Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
I don't have the same impression as you. I read a lot of qualified doubts about models, by experts. Nevertheless, they will tend to point out that:

-Acknowledging the imperfection of models should NEVER be understood as a validation of all the empty talks (base on no models whatsoever) about Global Warming being a hoax, or nature being so full of negative feedback that it will never move significantly, and so on.

-CO2 (and in fact all GHG) and heat are not merely correlated, it is a laboratory-proven effect that GHG do cause warming, everything else being equal (trouble is, it seems that "everything else" is reinforcing rather than equal, let alone mitigating in real life). It is not a laboratory result that warming should increase the presence of GHG, but there is ample evidence of that, in particular for methane releases.

-So far, reality has invariably turned out worse (ie faster warming and expected effects happening earlier than expected) than models expected. In particular, the Arctic ocean is DECADES early in its melting, even compared to the business as usual scenarios.

The constant uninformed denial of those things will get scientists annoyed, and I can't blame them. But I always find them willing to admit that models are models.

Hint: that ALSO means that the inaccuracy of a model is NO refutation of Global Warming. Yet this is how it keeps being presented. We can't reject prediction because they can't be absolutely accurate, yet at the same time using any inaccuracy as refutation of the (proven) science that was behind the forecasting.

Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Gandhi

by Cyrille (cyrillev domain yahoo.fr) on Thu Aug 7th, 2008 at 09:29:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
We can't reject prediction because they can't be absolutely accurate, yet at the same time using any inaccuracy as refutation of the (proven) science that was behind the forecasting.

I would argue that such lines of "argument" are characteristic of most who employ belief based approaches to understanding reality.  You almost always see that as part of "creation science" and other such "fundamentalist" rhetoric.  Plus, as Sinclair Lewes said:"It is very hard for a man to understand something if by understanding it he looses his livelihood." (Loosely quoted from memory.) Hard to know which is worse, delusion or cynical hypocrisy.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Thu Aug 7th, 2008 at 12:11:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Top Diaries

Occasional Series