Comments on: Global warming science

By: John Hasenkam

John Hasenkam — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 09:00:31 +0000

I agree Clothcap and have no problem with eco or climate modeling. We have to start somewhere and given the amount of research into climate modeling it may be the case that the models have been subject to far more intensive labour than in economics. To give you an example: there was a competition run to see who could best predict economic indicators for each year. Simon Turnbull, the Aus psychic, beat all the economic analysts in two years. This means that the economic models and intuition employed actually made predicting worse or Turnbull really is psychic. Take your pick. The big problem for economists is that human behavior is more chaotic than the weather. Poor bastards.

By: Clothcap

Clothcap — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 08:48:59 +0000

John, imo mydigest would appear to be responding with overemphasis on the negative with regard to models. I would assume as for climate modeling, so for economic modeling. As new factors are found, more accurate data is accumulated, computer capability improves and models refined, the difference between reality and projections gets smaller. There is no argument that models are improving and for the short term are useful, the bogey, the unpredictables are becoming less unpredictable as understanding increases. That is still very far from saying that pension funds etc should base investments on anything that depends on the accuracy of climate projections that are used as predictions. I would suppose that holds equally for economic projections. The ocean moods are far from predictable, oil price hikes, stock market shifts, deadly disease etc. can all occur unexpectedly, and do. To forge policy on what sums up to good or bad guesswork is insane and continues so.
But to answer your question, still imo, the continuance of modeling is desirable so it can improve. Its use for long term projection with current understanding and data acquisition, quality, volume and processing ability is fraught with problems. Otherwise there would be no stock market losers.
I hope mydigest is still around and responds to you.

By: John Hasenkam

John Hasenkam — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 23:24:00 +0000

mygest,

If you are correct then your argument is also true of economics. So what is the point of so much economic modelling?

By: Clothcap

Clothcap — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 22:07:26 +0000

“In short it is all crap.”
One year later, nothing has changed.
What the big unknown (yet another) is how much of a lag killer the current La Nina / sunspot absence will prove to be. A source of worry for politicians everywhere now dependent on the tax from the co2 warming myth. And the IPCC is still fishing for a global tax in the tens of billions, that they will control should the idiots that rule us cede.
’twill make fun reading for kids studying history in the future.
And what about the poor polar bears eh?

By: mike holmes

mike holmes — Sat, 14 Apr 2007 20:34:59 +0000

The problem with the commentator who wants all the amateurs to butt out so the complex subject subject of climate control can be handled by the experts it that it was experts like Hitler Stalin and Bush who have created some of the worlds greatest disasters. My view is if the science is so complex the average college graduation cannot understand it, then its probably b.s. anyway and doesn’t deserve much credibility. That is certainly the case with the arguments on global warming and all the “forcing” theory. Basically anyone can come up with complex formulas that explain whatever they want but if a lot of others disagree then it is hardly science. For example, look at basic algebra, nobody but nobody disagrees with how algebraic formulas work so they are unquestionable. Global warming formulas are all over the ball park and everybody but everybody disagrees on everyone as to exact inputs appropriate tweaking etc. In short it is all crap.

By: mydigest

mydigest — Fri, 15 Dec 2006 22:54:51 +0000

The fact that the maths is sophisticated means nothing. The models are of no value. You can model a jet engine, or a rendezvous in orbit. These are simple physical activities with limited variation. But the climate modelling is as doomed to failure as trying to model, say, individual & social human sexual orentation, as affected by environment and behaviour would be.

You cannot model complicated and interactive organic systems. You may BELIEVE you can, and that you are doing a great job, but you are mistaken. Future generations (if they ever even become aware of your fatuous and ludicrous claims for your models) will hold you in derision and contempt.

Of course we need to output as little unwanted side-product into our air, water and humus as possible. This needs no silly ‘prepare to meet thy doom’ or ‘we have sinned and must be punished’ priest-like smiting/crusade/holy-war. In the West, clean is seen to be the best policy. Planet Earth is gradually being Westernised. Good.

But for the healthy journalistic publicising of REAL damaging effects to have become segued into a situation where politians are conned by fake-science and plain cranks is disasterous: road building and oil drilling stopped; the West made vulnerable to theist enemies; hard-won gains seized away.

Cy Quick at mydigest.wordpress.com

By: graemebird

graemebird — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 15:06:19 +0000

“What is truth?” asked jesting Pilate (Lambert)
And would not stay for an answer.

Come on Lambert. Where is your positive evidence?

You and the others have kept this balloon afloat on hot air alone.

By: GW skeptics, alarmists & denialists « Thoughts on Freedom

GW skeptics, alarmists & denialists « Thoughts on Freedom — Sun, 03 Dec 2006 14:08:57 +0000

[...] In contrast, skeptics are skeptical of the need for government action for a number of reasons. Some people doubt the degree our knowledge of previous global warming. Some people doubt how much co2 impacts on temperatures (the lambda debate). Others accept a probably temperature increase within the mainstream range (1.5 – 4.5 degree increase this century) but question whether the consequences will be bad or believe that the consequences are not as bad as the consequences from action. [...]

By: graemebird

graemebird — Sun, 03 Dec 2006 08:01:51 +0000

Lambert. You just stop bullshitting.

Give us some eovidence that CO2 warms to any substantial degree. And lets not get sidetracked on this Lamda JIVE.

Annan based 3 degrees as a result of a doubling of CO2…. not on the effect of an increase of CO2 in history. But instead on the effect of a diminution of solar power in history.

This is junk science, scientific fraud, Its a goddamned lie.

So you just stop being an idiot Tim and come up with real evidence. Stop your evil propagandizing.

By: terje (say tay-a)

terje (say tay-a) — Wed, 29 Nov 2006 22:09:04 +0000

Brendan,

If we must have scriptures lets at least get it right.

In the beginning humans created supply. And when they had enough of it to satisfy their own wants they found that the surplus could be traded for other things. Thus supply begat supply and it was good.

But soon some evil nob invented something called “command” and proceeded to organise society in new ways. But society rebelled against the evil nob. So the evil nob renamed “command” and formulated a false religion in which “demand” is the source of all prosperity. And the people were tricked by the false religion and so “command” still oppressed the people. And a dark shadow was cast across the world.

Regards,
Terje.