[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why don't you actually the arguments I'm making instead of ones you'd like to address. You're better than that wacki, I know you are.
[/ QUOTE ]
I thought I had. We are obviously having communication problems.
[ QUOTE ]
The second argument I'm making is that climate models will improve significantly over time and will evolve.
[/ QUOTE ]
Of course
[ QUOTE ]
In expect that we can't imagine the improvement that will take place over the next 50 years.
[/ QUOTE ]
The IPCC has a chart of what areas are well understood and what aren't. A lot of papers have been written about what is theoretically possible with the climate models. Will there be unexpected surprises? Of course. But I'm willing to bet we have a good idea what direction the improvements will go.
[ QUOTE ]
Third argument is that people are putting way too much stock in what climate models in their current state are predicting.
[/ QUOTE ]
I have no way of measuring public confidence. All I can say is that it would be foolish to claim the globe isn't going to warm in the future. The only debate is how much. As for the climate models well I'm of the opinion that Hansen's models have been a stunning success predicting the last 20 years in advance and recreating the past 200.
evidence:
http://tinyurl.com/y3hmrz
Will their accuracy continue? Not without improvements in computing power as well as the removal of political sabotage of scientific satellites (e.g. DSCOVR). However, the error bars of the last 20 years are representative of the models then the error bars could be increased by an order of magnitude and catastrophe could still easily and accurately predicted.
[ QUOTE ]
Fourth argment is that politicians are exploiting the situation to promote their own agendas.
[/ QUOTE ]
I've said this many times about BOTH sides.
[ QUOTE ]
Fifth argument is that the conditions for 3 and 4 are a disaster for funding research.
[/ QUOTE ]
Depends on the research. I personally don't think we need anymore climate research to do what needs to be done. Many climatologists are saying the same thing.
I hope that answers your questions. I didn't realize I was avoiding you. Next time question marks would certainly help let me know you are asking me to confirm or deny something.
[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks. My perception is that public confidence in the viability of climate models and their predictions is eroding. Could be convinced otherwise.
As far as politics are concerned, I've tried to tie this into the threads here many times. I remember once trying to pin you down on what you perceive to be the centrist position on public policy is. Never could do that to my satisfaction but again I could be convinced that I'm being unreasonable. I think it's fair to say that the idea that reducing carbon emissions is one centrist goal. Many proposals before Congress now. I also note that Congress passed an "energy" bill yesterday. So things are happening and from my perspective, it's going to be expensive. FWIW when the government starts mandating that people start ponying up more money to implement government policy, they better have a damn good case for why they want to do that. Again FWIW the case being made is unconvincing to the public. Perhaps the following is relevant, perhaps not. I remember the gas lines and oil embargos in the 70's. Carter endorsed many initiatives that basically embraced alternative energy sources with a lot of IMO hype and fanfare. When the promises weren't delivered the excitement waned quickly and ultimately Reagan scrapped the programs that Carter started. Ultimately IMO the U.S. would have been better served with less hype and more candor about what was needed to develop alternative fuel sources. The situation with carbon emissions and global warming reminds me a lot of what went on in the 70's for some reason. The short answwer is I suppose that if you actually want to convince more people you should care a lot about public sentiment, educating John Q. Citizen, and how to gage public sentiment.