Originally Posted by Justin '77

Well of course not. One of the arguments made against swallowing the garbage that a model spits out is: "you don't understand the system dynamics well enough to model them". It's not an issue of 'tweaking the constants'. Curve-fitting programs do that just fine, anyway. The question is in writing the algorithms. That's where science is done.

How is someone supposed to offer a competing model, when there's no underlying understanding there to begin with? You complain that the skeptics haven't produced enough meaningless squiggly lines of their own? What about science?

Well, if you throw the word 'meaningless' around freely without saying why you feel free to use it, you are playing propaganda games.

As Mike says, no one is arguing the CO2 aspect of the model. One can measure the amount of CO2, and one knows it does, how it might be inserted into the atmosphere, and how it might be removed. Similarly, one can count sunspots, measure solar radiation against sunspots, and watch temperatures rise and fall with sunspots. One can also measure sulfur dioxide and methane in the atmosphere. One can watch Earth's orbit change with the Milankovitch equations, and see that reflected in the historic record. One can measure the amount of soot in the air, see how soot and jet con trails cause cloud formation, and calculate how much energy gets reflected back into space by clouds. One can even dig into the old ice cores, and see where changes in the levels of this gas cause that much temperature variation and observe how many species die off.

The computer models are just an attempt to do all that at once. Any one of the above factors might be understood reasonably at a layman's level. More energy from the sun, it gets warmer. More light reflected back into space, it gets colder. The Earth moves closer to the sun, it gets warmer. Etc... Creating an algorithm, an equation that describes any one of the many factors involved, is not meaningless or mysterious. You just have to balance the effects of one influence against all the others. I'll accept your logic that curve tweaking algorithms can fit the curves automatically and objectively, given that one has a reasonable term in one's equation which reflects each physically real phenomena.

Now, I don't see algorithms (Al Gore Rhythms?) being added to the models without a meaningful theory and measurement to support them. To insert new equations, you have to insert new theory. For example, the curve fit is poor from 1950 through 1970. There is a period of cooling that isn't well explained. Well, as Mike spelled out, they have been looking into CO2 levels for decades. Global dimming, the study of man made cloud formations, is fairly new. It has only been since about 2000 that they started looking into that one. So, you have to look at your ice cores again. How many particles were in the air in any given year? How many planes were flying at what altitudes, releasing how much energy into their exhaust? You design your algorithm to fit some real physical mechanism that can be observed in nature and reproduced in the laboratory. You don't add algorithms to the models, with their new constants to tweak, until you can defend them as meaningful.

Unless you are propagandizing. Unless you are trying to modify scientific research or dismiss the results based on motivations from outside science.

Anyway, I disagree with your free use of the word 'meaningless.' Give me a reason to suppose that the models are meaningless. I also disagree with the general proposition that global warming is religion or dogma rather than science. In this exchange, as in the general discussion to the public, the warming advocates are pointing at output from reviewed journalists, while the skeptics are presenting emotion and disinformation. Calling scientific work 'meaningless' without backing it up, and asserting one is not going to believe without giving a logical account as to why, is from my perspective closer to religious thinking, an emotion and faith based adherence to old values.

People do cling to old values. People do not like to change. That isn't weather theory, but turning theory. The establishment, the group who has wealth and power under the old system, who have a vested interest in the old system, is apt to refuse to see problems that are going to force changes in the crisis. That trend is as consistent as increased CO2 levels or sunspot activity leading to warming. When I see people closing their eyes and standing rigidly still when Truth is coming on like a slow moving steam roller, I am not surprised. That's what I am seeing here.

I've got a question for Justin, Robert Reed, and other skeptics: Do you feel that we should be taking steps to reduce pollution and dependence on non-renewable resources?

Mikebert posted the following choice, which I totally agree with:

What happens if governments and individuals take steps to reduce global warming such as controlling pollution and conserving oil and other non-renewable resources and it turns out that there is no global warming. As a result of our "mistake", we get cleaner air, new technologies, and end oil dependency.

What happens if governments and individuals do nothing to avert global warming and it turns out that there is global warming. The results are very bad to catastrophic.

I would rather make the first type of mistake then the second.

