Global Warming, "State of Fear"

[McSweeny]

brilliant, brilliant read

i always feel so smart whenever i finish a Michael Crichton book

[Wolvendancer]

Unfortunately, it's just that: feeling smart. It's never, ever a good idea to get your science from popular novels, especially from admittedly-biased sources. You'll get better science from Perdido Street Station.

The Pew Center has just released a statement gently refuting all of Crichton's points:

http://www.pewclimate.org/state_of_fear.cfm

Anthropogenic warming trends aren't even a matter of debate anymore, sadly. I know people would rather think differently - I certainly would - but that's no excuse for putting your head in the sand. It's a shame that Crichton has to use tricks (cherry-picking Ns to prove his 'point' while ignoring aggregate data) and outright falsities (conversion to grassland results in warming) to sell novels.

[AgustusM]

great book - excellent read.

regardless of where you side on the issue - I believe this from the book is a great idea and hard to argue with:

I am paraphrasing here, but this is basically one of his major points.

In Medical testing (by no mean perfect) they do a lot of "blind" research where one group is setting up the tests, another group running them, another group analyzing the data, all with no contact (or even knowledge of who the other groups are) The point being the the results are hopefully not biased since they scientists do not know a) the source of their funding and b) the expected results.

with GW - being such a political topic (its political ramifications far outweigh its actual impact on us "so far") virtually all the scientific research is from individuals who know where their funding is coming from AND know what the expected results are.

we would all benefit from some truly unbiased, "blind" research. I think the overriding point of the Creighton novel is that we simply don't know one way or another very much about the global climate and that most of what is stated as fact (again by either side) is overstated.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Wolvendancer

Unfortunately, it's just that: feeling smart. It's never, ever a good idea to get your science from popular novels, especially from admittedly-biased sources. You'll get better science from Perdido Street Station.

The Pew Center has just released a statement gently refuting all of Crichton's points:

http://www.pewclimate.org/state_of_fear.cfm

Anthropogenic warming trends aren't even a matter of debate anymore, sadly. I know people would rather think differently - I certainly would - but that's no excuse for putting your head in the sand. It's a shame that Crichton has to use tricks (cherry-picking Ns to prove his 'point' while ignoring aggregate data) and outright falsities (conversion to grassland results in warming) to sell novels.

And the Pew Center has never made shit up to suit its purposes, nor have they ever paid anybody a wheelbarrow full of cash in order to get them to say shit that will promote their agenda.

If you believe that, do a Google search for Sean Treglia and campaign finance reform.

If Pew's saying State of Fear's full of crap, then I'm ready to name Michael Crichton "Chief Scientist of Planet Earth".

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Wolvendancer

Unfortunately, it's just that: feeling smart. It's never, ever a good idea to get your science from popular novels, especially from admittedly-biased sources. You'll get better science from Perdido Street Station.

The Pew Center has just released a statement gently refuting all of Crichton's points:

http://www.pewclimate.org/state_of_fear.cfm

Anthropogenic warming trends aren't even a matter of debate anymore, sadly. I know people would rather think differently - I certainly would - but that's no excuse for putting your head in the sand. It's a shame that Crichton has to use tricks (cherry-picking Ns to prove his 'point' while ignoring aggregate data) and outright falsities (conversion to grassland results in warming) to sell novels.

This is a fiction novel, right? So why all the defensiveness?

It's not like anyone outside of Al Gore believed "The Day After Tomorrow" when it was in theatres. Crichton has made a career out of writing books loosely based on science to give it a semblance of believability. But it's not like people believe a time machine exists (Timeline) or attacking microscopic machines are wondering the desert (Prey) after they read them.

The fact it makes some people do more research on the issue of global warming after reading the books can't be a bad thing, can it? That is, unless some are afraid of what they may find.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

If Pew's saying State of Fear's full of crap, then I'm ready to name Michael Crichton "Chief Scientist of Planet Earth".

Ah, sweet ad hominem. The fact that your positions on policy issues are based on your personal feelings towards the parties involved rather than the relative strength and merits of the arguments is duly noted.

...and yes this applies to the previous poster to the extent that he applied the same tactic...

[RendeR]

The fact is there are no truely proven facts. yes there is tons of data, but no-one has been around to collect data over the first million or so years before humanity came along to discover if this is a natural phenomena or not.

The panic stricken bullshit being touted around today is intended purely to make people afraid of something so that others can push THIER political agendas, nothing more.

there are MUCH more pressing issues, let this one die.

[Riggins44]

An article that presents some facts regarding global warming.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman...icle_141.shtml

To summarize, it pretty much states that the warming trend of the sun explains the earth's increase in temperature. See diagrams in article.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Arles

This is a fiction novel, right? So why all the defensiveness?

It's not like anyone outside of Al Gore believed "The Day After Tomorrow" when it was in theatres. Crichton has made a career out of writing books loosely based on science to give it a semblance of believability. But it's not like people believe a time machine exists (Timeline) or attacking microscopic machines are wondering the desert (Prey) after they read them.

The fact it makes some people do more research on the issue of global warming after reading the books can't be a bad thing, can it? That is, unless some are afraid of what they may find.

Actually, this book is one of the first from Crichton with a fairly complete bibliography, and he makes it clear when he's bringing in heavily researched facts (it's a fairly heavily footnoted novel). It's a bit of a different approach for Crichton.

[clintl]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Actually, this book is one of the first from Crichton with a fairly complete bibliography, and he makes it clear when he's bringing in heavily researched facts (it's a fairly heavily footnoted novel). It's a bit of a different approach for Crichton.

