than any of us do .

pick out the 1% of climate scientists who say it's not happening because t hat's what you prefer?

The PNAS study actually found that 3% of the top 300 climate scientist were n't persuaded, and 5% of the top 1000.

I thought that I could identify four of the ten holdouts in the top 300, an d none of them were sceptical on rational grounds.

Many of the people who deny the reality of climate charge are being paid we ll for their efforts. Any time you come across a denialist opinion, check w here it has come from and go to

and plug the name into their search window. They keep track of who is being paid by whom to generate denialist propaganda.

Ridicule turns out to be ineffective against well-funded (and carefully tar getted propaganda). John Larkin should logn ago have realised that he's bee n suckered, but he's got much too high an opinion of his critical skills to ever admit it.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

ng has been so politicized and polarizing. Somehow there's an entire group of people out there with no science training whatsoever that don't believe what the vast majority of people who know more about this than any of us d o.

d pick out the 1% of climate scientists who say it's not happening because that's what you prefer?

John Christy is almost certainly one of the ten hold-outs amongst the 300 t op climate scientist. He's a born-again Christian, and his God wouldn't do anything as mean as allowing anthropogneic global warming.

Sadly for John Larkin's credibility the hard experimental evidence for the existence of anythorpogenic global warming is overwhelming. The climate mod elling that predicts how much worse thing will get if we keep on pushing up the CO2 levels in the atmosphere is dealing with a complex system, which i s chaotic in the short term - weather, but rather more predictable over lon ger periods - climate. There are lots of models which make a range of diffe rent kinds of simplifying assumptions.

f

but the take away message is clear enough.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

How would you know what would have happened without added CO2? If we have another ice age (which we will) are you going to blame that on huma-generated CO2?

Sure, CO2 levels are measurable and increasing.

Humans are part of nature. Organisms have always changed atmospheric chemistry and climate. In a chaotic system, everything changes everything. But nobody can predict how.

Basically all 10-year climate predictions have been wrong, for over 50 years.

--

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 

lunatic fringe electronics

tmosphere as possible, wait awhile and see what happens, then if things are bad say "oops, guess we shouldn't have did that"?

I will answer this further down.

redicted by the amount of fossil fuels burned, since it is known how much i s being extracted and burned. Even the carbon isotope in CO2 points to it being from fossil origin, etc, etc. I mean really, what proof do you need.

cendants. Human activity has in general not been all that good for other l ife and processes on Earth. To think we're somehow improving what nature h as already set up is arrogant.

Yes, humans are part of nature, and other life has changed the makeup of th e planet, some for the better. But, nature typically operates over timesca les of millions of years, not within centuries. And there are often casual ties as a result of these changes, but it happens slowly. Life on earth 10 s of millions of years ago was much different, likely because of climate.

What humans are doing is something on a scale no other life form has likely ever done: dug up billions (trillions?) of of tons of CO2 in a few hundred years that nature spent millions of years burying. Removing all this CO2 from the atmosphere surely changed the climate, albeit slowly.

Adding it all back, comparatively rapidly, will also surely change the climate, this time more rapidly.

Regardless of how accurately we can predict this, or what exactly will happ en should be secondary. The primary concern is we are changing the mechani sm which regulates the Earth's temperature, rapidly at that, and that fact alone should concern you!

Humans evolved during a time when CO2 levels weren't this high. Does that concern you? At best, humanity is venturing in uncharted territory that ha s no reverse gear.