This transcends partisan politics. I personally think that Gore weakened his case in "Inconvenient Truth" by including shots of his run for the presidency. This isn't about politics to me -- its about the quality of life I (God willing) spend my old age in and bequeath to my daughter and any children that she may have.

"We do not have to suppose; we know that these speculations will be met by a superior smile of incredulity." -- Stuart Chase, A New Deal (1932)

Originally Posted by Mike

Justin would have us believe... we cannot easily say that it is inadvisable to go over the falls in a barrel.

Likewise, Mike would have us believe... we can easily say that it is advisable to go over the falls in a barrel. Hey, why not? It'll be fun saving Mother Earth from the folly of mankind! Of course, I recall hearing these words before:

"Why should Russia have all the fun remaking the world?" -- Stuart Chase, A New Deal (1932)

Strauss and Howe, proposing a theory of how we might learn from these terrifying moments of great crisis folly, should be honest enough to confess that their powerful theory is quite powerless against misplaced faith of the Anointed Barrelmakers.

Yes, I am smiling a smile of abject credulity, my liberal friends, but never fear, your moment of fun is soon coming.

Originally Posted by The Rani

I drive a hybrid car. Whether others choose to do so is up to them.

Looking to the government to fight the power never works. The options to live green are available if people look for them.

I don't see the two as mutually exclusive. Take responsibility for yourself, but also work to make sure that the government is governing effectively. Some things are too big for the individual.

I drive a hybrid. One of the reasons why I do is that the Federal Government put in a tax credit of $3,100 to encourage hybrid purchases for tax year 2006. Without that tax credit, I may have opted for a high-end generic compact, like a Mazda Protege with a sunroof and leather seats and somewhat lower gas mileage.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Originally Posted by Mr. Reed

I am skeptical that human activity is warming the planet. The fact that the issue is being politicized is fueling my skepticism...

... Why isn't this observation being made more loudly? All other things being equal, shouldn't an endorsement from a politician -- a breed not well known for choosing the truth when shouting to the rooftops -- be a cause for increased skepticism?

OK, but the politicians doing most of the advocating are on the do-nothing side of the issue. Are you in favor of do-something, then. It seems out of character.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Thank goodness the political modes that are being advocated have such a minimal capability to actually do what they set out to - otherwise the great mobs that will uncritically eat whatever's put in font of them could actually do some damage. I'm looking forward, a decade and a half from now, to laughing my ass off at the fools who fell for it again.

H-m-m-m. The prevailing winds point toward environmental action and energy constraint ... all good things, regardless of whether Global Warming(TM) has validity of not. Conoco-Philips is one of the more recent converts.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

And I just love the fact that Dyson sees eye-to-eye with me: Concerning the climate models, I know enough of the details to be sure that they are unreliable.

So I'll ask you, since no else seems interested in answering, show me a cost-benefit equation that balances in favor of doing nothing. Then, justify it. Be sure to add the full value of the risks you're taking.

"Why should Russia have all the fun remaking the world?" -- Stuart Chase, A New Deal (1932)

"It is fun to be in the same decade with you." (Franklin Roosevelt to Winston Churchill.)

Well, some people might have had fun during the last crisis. It wasn't fun for everyone. Still, I'm pleased that Stuart, Franklin and Winston got to play.

I just hope we are half way near as lucky in getting similar rambunctious rebels to overthrow the status quo next time around.

Originally Posted by The Rani

I drive a hybrid car. Whether others choose to do so is up to them.

Looking to the government to fight the power never works. The options to live green are available if people look for them.

Three comments:

1. It is only an option to drive a hybrid for those financially able and knowledgeable enough to buy one. There's a reason most Priuses live on college campuses.
2. Choice is only an option in ideal cases. Choosing to jump to your death rather be consumed in a burning building is not choice.
3. Most people will not live green, even when it's obvious that this is necessary. It will be someone else's problem.

Which tends to move the options into the 'mandates' arena, and hence under the purview of government ... like it or not.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Voodoo? Last year we had one tropical storm hit, and Accu Weather was all over it.

(image snipped -- C&C)

See? They got the count of tropical storm hits exactly right! Of course, the total lack of hurricanes last year sort of detracts from the accuracy of the tropical storm forecast.

Doctor Grey is more willing to make predictions than most voodoo practitioners, thus the press rewards him with the status of expert, but his record isn't all that wonderful.

