Comment 32546

By JonC (registered) | Posted July 31, 2009 at 17:29:41

Yes you did. To his quote you said "I thought there was scientific consensus that human carbon emissions were DEFINITELY causing the earth to warm", which implies that he's indicated otherwise. I suppose it's possible that you don't understand the grammatical implications of your words, based on overall comprehension.

"Nor did he indicate that it was". I never indicated that I know ten year old children that can reason better than you, but I have.

"If the climate is changing in ways that climate models can't predict, this indicates that the climate models are unreliable." Wrong again, all climatic models out of the past three decades have predicted increased irregularity in weather patterns. Environment Canada can't tell you for sure whether it's going to rain tonight, I can't imagine what makes you think that a model that takes on a planet wide scale area over decades to centuries time line can predict rainfall any better. It's obvious that you have no idea what a model actually does. We can't definitively predict where an electron will be, so they don't exist? To re-iterate, climactic models have predicted increased irregularity, which has been observed. This in no way means that there isn't error associated with all of these models. But even the minimum (assuming maximum error in the models, shows a change.

"If the effects of burning fossil fuels are unknowable, then there is no scientific basis for limiting their use". Again, wrong, and plenty of 10 year olds are definitively better scientists than you, at a minimum. If you've ever used a lighter, you know at least one effect of burning fossil fuels. Increased heat. Scientists, the people that make the models you deride, have measured the output of this flame, CO2, CO, NOx, CH4, and some other stuff. Scientists have also observed the heat capacity of these gases, and compared them to atmospheric gases. Scientists have also simulated the effects of these changes using both mathematical models and actual real life simulations. We also have relatively accurate measures of GHG emissions that are a result of human activities. So even if you don't believe in all the markers that climatologists use to show historical patterns, there at a bare minimum should be no doubt that a) people emit GHG b) GHG behave differently than air and c) a combination of those two statements.

"Limit the rate of change and you limit progress." This is precisely the idea. Limit the rate of change in atmospheric composition and limit the progress of climate change.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds