[adios]

Quickly, in their current state I don't think we have enough data to make many conclusions about climate model predictions.

I never said that we shouldn't use them, in fact I've said the opposite.

wacki is right that computing power has to increase in order to provide more "fidelity" but I also strongly believe that we have not identified all of the variables accurately that make up a comprehensive climate model. I think as time passes we will.

As far as politicians see my response to wacki. The gist of which is that public policy is being formulated and acted upon. If that policy is such that special interests get to line their pockets at the expense of John Q. Citizen then I think that we would all agree that we don't need that. I am of the believe that is precisely what's happening now. It's one thing to say yeah there's a problem that needs to be addressed. It's quite another thing to actually address the problem.

As far as funding, I think that overblown expectations lead to pessimism and distrust which leads to lack of interest. Not saying the Bush administration gets a pass either. Just saying that the lack of funding is not seen by the public as a bad thing.

I think the word skeptic is often used perjoratively and thus is polarizing. There is a middle ground IMO.

Welcome to the forum [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] and thanks for your reasonable reply.