I have followed hurricanes all my life. It's a necessary task in the land of the Father of Waters; a 'cane can ruin your day, not to mention your property values.

Towards the end of 2005 it became blantantly clear that current models were failing. Hurricanes were living far longer than they should, and new hurricanes were emerging in places they shouldn't. Hurricanes were strengthening and weakening unexpectedly. I was surprised that the 2006 predictions were so far off, but I wasn't surprised that they were off. When you start having reports like this, you've got problems:

Originally Posted by NATIONAL HURRICANE CENTER MIAMI FL

HURRICANE EPSILON DISCUSSION NUMBER 21
10 AM EST SUN DEC 04 2005

THERE ARE NO CLEAR REASONS...AND I AM NOT GOING TO MAKE ONE UP...TO EXPLAIN THE RECENT STRENGTHENING OF EPSILON AND I AM JUST DESCRIBING THE FACTS...THE UPPER LEVEL WINDS ARE EXPECTED TO BE HIGHLY UNFAVORABLE AND EPSILON WILL LIKELY BECOME A REMNANT LOW. I HEARD THAT BEFORE ABOUT EPSILON...HAVEN'T YOU?

HURRICANE EPSILON DISCUSSION NUMBER 25
10 AM EST MON DEC 05 2005

EPSILON HAS IGNORED THE COLD SSTS AS WELL AS THE STRONG UPPER-LEVEL WESTERLIES AND HAS MAINTAINED HURRICANE STRENGTH. I AM NOT GOING TO SPECULATE ANY MORE ON THE FUTURE INTENSITY OF EPSILON AND WILL JUST FOLLOW SHIPS AND GFDL WHICH ARE THE BEST GUIDANCE AVAILABLE.

HURRICANE EPSILON DISCUSSION NUMBER 28
4 AM EST TUE DEC 06 2005
I HAVE RUN OUT OF THINGS TO SAY...

The quotes weren't quite so pithy on other hurricanes, but Katrina, Rita, and Beta weren't supposed to be that strong, and the season was of course way heavier than expected. The '06 predictions were overhyped on the assumption that the same conditions would occur the next year, which they didn't. Nobody knows why '05 was so loud or why '06 was so quiet.

Yet we must keep trying: billions of dollars rides on our ability to understand just how likely a descent of the wrath of God is in particular places. So take Dr. Gray with a whole shaker of salt, please... but don't laugh at him.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

This transcends partisan politics. I personally think that Gore weakened his case in "Inconvenient Truth" by including shots of his run for the presidency. This isn't about politics to me -- its about the quality of life I (God willing) spend my old age in and bequeath to my daughter and any children that she may have.

You and me both.

Originally Posted by The Rani

I drive a hybrid car. Whether others choose to do so is up to them.

Looking to the government to fight the power never works. The options to live green are available if people look for them.

Hey I drive a hybrid too. Sometimes I ride my bike for transpo, sometimes I drive my 12mpg Durango. My transportation is cheeseburger/dinosaur fueled.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

I've got a question for Justin, Robert Reed, and other skeptics: Do you feel that we should be taking steps to reduce pollution and dependence on non-renewable resources?

Mikebert posted the following choice, which I totally agree with:

What happens if governments and individuals take steps to reduce global warming such as controlling pollution and conserving oil and other non-renewable resources and it turns out that there is no global warming. As a result of our "mistake", we get cleaner air, new technologies, and end oil dependency.

What happens if governments and individuals do nothing to avert global warming and it turns out that there is global warming. The results are very bad to catastrophic.

I would rather make the first type of mistake then the second.

This transcends partisan politics. I personally think that Gore weakened his case in "Inconvenient Truth" by including shots of his run for the presidency. This isn't about politics to me -- its about the quality of life I (God willing) spend my old age in and bequeath to my daughter and any children that she may have.

And I agree.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Three comments:
It is only an option to drive a hybrid for those financially able and knowledgeable enough to buy one. There's a reason most Priuses live on college campuses.

I really don't think Priuii are a step in any direction. But they do make college professors feel better

Choice is only an option in ideal cases. Choosing to jump to your death rather be consumed in a burning building is not choice.

