Skip to main content

View Diary: Not Nuclear, Again (142 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Are you even reading what I'm writing? (0+ / 0-)

    we've mathematically deduced from "first principles" AGW, with no need to actually consult the historical record other than to "validate" our deductions. That really makes me feel a lot more certain about things. Not.

    Are you even reading what I'm writing?  I pointed out that the models are just one line of evidence -- which is why I brought up comparing planetary responses to natural forcings as an example of another (out of many).

    And why the hell don't you want historical validation of the models?  Don't get upset because you misunderstood how they work.

    And lastly, what is your problem with first principles physics models?  Is your argument that our very understanding of the laws of physics is in error?

    The "experts" in the field do not agree about anything with respect to the cost/benefit curve. Science is usually agnostic about political choices, as it should be.

    IPCC WG3.  Read it.  Or at least look at the author list.  It's a mix of scientists and economists.

    •  OK, I guess we have a semantic dispute (0+ / 0-)

      between "models" and "projections". The original point was that no matter how you cut it catastrophic climate change is a (very) educated guess about the future, as opposed to death from poverty, which is a guaranteed occurrence both now and into the future. Same thing with the mechanisms -- we can theorize that because the temperature goes up by X, that this will mean that this or that geographic area will experience drought and/or famine, which will result on Y numbers of people dying, but it's ultimately still a prediction. It has not come to pass, and just as other dire predictions that seemed inevitable at one time -- the "Population Bomb" for example -- never came to pass, it's entirely possible that the dire predictions associated with climate change will never come to pass, whether or not we act (and vice-versa, it's possible that it will all come to pass even if we act).

      I stand corrected that the predictions of catastrophic change are not just based on models, but also on other kinds of information and analysis. It was a semantic error on my part, because I was in my mind using "models" as a shorthand for predictions.

      You are wrong about the role of IPCC on political/policy questions:

      [The IPCC's] role as defined in the "Principles Governing IPCC Work" is "to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.

      IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies.

      http://www.ipcc.ch/...

      •  The IPCC reports don't advocate a particular (0+ / 0-)

        policy.  But they do state what the consequences of each given policy will be, and the margins of error and understanding on each of them.  That's the reason why economists were retained for it.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site