Comments on: Tricky, Tricky Mr. Obama

By: JJWFromME

JJWFromME — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 18:11:55 +0000

I already answered the question about models.

By: jlloyd

jlloyd — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 17:04:58 +0000

Not to beat a dead horse, but who in the scientific community has demonstrated that “that large computer climate models are unable to even simulate major features of pastclimate such as the 100 thousand year cycles of ice ages that have dominated climate for the past 700 thousand years, and the very warm climates of the Miocene, Eocene, and Cretaceous. Neither do they do well at accounting for shorter period and less dramaticphenomena like El Nios, quasi-biennial oscillations, or intraseasonal oscillations all of which are well documented in the data”? There are numerous models out there, and they all produce different results. Clearly, they all can’t be right – but it is certainly possible that they all could be wrong. Even if one of them occassionally produced “verifiable” results, it could be for the wrong reasons. A broken watch is, after all, right twice a day. I am not disputing science – but you can’t just say that “science” says something without being specific. I can accept the proposition that mankind has an effect on the climate (so do trees, ants, bacteria, etc.). But what we are talking about is public policy. no one has “proven” that any of the steps being proposed as public policy will have any effect on the problem, or even if there really is a problem. Even assuming some of the proposed solutions are desirable does not make them desirable at any cost. When someone is proposing solutions that are likely to cost trillions of dollars over an extended period of time, shouldn’t we at least ask if those resources could be better spent addressing other real problems? We do not have infinite resources. I don’t see how these sort of questions really have anything to do with “science”.

By: JJWFromME

JJWFromME — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 16:02:38 +0000

And I’ll believe the rest of the scientific community over an eight year old statement from Richard Lindzen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

By: jlloyd

jlloyd — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 15:26:27 +0000

Sinz – My comments were largely based on a post I made yesterday, that repeated, verbatim, testimony given by Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2001: You can scroll down and read the whol thing, but this is in part what he said regarding the computer models. I’d say this raises some serious questions as to whether we should be relying on them to define a problem that requires us to destroy our economy in order to “solve”.

that large computer climate models are unable to even simulate major features of pastclimate such as the 100 thousand year cycles of ice ages that have dominated climate for the past 700 thousand years, and the very warm climates of the Miocene, Eocene, and Cretaceous. Neither do they do well at accounting for shorter period and less dramaticphenomena like El Nios, quasi-biennial oscillations, or intraseasonal oscillations all of which are well documented in the data. * that major past climate changes were either uncorrelated with changes in CO2 or were characterized by temperature changes which preceded changes in CO2 by 100’s to thousands of years. * that increases in temperature on the order of 1F are not catastrophic and may be beneficial. I’ll believe a PHD from MIT over you

By: jlloyd

jlloyd — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 15:18:43 +0000

Sinz – Are you a climatologist? If not, matybe you are the one who should stop pretending to be. There is actually a lot of questions concerning the climate – and I don’t think there is anything wrong with me or anyone welse raising them, particularly when the affect all of us and when there are no apparent answers. Please refer me to the one proven, verifiable “scientific” climate model that has proven that not only is all climate change caused by man, but all the terrible things that people say are going to happen are going to happen. You can’t, so stop hiding behind science and pretending that you can. I also thought this place was to be a forum for debate, not stiffling debate.

By: sinz54

sinz54 — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 14:40:58 +0000

jiloyd: Are you a climatologist? Have you researched those climate models yourself? I’ll repeat what I said before: If you are not a climatologist, then you should NOT play back-seat driver to those who are. Science is done by scientists. Scientific questions are NOT decided by debates in front of non-scientists; those are for the edification of the audience but the scientists themselves gain no additional scientific insight from them. And scientific questions are NEVER decided by political activism.

By: Chekote

Chekote — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 11:12:02 +0000

Perhaps people here should take a look at today’s GDPs numbers? The economy is contracting rapidly. The last we need is to start a new round of taxes and environmental regulations.

By: jlloyd

jlloyd — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 11:00:55 +0000

Keegan – Why like cap and trade? Is CO2 a “pollutant”? It is a natural by product of the respiration of every animal on this planet (including polar bears). It is not toxic. It is necessary for plant life, and an intergral part of making the planet habitable. Is it the governments’ “perrogative” to limit our breathing? Are we going to invest billions coming up with new respiration technologies? Chekote is right – the climate is constantly changing, and just because humans, and every other species on this planet has an effect on climate doesn’t justify the naked power grab being proposed. The real issues are that all of the doom and gloom scenarios being put forth by the so called greenies are based on unproven and unverifieable projections spewed out by computer models that are constantly being proven to be wrong, and that the so called “solutions”, such as Kyoto, and cap and trade, will not have any effect whatsoever on the problems these models are predicting. What we do know is that the “solutions” will be expensive, will limit freedom, will hurt economic development, will hurt the poor, and will increase the power of government. No thanks.

By: Chekote

Chekote — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 10:45:50 +0000

Haven’t you guys gotten the memo? It is not Global Waming anymore. It is Climate Chage. The world is cooling too much to sustain the Global Warming terminology. So now it is Climate Change. Newsbreak: The world is constantly going through Climate Change. Did you guys ever hear of the Ice Age? Did the have SUVs back then? or the smokestack industry?

By: Keegan

Keegan — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 04:12:32 +0000

I’m a conservative and I like cap and trade.

Limiting emissions of pollution is the government’s perrogative, and a good cap/trade is the best way to do that without imposing inflexible limits.

It gives an incentive to the development of new technology without forcing the transition on any indivisual businesses.