It most certainly is a choice. Because the context sucks, the person doesn't have choice? Most of life is lived in non-ideal cases. Way to usurp the little agency ppl do actually have

Most people will not live green, even when it's obvious that this is necessary. It will be someone else's problem.

Which tends to move the options into the 'mandates' arena, and hence under the purview of government ... like it or not.

Ppl will live green when it benefits them. This shouldn't be that hard to do since eco-nomics and eco-logy are both about interconnected resources.

What if ppl had the true costs of our auto society made clear to them? What if they were aware that a crappy ford escort costs them 6000$ a year to operate? What if maintenance of the roadway infrastructure came out of fuel taxes? The PTB have worked so hard to hide the costs of our oil-based society, that the average schmuck has no idea.

Forcing ppl to live green is simply another layer on top of the lies and persuasions. The govt encouraging ppl to buy priuii is kind of a joke really. The green society of the future will not be automobile based.

Seriously, between the embedded cost of a new manufacture, and the cost of maintaining this particular system for another generation of motor vehicles, do you really think those extra few mpg are an environmental benefit?

No. So buy an old car with a big engine, and burn up the dinos ASAP. The sooner we do that, the sooner we move into the fairytale future.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Three comments:

1. It is only an option to drive a hybrid for those financially able and knowledgeable enough to buy one. There's a reason most Priuses live on college campuses.

No, the greatest concentration of Priuses (Priui?) are in Northern Virginia, where hybrids purchased before 7/1/06 were allowed to use the carpool lanes on I-95 and I-395 and hybrids purchased anytime are still allowed to use the carpool lanes on I-66.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

I've got a question for Justin, Robert Reed, and other skeptics: Do you feel that we should be taking steps to reduce pollution and dependence on non-renewable resources?

Mikebert posted the following choice, which I totally agree with:

What happens if governments and individuals take steps to reduce global warming such as controlling pollution and conserving oil and other non-renewable resources and it turns out that there is no global warming. As a result of our "mistake", we get cleaner air, new technologies, and end oil dependency.

What happens if governments and individuals do nothing to avert global warming and it turns out that there is global warming. The results are very bad to catastrophic.

I would rather make the first type of mistake then the second.

This transcends partisan politics. I personally think that Gore weakened his case in "Inconvenient Truth" by including shots of his run for the presidency. This isn't about politics to me -- its about the quality of life I (God willing) spend my old age in and bequeath to my daughter and any children that she may have.

Funny thing is that is exactly the logic my Catholic HS used to get us teenaged boys back into church.

It doesn't address the problem that there might not be a god in the first place.

It is certainly good that there is no economic cost to all those benefits.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

I've got a question for Justin, Robert Reed, and other skeptics: Do you feel that we should be taking steps to reduce pollution and dependence on non-renewable resources?

...

I heard an advocate for the Carbon Tax as a replacement for the tax upon labor last night on PBS' NewsHour. Rather than Filth Trading Schemes that would only profit the classes who have already been rewarded for their informational manipulations the return would be on the first dollar earned by every income earner.

I would like a Carbon Tax and a Naval Tariff to reduce our military interest in Eurasia and the Several Continents. Cleaning the air is problematic as the lack of filth allows greater heating to pass through. Mr. Butler has proposed clean filth to be spewed in the place of filthy filth; I would agree with this.

One ought not squander resources. I drive a 1976 Ford F250 pickup that gets 16 miles per gallon. As I often had to drive the aged parent to her medical appointments in her Toyota, I put 39 miles on the Ford. Would it be better for the environment to replace such a vehicle with a hybrid or burn the 2.5 gallons of gas?

I have been confronted by a Government Scientist with a Model. His map of my property did conflict with the reality of my property and he would have resorted to the power of the State to repair reality to conform to the model. He grudgingly allowed that reality might prevail after his legal threats and his further investigation did show that my actions had not altered what Providence had provided. But, Poltical Science is a dangerous master.

We ought be careful but not miserly with the liberal bounty offered up God, Nature's God, Nature but not for the reasons of the a Procrustean Modelling in Scientific Drag. True Believers ought not so fear Truth.

Originally Posted by antichrist

I really don't think Priuii are a step in any direction. But they do make college professors feel better

Why do you think this? Replacing a 20 mpg car with a 45 mpg car to drive 15,000 miles a year will mean consuming 4000 fewer gallons of gasoline over a ten year period than you otherwise would. Surely that reduces the amount of CO2 you personally generate.

