On 23 February 2010 19:47, Ken Schaefer <[email protected]> wrote:
> This is why we should have a tax-and-dividend policy. If you want to > pollute, you have to pay to pollute, and everyone gets a rebate check (so, > it’s all revenue neutral). You choose what you want to cut back on. You can > either cut back a little on things that pollute a lot, or you can cut back a > lot on things that don’t pollute much. Either way, the choice is yours. > Nobel idea, but if you think that the subprime crisis was bad - just wait until you try it with a measure of pollution that has buckley's an none of being audited properly. > The IPCC AR4 isn’t a debacle. That’s hyperbole pure and simple. > Fair enough. We'll have to disagree on that one and I should probably bail before I'm labeled a denier and given the 'big cutoff' :) [ ... stuff about the previous liberal government, dubya and csiro signing off on ar4 so it is more plausible deleted ... ] > I’m not aware of any issues that have been highlighted with the WG (Working > Group) 1 report, which examines the scientific basis for our believe in AGW. > > You won't be seeing much of a scientific basis or otherwise for discussing any other point of view in anything out of the IPCC by design. Jones, Mann, Pachauri, et al seem to have that pretty stitched up. > It summarises thousands of studies, across all major scientific fields, and > the correlation of thousands of studies seems to present fairly compelling > evidence. > I think the average punter, and *especially* policy makers, are more interested in the output of WG2 (the part of IPCC AR4 that deals with *impacts* and what we are to expect). Are you aware of any issues from WG2? :) I mean, it is all good peer-reviewed science right? Anyone with a viewpoint opposing AGW/IPCC has been told that you are into 'voodoo science' (to quote Pachauri) and we should only listen to the peer reviewed science. > As for people who like to complain about “modelling” – I think we all agree > that models aren’t perfect. But all models used need to be able to > accurately model the past, and our models are constantly improving, and so > is available computing power. When the AR1 came out, we had roughly 200Mhz > machines on our desktops. Now we have multi-core Ghz machines, and > correspondingly so has our ability to deliver more sophisticated models. And > this will continue for the foreseeable future. Some models are have source > code available, so you are able to go see yourself what you might think are > the problems with them. But whatever quibbles we have along the edges, they > all predict an outcome that isn’t a status quo, or a cooling. > Speaking with my software engineer hat on - you really need to read some of the EUA source code with an open mind. The problems those guys face is not at all related to any lack of computational power in the past or present. Some of the source code is *cracking* reading. It left me shaking my head. Don't get me wrong (as I fear you already have). I'm all for us lowering our environmental foot print wherever possible. I am somewhat amused, though, when I look back, that it was IPCC and realclimate.org that turned me from a fence sitter into a skeptic. It was certainly not the latter's intention. -- David Connors ([email protected]) Software Engineer Codify Pty Ltd - www.codify.com Phone: +61 (7) 3210 6268 | Facsimile: +61 (7) 3210 6269 | Mobile: +61 417 189 363 V-Card: https://www.codify.com/cards/davidconnors Address Info: https://www.codify.com/contact
