Models for Antarctica Off when it comes to Warming

Uncle Entity

Sat May 10 01:59:59 -0700 2008

manage

There's a whole bunch of stuff that they either can't model correctly or don't input for various reasons. Little things like the ice ages and La Nina/ El Nino, you know, trivial stuff.

But if you question the accuracy of the models you are labeled as an oil company lap dog.

It would be comical if it wasn't for the fact they have the politicians' ears and are trying to force their extreme environmentalist agenda on the rest of us. Won't be happy until the total human population is at pre-industrial revolution levels and we all (or at least the survivors) live in harmony with Gaia or Marx, something like that...

Or so I heard from the right-wing conspiratorial propaganda machine.

Yes, I'm kidding.

Models for Antarctica Off when it comes to Warming

Bhima

Sat May 10 05:24:00 -0700 2008

manage

On Modeling:  As far as I can tell, from the descriptions of climatic modeling in both Science & Nature magazines, it is that they simplify things in order reduce the variables need... not purposely model something incorrectly or ignore significant factors.  Given that such scientists are using super computers which consume hundreds of megawatts, I'm not really sure what they could to improve such models in the very near term.  Clearly not doing the modeling or investigation is not the answer, neither is outright dismissing that particular model or climate modeling science in general.  Climate modeling does have a place informing public policy, provided the limitations of the modeling are properly communicated. In my own opinion confidence is high enough to suggest harm reduction strategies such as programs to increase energy efficiency and reduce allowed pollutants but not high enough to suggest proactive strategies such as space based sun shades or atmospheric or oceanic seeding.  Doubtless my opinions will change as the science changes but I don't think it's likely that increases in energy efficiency and reductions of polluting emissions are going to turn out to be a bad thing.

On oil companies and other professional polluters:  Given the broad and significant scientific consensuses on various issues of global climate change, Legislators, Lobbyists & Think Tanks who are paid by these professional polluters are virtually the only sources of claims denying accelerated global climate change or the anthropogenic component of the acceleration.  These groups employ a variety of tactics designed to create controversy where is none by: the amplification of scientific debate, the misrepresentation of both climate science and the results & conclusions presented by climate scientists, the exaggeration of costs of plans intended to ameliorate the effects of global climate change.  So global climate change obstructionists are either people who are professional propagandists or those people susceptible to that propaganda.

On the politicization of anthropogenic climate change acceleration:  In the United States everything has become politicized, Science, Religion, Sex... everything.  The bombastic protestations of the professional propagandists occupy a surprising portion of the public discourse in the US.  This toxic speech warps American perception of nearly every important issue we have today.  It drives the growing extremism in America and, as far as I can tell, it is one sided.  While I am aware of groups pushing agendas to allow for pollution for their own economic & political gain, I am unaware of groups pushing for reductions of pollution for their own economic & political gain.  Much the same can be said for energy efficiency, the teaching of evolution & sex, cessation of tobacco smoking, or other falsely controversial issues facing America today.

Models for Antarctica Off when it comes to Warming

Uncle Entity

Sat May 10 07:10:39 -0700 2008

manage

I am unaware of groups pushing for reductions of pollution for their own economic & political gain.

Really?

I can think of a bunch just off the top of my head.

Nearly every global warming or alternative energy story has a call for further governmental spending for research or subsidies for further development. Or more government regulation on the polluters.

Models for Antarctica Off when it comes to Warming

Bhima

Sat May 10 08:05:47 -0700 2008

manage

Yes really.

Given that governments are the primary method of interaction between civl societies, that government spending has historically been the largest funder of pure research, the large costs, and potentially slow and uneven returns associated such development, and the necessity of regulation to achieve a real reduction in polluting emissions, it should come as no surprise to anyone that these are the methodologies proposed.  The assertion that because scientists propose such solutions they must do so for their own nefarious self interest is not only inaccurate, it's disingenuous.

Models for Antarctica Off when it comes to Warming

Uncle Entity

Sat May 10 15:28:42 -0700 2008

manage

The assertion that because scientists propose such solutions they must do so for their own nefarious self interest is not only?inaccurate,?it's?disingenuous.

There you go, changing the terms to fit your narrow world view.

Nobody is saying 'nefarious self interest' but you, I was merely demonstrating that scientists on the 'good' side behave in the same way as the 'bad' scientists in regards to economic and political issues.

Now if you're highly biased you can somehow believe that scientists that are working towards the same goals you desire are above this but, truth be told, human nature is human nature no matter how you try to spin it.