It isn't even a best guess. It is making a prediction that suits your agenda and then going out and sifting through the evidence and highlighting anything that helps your political cause and ignoring that which doesn't.

Alph, a majority of doctors will tell you Obamacare is an obamanination but strangely those ignoramuses who inflicted Obama on the rest of us sift through the information and pick only that which furthers their ideology. Alarmists do the same thing. That is why they are alarmists. They believe what the state tells them to believe.

That idiot will go out and negotiate with Russia (gets Syria and a foothold into the mideast) and Iran (gets Syria and nukes) and give them everything they wanted but he pretends that Republicans are the enemy and Alph thinks that is just great. I got news for Alph. Obama is a fringe wacko Marxist way out of mainstream and if he wasn't half black his incompetence would make Jimmy Carter look like the greatest president ever. The reverse racism in the country makes it hard to treat a part black man for the incompetent that he obvious is. It is just like them to invent a crisis with AGW and ignore real dangers.

edit: f'n stupid moron (below) is completely clueless how biased he is. I think Obama voters are either ignorant or socialists or both but I don't know anyone that thinks they should be shot. They need to be told that their ignorance has consequences. I know they think Bush caused all the problems and Obama is just trying to help us out of it. Obama is an Alynskiite and a community organizer. These idiots even are clueless what that really means. F'n doesn't really know enough about science to distinguish between fact and propaganda IMO. Nonsense is all we get from these types. At least I can usually figure out what is science and what is politics. I always get grouchy when I see the left changing the greatest country in the world toward a banana republic as they lecture the sane among us.

Maybe we should make "Global Warming" part of the stock market?

It seems that the Government is active in manipulating trends in monetary markets so why not be active in manipulating Global average temperature predictions? It seems that they both have everything to do with how money flows.

Here's my answer to the other question (if it helps) - "It's funny how AGW Theorists try and relate predictions to the stock market when they know that the Global Monetary Elites can easily manipulate those markets with simple business news. This shows how arrogant these people really are. The Government controls the stock market more than most realize. The Federal Reserve seems to dictate market trends as of late, but the Federal Government seems to be directing how the money flows just as they are controlling how the information flows on "Global Warming".

The science is saying that a 0.01% change in the atmosphere (a CO2 increase of 120ppm) causes a 1% change in our total energy budget which will in turn cause a change in global average temperature of 2.8C. I find this laughable. They are trying to tell us that we are forcing the climate to change with this 1% change when temperature records are still following natural trends for the most part. They are "in-search-of" the other 2C warming that was suppose to have occurred by now (the average temps have risen 0.8C since the mid-1800s).

The Earth's average temperature is very much in-line with natural temperature variations of the past 1400 years. This simple fact always seems to be left out of the conversation because the politically motivated IP CC is 95% certain that human emissions are causing the climate to change."

Here's the money shot in the IPCC AR5 WG1 from Chapter 9, Evaluation of Climate Models:

"However, an analysis of the full suite of CMIP5 historical simulations (augmented for the period 2006–2012 by RCP4.5 simulations, Section 9.3.2) reveals that 111 out of 114 realisations show a GMST trend over 1998–2012 that is higher than the entire HadCRUT4 trend ensemble (Box 9.2 Figure 1a; CMIP5 ensemble-mean trend is 0.21 oC per decade)" http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/...

In other words, 97.3% of the models are running hot (hey, that sounds like a consensus). And here are some explanations:

"Figure 9.8 demonstrates that 15-year-long hiatus periods are common in both the observed and CMIP5

historical GMST time series..."

So what they are saying is the hiatus is no big deal, happens all the time (i.e. it's "common"). They then go on to discuss the various internal climate variability possibilities with increased ocean heat uptake appearing to be the front runner.

I have two basic points:

1. If you refer to Figure 9.8 as the IPCC asks us to, there is only one other hiatus period and that's mid 20th century starting around 1940. And interestingly, the models run cooler than the observations which is the complete opposite of this hiatus period.

2. Regardless of any hypothesis of internal climate variability (whether it's one or another or a combination), the fact still remains that the models did not predict it, they did not account for it so it is not in the physical parameters that models are simulating.

Getting back to your question about "government officials), if you overlook all of this then I would suggest objectivity is not part of your motivation.

Because both parties act as one on behalf of the mega banks. There's a reason they lie and act retarded like they don't know the impact it's going to make. The new world order is real. Rich oligarchal businessman that control monies from around the globe are working in secret to have a one world totalitarian government. But don't take my word, the big wigs write all about it in their books and memoirs. Man has always wanted to rule the world. That's never changed. And it's very possible when you have generation after generation not holding these peoples feet to the fire. They've actually had congressional hearings about it. But it's just a theory huh? Ppppsssshhh wake up and stop listening to known liars.