Originally Posted by Mr. Robt. Townshend

Is anyone else starting to notice similarities between the climate-catastrophists and the pre-reformation church? We have the dispensations for elites (private jets for those who spread "awareness"); the hawking of indulgences (carbon credits); crusade monies raised then “temporarily” diverted (consultancies, administration fees, sundries, more sundries); papal lavishness (Gore mansion, lifestyle); threats of excommunication to cower the mighty (even our John Howard!); heresies (observational science) outlawed in favour of pure revelation (computer models); lawless but untouchable zealots roaming the countryside and the high-seas (Greenpeace)....


Who will rid us of these turbulent priests?

Is Al Gore our time's Alexander VI (Rodrigo Borgia)?

Originally Posted by The Rani

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Most people will not live green, even when it's obvious that this is necessary. It will be someone else's problem ... Which tends to move the options into the 'mandates' arena, and hence under the purview of government ... like it or not.

Egad. Who voted you dictator? I'm sure that Hitler thought that eradication of the genetically defective was also obviously necessary.

With regards to my little hybrid car, I don't pretend that it's going to save the planet. I think of them as a step towards real alternative fuels.

So when would the evidence be substantial enough to mandate anything in your world? If never, then is it OK if I kill you when you're eating the last of the food?

Originally Posted by The Rani

No way, I'll kill you first. I'd have to snag my brother-in-law's guns, but he has lots to spare.

Does this mean we're 4T now?

Originally Posted by The Rani

No way, I'll kill you first.

Uh, you simply do not understand the equation here. Your self-defense reaction is understandable, but this guy's gonna kill you in the name of the greater good. What great calling is there than that?

Thus your act of self-defense is merely underscoring the reason why he needs to kill you in the first place.

Get a grip, lady, to liberals your next breath is a privilege, not a "inalienable right" given by "Nature's God."

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Does this mean we're 4T now?

Certainly, when the above becomes an everyday reality dissenters face, yes, we be 4T.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Interesting. And as Australia is a parlementary system, it would follow that the policy input in question resulting in such outcomes is the state parlement.
Does every state have the same policy? If so, how did such a strong consensus emerge?

Pretty much, I am not sure how it did. The Australia political system does make it easier for small lobby groups to influence the government.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Why do you think this? Replacing a 20 mpg car with a 45 mpg car to drive 15,000 miles a year will mean consuming 4000 fewer gallons of gasoline over a ten year period than you otherwise would. Surely that reduces the amount of CO2 you personally generate.

I don't think personal automobiles as we know them are in the long term future. I think the simple availability of fuels will be a larger driver of the transition than global warming concerns. That's my guess at least.

This is not to say that I don't like the Prius. They would be great for city driving, where the low end torque of the electric motor would be most useful. They do have a certain funky style, and are cetainly geek-cool. They have a progressive connotation which is its largest selling factor. And the chevy hybrid pickup with outlets in the bed? Way too cool.

Originally Posted by zilch

Uh, you simply do not understand the equation here. Your self-defense reaction is understandable, but this guy's gonna kill you in the name of the greater good. What great calling is there than that?

Thus your act of self-defense is merely underscoring the reason why he needs to kill you in the first place.

Get a grip, lady, to liberals your next breath is a privilege, not a "inalienable right" given by "Nature's God."

Who are you and what have you done with zilch?

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Justin would have us believe that because we cannot easily predict the exact path a barrel will take as it goes over Niagra falls (turbulent flow is poorly understood) we cannot easily say (without any modeling) that it is inadvisable to go over the falls in a barrel.

Mike would have you believe that the interaction of solar hydrodynamics, atmospheriс, lithospheric, and hydrospheric (and biospheric) chemical interplays, and the movement of the system through the galactic topography (for example, the timing of some larger climate cycles has been found to coincide quite nicely with the passage of the Sol system through the spiral arms of the Milky Way) -- which itself is not mapped in the adequate micro to make less than thousand-year approximations -- is perfectly analogous to the action of gravity on a falling object.

Engineers are known for their ability to simplify things (treat your 'horse' as a 'sphere', and all that), but that seems a bit going overboard to me...