So far I haven't seen any 'taxes' that directly effect me. Exactly what 'taxes' are they supposed to be? Nobody knows. Models are useful because with enough science and data you can use various kinds of higher math to chart what will happen if you change the variables. As new data comes available the models get more complex, but the end result is a good indication of what the real world results will be. That's how they build airplanes, ships, bridges and figure out all kinds of MBA stuff... the entire modern world is built on models... why is climate different?
The GOP/Tea/Fox/Jesus freak party has gone totally nuts particularly where scientific investigation is concerned. While the 'conservatives' try to hang on to the past, the future is already here. Women will have abortions, black people will vote, gays will get married, solar and wind will slowly replace fossil fuels, and without massive 'government' investment our social and physical infrastructure will fall apart. Unless will rearrange our economy everything worth owning will owned, managed, co-opted or controlled by a few massive trans national corporations....including 'our' government. Under this kind of fascisti regime the 95% of us that work for hourly wages will be reduced to beggars....even the guy who posted this 'question.
Nuclear power is not safe, especially if you live in an area of the world that has earthquakes or tsunami's. Also your forgetting that any waste material produced will be toxic for several millions of years. I don't believe that Nuclear Power is cost affective, as you need specialist contractors to build, maintain and work with them and they don't come cheap. Plus there is more risk of something going wrong and waste material or leaks entering our water courses and then the food chain and then Cancer for everyone who eats or drinks the contaminated produce etc...
Consider the fact that liberals have rejected the recommendations of the very 'climate scientists' they revere who have come out strongly for nuclear power.
Damn near zero CO2 emissions, yet liberals reject it.
Speaks volumes
Top US climate scientists support development of safe nuclear power
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2...
Some of the world's top climate scientists say wind and solar energy won't be enough to head off extreme global warming, and they're asking environmentalists to support the development of safer nuclear power as one way to cut fossil fuel pollution.
Four scientists who have played a key role in alerting the public to the dangers of climate change sent letters Sunday to leading environmental groups and politicians around the world. The letter, an advance copy of which was given to the Associated Press, urges a crucial discussion on the role of nuclear power in fighting climate change.
Environmentalists agree that global warming is a threat to ecosystems and humans, but many oppose nuclear power and believe that new forms of renewable energy will be able to power the world within the next few decades. That isn't realistic, the letter said.
"Those energy sources cannot scale up fast enough" to deliver the amount of cheap and reliable power the world needs, and "with the planet warming and carbon dioxide emissions rising faster than ever, we cannot afford to turn away from any technology" that has the potential to reduce greenhouse gases.
Print this out and put on your refrigerator for later review.
The weather bureau has released their predictions for this coming winter. In the "Great Lakes Region" they are predicting a very cold winter with heavy precipitation.
The Farmers Almanac, which came out with their predictions several months ago.....are saying we will have slightly above normal temperatures and slightly below normal precipitation.
Now remember, the Weather Service has thousands of weather gathering stations, hundreds of scientists, and several super computers that can map out weather patterns over the next 100 years! Yet their predictions last year was completely wrong.
On the other hand, the folks at the Farmers Almanac have no scientists, just a handful of writers and staff. A few of them have thermometers, but mostly they depend on common sense and past weather data. Last year they were accurate in their weather predictions.
Yet libs still want to believe these "weather scientists" predictions that we will have a global catastrophe within 50 years if we don't do something about climate change.
These same people also predicted in the 70's that we would be in the middle of global freezing within 20 years. Google the "ice age" and "time magazine" and check it out.
Libs are funny.
Most of the realists in here think nuclear is the way to go including me. I have mentioned this before. Others have also mentioned that 'global warmers' are also not just left wing. Some prominent posters in here vote right wing yet acknowledge AGW. You are turning this into a political rant.
Well Stalin lied and was successful. Hitler and Goebbels brought lying up to a fine science. You would think our modern day propagandists could do better, especially with a 'computer' thrown into the mix.
They don't. There are lots of other evidence. The models are an attempt to clarify it.
What does that science have politics?
Pegminer, I delete the rest to make this EXTREMELY CLEAR.
In order to justify a nuclear solution with research funding to decrease cost of solar and batteries, you don't need catastrophe. All you need is concern about AGW and knowledge that the fossil fuel supply is limited. Both of which I have.
In order to justify regressive tax solutions and 2% of GWP (multi-trillion dollar) solutions you need CERTAIN CATASTROPHE. The very same certain catastrophe that you claim, but back up with no evidence.
Crop loss, droughts, floods, extreme increases in sea level (not 3mm/year), extreme increases in temps (not 0.8 degrees in 100 years). All of which you make a pretense of certianty and knowledge but supply NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE. Science is based upon observation and experimentation, not overestimating models. Look up the definition of science if you do not believe me.
You ask for the very same political solutions that necessitate certain catastrophe to justify the solutions, WHILE not providing any scientific evidence to justify your dismissal of the solutions that do not require catastrophe.
