Jump to content

Dont Blame Me I Voted For McCain

Recommended Posts

vol_scouter writes:

I was just pointing out that the definition you were applying to GW would not allow climatologists to be scientists.


Not at all. If they develop models that make predictions and refine them based on how well or badly the predictions work, that's science (and that's what they do).


So GW's definition is a valid one.


I haven't said anything about GW's definition; I pointed out that his examples of how "science" has been wrong were not examples of science. The four elements as a physics explanation was not derived using the scientific method, so it's senseless to hold it up as an example. It's like criticizing the FAA by pointing out how many times the Wright brothers crashed.


Once again, the climate models though improving cannot predict what is going to happen in the next decades.


Well, of course they can, the question is how accurate are they.


Some but not all models seem to point to worsening warming. However, the earth has been cooling for the last ~18 months (from my memory) with climate models now predicting an impending ice age. We do not clearly understand solar cycles and their impact on the climate models. To ruin our economy in order to decrease warming that we are not actually causing is folly. We will only know the correct answer retrospectively but I cannot support ruining our economy based on our current data and models though I could be wrong.


Wait, are you saying weather models are iffy, but economic models are perfect? You can say for certain that, say, a large government project to develop more efficient and new energy sources similar in magnitude to the space program would necessarily ruin the economy, instead of being a big technological boost to the economy? I don't think you can.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 61
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic



The economic models are poor at best. So I would certainly trust climate models more than economic models. The Kyoto protocols would rapidly change the energy use in this country. If you buy consensus opinion on global warming then you should buy consensus economic opinion as to enactment of the Kyoto protocols. Even most democrats do not support Kyoto. Clinton did not push for enactment of Kyoto and commented that the protocols would be economically ruinous. Certainly, if the most pessimistic global warming proponents are correct, moving aggressively to a less 'carbon based' energy economy would be wise. On the other hand, if the earth is starting a cooling trend, the move could be economic disaster. I am not convinced that we are experiencing mankind caused global warming but I would support reasonable measures to decrease fossil fuels. upon purchase but cars should also be evaluated by efficiency where many SUV's aFor example, develop nuclear which is a ready source of base load electricity. We should then try to carefully determine if some of the activities using fossil fuels could be converted to electricity. We should phase out long haul trucking and change to rail systems. In large cities, we should encourage the use of mass transit. Cars should be rated on efficiency as well as gas mileage. Certain kinds of cars should not be banned but as in phasing out long haul trucking, gradual increases in gas guzzler taxes should be implemented. These can be implemented over many years so as to not suddenly disrupt the economy. Constructing nuclear lants also could help us to regain the capacity of heavy industry.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Create New...