Gag order on the EPA

[Eric the Green]

(01-25-2017, 01:22 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(01-25-2017, 01:05 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-25-2017, 03:29 AM)Galen Wrote:

(01-25-2017, 01:32 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: Climate models - as opposed to empirical research on historical climate behavior - continue to show hockey sticks starting at whatever the current year is, and continue to be shown to be wrong the next year.

Which is a sure sign that they don't know anything because the models are demonstrably wrong if this keeps happening.  This suggests that the real agenda is to scare people into giving the government power and money.  This is a very old story.

Which climate models are you referencing?  None that I've seen in the last 30 years.

Green oriented people need to face the fact that the models are just that. Modeling such a chaotic system where we are still learning the actual boundary conditions and relevant tensors is no easy task. It is going to be a work in process for some time to come. Then someone who has an agenda as opposed to a desire for pure science (shout out to Michael Mann and his "Real Climate" crew) comes along and plugs in bristlecone pine hygrometer-maybe treemometer cores, or other questionable proxies, and exaggerated depictions may occur. This is not to say warming is not occurring and is not to say the warming is not due to AGW. It is to say, exaggeration does no one any good. I can understand certain adherent's desire to get the attention of the masses and increase the urgency of mitigation actions, but the way the Hockey Team did it is wrong.

I doubt that those promoting doubt on this issue have any basis in fact. The "Hockey Stick" just refers to the fact that on a graph, the AGW shows up at the current time as a very sharp uptick compared to the slow changes in the past. It is based on fact. There is no exaggeration coming from research scientists. And it's not just one guy we can pin supposed exaggeration on; this is a community of climate scientists who all agree on these facts.

The likelihood is that we are already too late to prevent continuing and worsening climate catastrophe and species death for the next century. As Rachel Maddow said, "thank you, Reaganomics." We may be able to prevent a total "melt down" of our climate, but not unless we stop using fossil fuels by 2050, and take a sharp downturn now. Obviously, any such downturn now will not be sharp enough while Drump is in office. So a much more drastic program is going to be needed if and when he and his Party are deposed. 

The environmental movement is going to have to be very big and loud under Drump, and exaggeration is likely among its proponents. That is completely understandable. What the scientists report is the bedrock upon which it rests, however, and exaggeration just points people in the direction of the facts, if they care to look and read what the climate scientists say and not the paid shills.

Models can't be perfect in their predictions of what exactly will or has happened. That doesn't matter. The models have been correctly predicting warming at about the level and pace at which it is happening. Sometimes the models may have been too conservative; warming seems to be faster than the models in recent years.