I have been trying to determine why intelligent scientists (and I am including you in this group, because you are intelligent, no matter how baised I believe you to be) are making claims that are FARRRRR more certain than the evidence can support and FARRRR more catastrophic than the evidence can support.
Politics is the answer. You accuse me of being political in my reasoning. You even accuse me of being neo-conservative (though I don't know any neo-conservatives who hold the stances I hold). BUT I can back my claims with scientific evidence and my lack of claims with both scientific evidence and lack thereof.
You and many other climate scientists, however, are letting politics bias your view of science. And if 95% of climate models overestimating is not evidence of bias, I don't know what is.
And the most frustrating part!!! Not that you are biasing science to such a point that non-scientists rightfully question and even wrongly completely disregard your studies (though that is frustrating). No. The most frustrating part is that you blithely disregard the very same solutions that your "opponents" would readily support.
You literally take such an unreasonable stance, that a former liberal, now libertarian is siding with conservatives and scientist (whether you think I am or not) takes a view on climate science that is against the view of most climate scientists. You think me ignorant of science? I have applied my skill in stats to many fields of science and have never seen 95% of models overestimating. Nor have I ever seen such claims of certianty on such noisy inconclusive data.
You make an absurd statement.
Pegminer answers it.
Raisin uses it as an excuse to rant about what pegminer didn't say.
Other deniers chime in that environmentalists all hate nuclear power, ignoring the pro-nuke statements by environmentalists.
Y! global warming as usual.
Not just on faith, but they seem to expect us to accept their regressive tax solutions as well. Isn't it rather convenient that their tax solutions meet their liberal agenda, whereas the nuclear power solution that most of them seem to hate, matches the conservative agenda?
How much faith do you expect from me, when you will not even work with your "opponents" to get the clean and safe nuclear power solution running? Do you really have fear of AGW, or is it just an act to promote your politics?
Not faith, science.
But you're a global warming denier.
Science is not your forte.
You dont have to just accept them. look at your thermometer? Its like saying "Why do nuclear scientists expect us to just accept their fission equations on faith?" You take that on faith too but I dont see anyone contradicting them. Also, just about everything their models predicted would happen by now has.
They don't, but they do expect people to respect scientific evidence. It is the global warming deniers that are rejecting the results of empirical evidence and nay saying based on nothing more than their "faith" in right wing sound bites, or at least if they do have scientific proof denying man caused global warming, I have not seen it.
Clean nuclear power does sound good to me, and am willing to work for that.
It's less about the environment and more about power. They have declared themselves the "voice of the planet" and now speak for it.
Like many people in this group, you can't seem to separate your politics from your science. I'm not sure what "regressive tax solutions" you're referring to, but I am quite certain that the tax system does not enter into climate modeling at all. If you're confused on this point, I might suggest perusing a book such as "Introduction to Three-Dimensional Climate Modeling" by Washington and Parkinson or "Atmospheric Modeling, Data Assimilation and Predictability" by Kalnay. I've yet to find anything about the tax code in either one.
One's opinion on nuclear power also has absolutely nothing to do with climate models. Whether I think that nuclear power is God's gift to mankind or something that is expensive, dangerous and is only a temporary fix has nothing whatsoever to do with climate models.
EDIT: You really have trouble understanding what you read (and apparently even what YOU write). You asked a question about climate models, so I gave an answer about climate models. There is no political aspect to the science of AGW, when I studied physics there was not "conservative physics" or "liberal physics", political affiliation does not enter into the Stefan-Boltzmann equation or the Clausius-Clapeyron Relation on even the Laws of Thermodynamics.
If you want to move on and accept that AGW is a problem, we can talk about possible ways to mitigate the problem. This will certainly involve politics because it's a public policy matter. People need to stop rejecting science because of their bogus reasons, then we can have a REAL discussion public policy. Deniers deny the science because they feel like if they accept the science of AGW, then they will lose the public policy discussion.
You aren't really aware of environmentalist thought are you? There are divides as to how to address global warming, even in the environmentalist's circle. While moderate environmentalists promote taxes, cap and trade policies, and regulations, more radical environmentalists see systemic change as necessary, that the habits and aspects of humanity that caused this crisis (waste, greed, power) are promoted by various institutions of society and those institutions need to be taken down and replaced.
I personally believe in the abolition of the state, religion, capitalist economic institutions, and traditional schooling as the way, for they promote the negative aspects of humanity while discouraging the positive ones, and replacing them with more democratic institutions, like cooperative economics, democratic schooling, independent science (science not held down by industry, universities, the wealthy, nor government. Scientists control what gets funded, and scientists get to choose what they wish to research), and a decentralized federal structure similar to that of CNT Spain. When people have a say in how society is run, I think that together, we can create a more sustainable, environmentally sound society. I also want this to happen all around the world.
If you tell a lie long enough and loud enough, many people will accept it as fact without any evidence.
Backward logic. Taxes arebad so science is wrong.
Sorry science and nature does not care
I believe there is a God and global warming. That is my faith.
Faith: Belief in something without evidence.
Maybe you have a different definition of evidence.
Because they have no facts to back it up.
they don't
they don't think like Deniers do
no no