Would you prefer they not make any future plans whatsoever, and let the future come as a complete surprise that they're entirely unprepared for?

Would you prefer that they guess at future results with a dartboard?

Or are you just mad that the "best guess" they're using doesn't match your political preconceptions, but is instead arrived at by scientists working with the actual relevant data?

If I told you that there was, for example, a hurricane coming at your house, would you wait until you knew exactly how many windows it was going to blow in before you closed the storm shutters, or would you start preparing as soon as you knew there was a storm coming your way?

If I told you that your obesity put you at much higher risk of heart disease and stroke, would you wait until you knew whether or not you, personally, were going to have a stroke to start watching your weight, or would you try to lose some weight to reduce your chances of heart disease or stroke?

If I told you that there was a 95% chance you'd be hit by a car if you crossed a busy street during rush hour without waiting for the light, would you cross anyways because my prediction wasn't 100%?

We work off of predictions all the time, in all sorts of areas. It's a good idea to get the best predictions we reasonably can, so that we can react to the world as it likely will be, instead of the world as we *want* it to be.

Precision is not necessary. If you are gaining a pound or two a week, you don't need a precise (or even an accurate) estimate of what you are going to weigh in a year. All you have to know is that you are going to be obese and that it is time to stop gobbling the junk food and stick to a healthy diet.

When air and (now) ocean temperatures are rising, you don't have to have a precise date on which you can go to Green Bay, WI, to bask in the winter sun, wearing a bikini. You just have to take steps to reverse or at least slow the trend. Stop spewing hot air for a starter.

"history shows they (government officials) have been 100% wrong" I call BS! as even Fox news is only 93% of the time wrong [1]

Then again what should any one expect from a religious extremist who claims that "equality and justice are codewords for communism" and argues for "the execution of over 60 million voters for the crime of voting for Obama"?

Anyway for any one who is actually interested in the history of the science behind AGW have a look at American Institute of Physics [2], they have nice writeup, including the predictions made and how correct or incorrect they turned out to be [3]

"guesses have proven 100% wrong" in twisted logic maybe.

how's that prediction that GOP's Cruz had about Obama caving in worked out? Point is people make decisions on a lot less evidence than what science currently provides.

when a majority of doctors tell me I need an operations and one tells me I should wait, I'm pretty sure which way I'd go, even if it's not 100%.

When you are ready to provide evidence that CO2 has no greenhouse effect, I'll pay attention. Meantime, it's just right wing rants.

All of future predictions are just that predictions. Governments and government officials are tasked to plan for the future as part of their role. If not best future estimates would you prefer them to work on the basis of worst [least probable future estimates]?

I much prefer to be covering the most likely estimates. Especially when they have 95% and over probabilities attached. How reckless would it be for governments to base planning on probabilities of 3% or less? the remaining 5% is spread over many possibilities so planning on those is just going to be silly isn't it?

Do you plan based on the most likely future or the least likely?

There are no precise predictions of the future.

And I disagree with your last sentence because it is simply not true that these have been proven 100% wrong. Your just making that up.

Why do predictions need to be precise? The issue is not what dates in February, 2100 we want to book the golf coarse in Fairbanks, Alaska, but saving human lives from possible disaster.

Continuing to burn fossil fuels without having precise predictions is like touching the electrical cable which, someone says is 600 volts, but they are not entirely sure that it isn't 50,000 volts, or drinking that liquid in your garage, which you think is turpentine, just because maybe it is cyanide.



Carbon dioxide is not the only influence on temperature. And you only see temperature not going up if you look at short, cherry picked time frames.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics...

This is a variation of a question from another person, I'll admit, but it poses a good question. Why are our legislatures collecting so much money and enacting all those laws based upon an admitted 'best guess'? Especially when these guesses have proven 100% wrong.

You are aware that in science 'precise' does not mean 'accurate', right?

Oh yeah, I forgot about your scientific illiteracy disability.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy_an...

=====

edit ---

>>Gary F: I speak English. I know what words mean.<<

In the context of your question, the words do not mean the same thing they do in common English.

>>Furthermore, I did not author that part of the question, your twin did.<<

You do not “author” anything; you just copy stuff.

Why are you here racking up best answers to bogus questions about climate change?

Have you got no "best guess future estimates" based insurance policies to cancel?

Do have any idea how much the insurance industry collects in money compared to the peanuts provided to academic scientists?

How many BAs have you collected in the Finance category?

I could suggest some questions there for you to copy.

And its based on probabilitys . They raise taxes to prevent something and it never happens anyway and some dull minded

humans think they can control the elements .