I think when you say the science is settled what you mean is there are things not subject to widespread debate within the field. They've moved on to filling in the details. That doesn't mean something revolutionary won't ever overturn it but that sort of change don't happen often. To hang your hat on revolutionary change occurring is wishful thinking most of the time.
In another, Phil Jones, the director of the East Anglia climate center, suggested to climate scientist Michael Mann of Penn State University that skeptics' research was unwelcome: We "will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
And yet the papers he was referring to did get cited in the IPCC AR4 report, but not particularly favorably.
How about tax and dividend? Put a tax on fossil carbon and return it in equal amounts to all legal residents of the US. Kind of like the Alaska Permanent Fund where every eligible citizen of Alaska gets a check from the fund each year. I would support using a few percent of the tax receipts to pay for administering it and to invest in R&D.
... and secondly that the sea levels are rising/will rise (not verified).
What do you mean SLR is not verified. It's been rising pretty steadily for a century and there doesn't appear to be any prospect it will stop anytime soon.
Another falsifiable prediction of anthropogenic warming would be stratospheric cooling. Global warming through increases in CO2 (and other GHGs) causes the stratosphere to cool a bit. Other potential causes of global warming would not have this effect.
More current SLR predictions are for about 1 meter by 2100 with close to 2 meters not out of the question. That 2 degrees of rise (Celcius, that's 3.6 degrees F for the Americans) is a global average. It's not spread out evenly around the globe. I think if you look you will find "global warming advocates" predicting regional climate change. For instance the subtropical zone appears to be moving poleward.
So you think the the grant process drives a bias for global warming and scientists have no choice but to go along? The problem with that is if a scientist is doing bad science sooner or later it will be discovered and their career is over. Do you really believe all of the thousands of scientists studying climate would take that risk if they knew better? The size of a conspiracy necessary to sustain that is just not tenable. Anyone who is able to show that the current understanding is substantially wrong would make their reputation.
Yes, I know that models work that way. They are not perfect and they never will be. But as time goes on they get tested against reality, improved and become more accurate. So far they're doing a reasonably good job.
And if you have a PhD and are one of the leading scientists in the field chances are your salary from the university or governmental department is already in the $100K+ range. The grants scientists get don't go to pay their salaries, they go to pay the cost of doing the research they are conducting. (And I'm not saying a scientist has never converted grant money to personal use but I doubt it a common thing.)
Our civilization is built around the climate as it has existed for the last several thousand years. If it strays significantly outside of those bounds it's bound to be disruptive.
UNLESS, the scientist hide their data and the computer models they use to arrive at the results.
But they're not. Over 95% of it is available if you care to look for it. The missing data everyone gets so exercised about from the CRU was deleted in the 1980s, before the internet really existed and when the cost of storing things you no longer had a use for was pretty high.
I have to say in my experience scientists in general are not motivated much by money. If they were they're smart enough they could go into something like investment banking and make a bunch of it.
Weather is chaotic, climate not so much. When you're talking about climate it doesn't make a lot of sense to talk about periods of less than 20 or 30 years.
Chaos doesn't mean that anything can happen. It's usually possible to define the bounds of a chaotic system. That's what climate does for weather.
Al Gore buys carbon offsets for his travel. While I have reservations about the effectiveness of carbon offsets it's money he doesn't have to spend. He does it voluntarily. (And I know he has carbon offset investments but they still cost him money).
And I don't begrudge him much of his lifestyle. As a former Vice President and a lightning rod for climate denier flames he has security issues that few people have.
The CRA banks were never forced to give loans to someone who couldn't afford it ever. Before the CRA they would redline some neighborhoods, primarily minority communities, and not give loans to anyone regardless of how qualified they were to receive one. That's what was outlawed.
It would be wasteful to have 30 different car companies if you could only drive a particular brand of car on a specific road. But I only need one road in front of my house just like I only need one fiber cable to my house.
I think you have no idea what kind of depression we'd be experiencing now if the government hadn't stepped in and bailed out Wall Street. It chills my blood to think about it.
Slashdot Mirror
I think when you say the science is settled what you mean is there are things not subject to widespread debate within the field. They've moved on to filling in the details. That doesn't mean something revolutionary won't ever overturn it but that sort of change don't happen often. To hang your hat on revolutionary change occurring is wishful thinking most of the time.
From here:
In another, Phil Jones, the director of the East Anglia climate center, suggested to climate scientist Michael Mann of Penn State University that skeptics' research was unwelcome: We "will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
And yet the papers he was referring to did get cited in the IPCC AR4 report, but not particularly favorably.
