Originally posted by traderonwallst
reply to post by jimbo999
Of course I have. Were you claiming to be a member? It was called sarcasm.
A Mensa member would have gotten that.
And yes....as are most of my
family. 
Modelling and Societal Instability
So far I have emphasized the political elements in the current climate hysteria. There can be no question, however, that scientists are abetting this situation. Concerns about funding have already been mentioned. There is, however, another perhaps more important element to the scientific support. The existence of modern computing power has led to innumerable modelling efforts in many fields. Supercomputers have allowed us to consider the behavior of systems seemingly too complex for other approaches. One of those systems is climate. Not surprisingly, there are many problems involved in modelling climate. For example, even supercomputers are inadequate to allow long-term integrations of the relevant equations at adequate spatial resolutions. At presently available resolutions, it is unlikely that the computer solutions are close to the solutions of the underlying equations. In addition, the physics of unresolved phenomena such as clouds and other turbulent elements is not understood to the extent needed for incorporation into models. In view of those problems, it is generally recognized that models are at present experimental tools whose relation to the real world is questionable.
While there is nothing wrong in using those models in an experimental mode, there is a real dilemma when they predict potentially dangerous situations. Should scientists publicize such predictions since the models are almost certainly wrong? Is it proper to not publicize the predictions if the predicted danger is serious? How is the public to respond to such predictions? The difficulty would be diminished if the public understood how poor the models actually are. Unfortunately, there is a tendency to hold in awe anything that emerges from a sufficiently large computer. There is also a reluctance on the part of many modellers to admit to the experimental nature of their models lest public support for their efforts diminish. Nevertheless, with poor and uncertain models in wide use, predictions of ominous situations are virtually inevitable--regardless of reality.
Such weak predictions feed and contribute to what I have already described as a societal instability that can cascade the most questionable suggestions of danger into major political responses with massive economic and social consequences. I have already discussed some of the reasons for this instability: the existence of large cadres of professional planners looking for work, the existence of advocacy groups looking for profitable causes, the existence of agendas in search of saleable rationales, and the ability of many industries to profit from regulation, coupled with an effective neutralization of opposition. It goes almost without saying that the dangers and costs of those economic and social consequences may be far greater than the original environmental danger. That becomes especially true when the benefits of additional knowledge are rejected and when it is forgotten that improved technology and increased societal wealth are what allow society to deal with environmental threats most effectively. The control of societal instability may very well be the real challenge facing us.
Originally posted by Blaine91555
Here is something for everyone too chew on. I've personally been flooded with information as to why Global Warming is real or caused my Human activity. This site appears to have an excellent compilation of the argument the other way.
Mind Candy regarding Global Warming.
Originally posted by Blaine91555
Mind Candy regarding Global Warming.
Originally posted by Blaine91555
reply to post by jimbo999
How is that any different than what you are doing. You are basing your whole opinion on one side of a many sided coin. You don't even pretend to accept that the truth may not be entirely on one side of the debate. So do we all rely on your biased sources or read both sides to get as close as we can to the truth. If the truth is indeed what you are after. Or is it to just win the debate at all costs and ignore anyones opinion other than your own?
Originally posted by traderonwallst
reply to post by jimbo999
And what makes up your consensus. For someone responding as often as you are, your really not saying much.
