In fact, my climate research was built on data that had been acquired by investment in the study of earthquakes and plate tectonics Some real-time instruments could be used for earthquake early (~30s) warning, forecasting flash flooding events, study plate motions or for climate studies.
It would be nice if the U.S. global model, the GFS, caught up to the European ECMWF model. Superstorm Sandy was predicted much further in advance by the ECMWF (although the GFS did a better job in California this week than the ECMWF did).
<
Possibly, but again one motivated for political reasons, not Science.
A quick look at the members of the United States House Science Subcommittee on Energy shows where exactly the problem lies:
Ralph Hall (R) does not believe in anthropogenic climate change and believes "climate scientists of concocting the evidence for anthropogenic climate change in order to receive federal research grants". (1)
Hall's views on Science are eerily similar to the ones expressed here by some die-hard deniers: "I'm not anti-science, I'm pro-science. But we ought to have some believable science. " (2)
Cynthia Lummis, the current Chair of the Subcommittee: "“We’re just beginning to explore what mankind’s role is in climate change, so I’d argue that the jury’s still out.” (3)
Randy Neugebauer, whose campaign funding comes mostly from the oil and gas industry, in 2011 introduced legislation "in the House of Representatives to pray for fair weather. " (I kid you not) (4) , Sen Randy Hultgren does not believe "we have a significant impact on climate change" (5), Thomas Massie doesn't think " that the scientific evidence for climate change is compelling" (6).
And that's just 5 members I've looked at so far.
Politicians are typical short term planners: they need to get re-elected and have sufficient campaign funds to run a campaign. Scientists just do long term research and report their findings on which responsible politicians should act regardless of the impact this will have on their re-elections. Unfortunately, the latter rarely happens.
Politicians are supposed to make informed decisions on behalf of the people they represent (their voters, not their campaign donors). And when you have Science Subcommittee members who are utterly uninformed and even idiotic (Neugebauer), it is no wonder that their decisions are neither informed nor the best for the situation at hand.
Hello,
Model trains are my passion since I was a little child. The only good online resource I found is this one http://www.goobypls.com/r/rd.asp?gid=416... I'm reading their ebook series and I have learned a lot. Check it out I think it's worth it.
Cheers ;)
Thanks for introducing us to the latest anti-science nitwit huckster to join the Tea Brain (formerly Republican) Party of the United States. God's miraculous powers gave humans brains, to help protect them from such hypocrites and bearers of false witness.
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/56...
Nonetheless, his joining Congress and Bachmann quiting still means a net IQ gain.
JimZ, here, who has difficulty appreciating the difference between abiotic oil fantasies and geology, also evidently lacks a fundamental comprehension of the difference between conspiracies and Republonitwit politicians routinely reaming taxpayers by providing a gravy train to the special interest groups that finance their BS-based and principle-free campaigns.
Hi,
Here http://www.goobypls.com/r/rd.asp?gid=416 you can find my favourite site about train models. If you are a beginner consider buying their ebook with a step by step guide to plan and build your first model railroad.
I hope it helps
I would have been impressed if that quote had come from Barbara Boxer (D-Calif) instead. The bill has not been completed. Now is the time for meaningless speeches that sound good to the folks back home. Later, Congress will do whatever they want.
Edit @******: "Politicians are supposed to make informed decisions on behalf of the people they represent (their voters, not their campaign donors)."
I am starting to suspect that you do not live in Washington DC.
I think it is a good idea but good ideas won't get through the Senate or BO.
I am not sure it is much of a change. The Republicans were generally in favor of practical solutions and responsible government. Some Rebups, like McCain, Christy, and Romney aren't as practical but still way better than the vast majority of Democrats IMO.
****** believes AGW is about science. Talk about naive. It is mostly about people like him pushing their leftist agenda that they call science. It isn't science. It is closer to science fiction. Notice he goes off on the typical leftist conspiracy theories on Big Oil and these people expect us to take them seriously. Give me a break.
Promote fossil fuels, use the tax revenue to subsidize green energy. If it doesn't work blame the other political affiliation. Or just create the Department of Omissions where they can recover from the Recovery Act.
I'm with JZ, in this day and age being naive is really weird behavior.
I just asked about an exit strategy and had recently asked about a paradigm shift as well. I just came across another article and this time it is focussed on the science and the goals of NOAA. Some excerpts:
“In 2012, NOAA barely spent one-third of the resources on weather research as it did on climate research,”
"Subcommittee chairman Chris Stuart (R-Utah) said the bill “would balance NOAA's research portfolio by emphasizing weather research with the potential to protect lives and property.”"
"...placing priority on developing more accurate and timely warnings and forecasts of high-impact weather events that endanger life and property." http://www.climatecentral.org/news/bill-would-shift-noaa-resources-from-climate-research-16046
So it looks like the US House Science Subcommittee on the Environment wants to put emphasis on saving lives from extreme weather as opposed to studying climate change. Good idea?
Is this a change in the wind?