Electing Sarah Palin President (or even VP) in 2012 would seem like an apocalypse to me.
How about tax and dividend? Put a tax on fossil carbon and return it in equal amounts to all legal residents of the US. Kind of like the Alaska Permanent Fund where every eligible citizen of Alaska gets a check from the fund each year. I would support using a few percent of the tax receipts to pay for administering it and to invest in R&D.
... and secondly that the sea levels are rising/will rise (not verified).
What do you mean SLR is not verified. It's been rising pretty steadily for a century and there doesn't appear to be any prospect it will stop anytime soon.
Another falsifiable prediction of anthropogenic warming would be stratospheric cooling. Global warming through increases in CO2 (and other GHGs) causes the stratosphere to cool a bit. Other potential causes of global warming would not have this effect.
Well, actually if you look at it the Earth has been on a slight cooling trend for the past 8,000 years.
More current SLR predictions are for about 1 meter by 2100 with close to 2 meters not out of the question. That 2 degrees of rise (Celcius, that's 3.6 degrees F for the Americans) is a global average. It's not spread out evenly around the globe. I think if you look you will find "global warming advocates" predicting regional climate change. For instance the subtropical zone appears to be moving poleward.
So you think the the grant process drives a bias for global warming and scientists have no choice but to go along? The problem with that is if a scientist is doing bad science sooner or later it will be discovered and their career is over. Do you really believe all of the thousands of scientists studying climate would take that risk if they knew better? The size of a conspiracy necessary to sustain that is just not tenable. Anyone who is able to show that the current understanding is substantially wrong would make their reputation.
Yes, I know that models work that way. They are not perfect and they never will be. But as time goes on they get tested against reality, improved and become more accurate. So far they're doing a reasonably good job.
And if you have a PhD and are one of the leading scientists in the field chances are your salary from the university or governmental department is already in the $100K+ range. The grants scientists get don't go to pay their salaries, they go to pay the cost of doing the research they are conducting. (And I'm not saying a scientist has never converted grant money to personal use but I doubt it a common thing.)
Let them move or die? Why do you have to DO anything with those populations?
It's pretty funny reading that while Americans are getting so upset over some Mexicans moving north to more temperate climes.
Our civilization is built around the climate as it has existed for the last several thousand years. If it strays significantly outside of those bounds it's bound to be disruptive.
UNLESS, the scientist hide their data and the computer models they use to arrive at the results.
But they're not. Over 95% of it is available if you care to look for it. The missing data everyone gets so exercised about from the CRU was deleted in the 1980s, before the internet really existed and when the cost of storing things you no longer had a use for was pretty high.
I have to say in my experience scientists in general are not motivated much by money. If they were they're smart enough they could go into something like investment banking and make a bunch of it.
Climate is ... chaotic.
Weather is chaotic, climate not so much. When you're talking about climate it doesn't make a lot of sense to talk about periods of less than 20 or 30 years.
Chaos doesn't mean that anything can happen. It's usually possible to define the bounds of a chaotic system. That's what climate does for weather.
Al Gore buys carbon offsets for his travel. While I have reservations about the effectiveness of carbon offsets it's money he doesn't have to spend. He does it voluntarily. (And I know he has carbon offset investments but they still cost him money).
And I don't begrudge him much of his lifestyle. As a former Vice President and a lightning rod for climate denier flames he has security issues that few people have.
Hell, I predicted the mortgage bubble burst in 2005 and I didn't need a computer to do it (other than the computer I use to read the news).
Oh, it's not mandatory, you just don't have to pay the tax if you have it.
No, I just need the fiber to be open to any of those providers like my street is open to any vehicle.
The CRA banks were never forced to give loans to someone who couldn't afford it ever. Before the CRA they would redline some neighborhoods, primarily minority communities, and not give loans to anyone regardless of how qualified they were to receive one. That's what was outlawed.
In reverse lettering so they can read it when they look at it in the mirror.
Well, maybe it'd be for the best in the long run if we just let it all blow up. But in the mean time it would mean a lot of suffering.
Yep, we allow moneyed interests way too much influence in our politics.
It would be wasteful to have 30 different car companies if you could only drive a particular brand of car on a specific road. But I only need one road in front of my house just like I only need one fiber cable to my house.
I think you have no idea what kind of depression we'd be experiencing now if the government hadn't stepped in and bailed out Wall Street. It chills my blood to think about it.