And a number of the scientists he cites in his footnotes have said that he misrepresented their work and conclusions.

[Wolvendancer]

If indeed this book caused people to run to qualified sources and do some research, that would be a great thing. Read the thread and ask yourself if that is what is happening. I'd suggest a different hypothesis: that the book is being used an excuse for a lot of people to believe exactly what they want to believe. It is promoting an end to research, not a beginning.

If you read the actual science, however, you'll find something quite different. There's a great, raging debate over a great many things - even in the refutation document, Pew gives a nod of its head when Crichton gets it right. Good science is never afraid of debate.

If you look at the areas of disagreement, however, you'll find they are matters of specificity and cause, not of existance. Everyone admits that the data says one thing very clearly - anthropogenic warming is real, and it is likely a growing problem. All of the debate is happening an a level below that, deciding 'whys', and the 'what exactlys'.

I know the internet message board is, currently, the lowest form of human interaction (and might even be just below chimp feces-tossing), but all of the willfull ignorance astounds me. An entire community of people that have dedicated their lives to the study of these phenomena overwhelmingly agree that there is genuine evidence that this is occuring. Against that, what do we have? A few people with political agendas and a fairly mediocre novelist?

Me, I'm not arrogant enough to get involved in the debate. I'm not qualified. I'm a writer, and my wife is a molecular biologist/bioinformatician; when she starts babbling on about telemares sequences and such I don't bloody argue with her, I nod my head for as long as I have to and watching the bloody footy game out of the corner of my eye. I don't read a couple of popular books, much less a bleeding novel, and then procede to argue with her entire discipline about basic premises. I'd be an idiot and an arse if I did. Somehow, though, people think the exact same behavior is ok here. Gotta wonder.

[Schmidty]

1. I don't have an agenda and am torn about the GW issue, but citing anything by the Pew Center automatically makes me roll my eyes.

2. I salute Wolvendancer for his abundant usage of such terms as "footy", "bloody", "bleeding" and "arse". Nice job, "old chap".

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Wolvendancer

If you look at the areas of disagreement, however, you'll find they are matters of specificity and cause, not of existance. Everyone admits that the data says one thing very clearly - anthropogenic warming is real, and it is likely a growing problem. All of the debate is happening an a level below that, deciding 'whys', and the 'what exactlys'.

Let's say I buy your premise. The next questions are:

A) How do we know it will continue to get "warmer"
B) What's to say human beings can impact this in any appreciable manner.

Most data suggests that man's impact on the "warming" of the Earth is very minimal compared to non-man controlled actions (aspects of the sun, Volcanos, ...). What I find quite amazing is how people think if we just use a little less hairspray or increase car emission standards, somehow we can stop global warming.

If a volcano goes off in the next 100 years, it will do 10 times more damage to the atmosphere and "increase global warming" more than man's entire efforts for that century. Should we go out and try to plug active volcanos then?

This has always smelled to me like an excuse for an agenda. If you simply want to say that Earth may be warming and we should continue to study its trends, I'm fine with that. But the moment someone brings up Kyoto or a similar agenda is the moment they throw out a significant amount of science in favor of their own motives (not saying you did this, just simply trying to beat you to the punch if it is indeed your agenda )

[clintl]

This, I think, is the most damning item calling into question Crichton's "research":

From the Pew Center report

James Hansen’s 1988 Testimony – Did He Exaggerate the Problem? In the book, Crichton’s characters recall the 1988 Congressional testimony of James Hansen. The book reports that in his testimony, Hansen presented an alarming scenario of future warming, which, as of 2000, was 300% greater (0.35oC/decade) than what had been observed (0.11oC/decade). However, the description of Hansen’s testimony within Crichton’s book is not the real version, but a distorted version presented by the well-known skeptic Patrick Michaels ten years later [for Hansen’s account of this, see http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/ ]. In his actual 1988 testimony, Hansen discussed three scenarios of future climate change (A, B, and C) based upon work published that same year in the Journal of Geophysical Research. In his testimony, Hansen presented maps of future global warming that were based solely on scenario B (the mid-range projection), which he described as the most likely outcome. Scenarios A and C were meant to represent upper and lower bounds of the uncertainties in future projections. In 1998 Congressional testimony, Michaels presented a figure from Hansen’s 1988 Journal of Geophysical Research paper showing projections of average global temperature change for Hansen’s three scenarios. However, Michaels doctored the figure by erasing scenarios B and C, leaving only the highest scenario (A), which Michaels then cited as evidence of Hansen’s alarmism and the fundamental failure of climate models to represent reality. Hansen’s mid-range and favored scenario (B) has thus far matched observations well. Crichton’s misrepresentation of history here suggests that either he was rather cavalier in his research or he simply preferred Michael’s fictional version of events.

I have read this independently elsewhere. Now, there are two possible explanations. One is that Crichton wasn't very careful in fact checking his sources. The other is that Crichton is being deliberately dishonest, and ranks somewhere well below Dan Rather on the intellectual integrity chart. Either way, if he can't get something as easy to check as this right, what does that say about the rest of his arguments? It says to me that he is not a trustworthy source of information.

[Arles]

So, just so I understand. Hansen said exactly what Crichton cited, but because Crichton didn't tell us every other scenerio he had thrown at the wall, he should not have cited that one?

Seems like Hansen should have just cited his "main hypothesis" then if he wanted it to be taken as his main testimony. Then again, if he did that, he might have chosen the wrong one

[clintl]

Originally Posted by Arles

So, just so I understand. Hansen said exactly what Crichton cited, but because Crichton didn't tell us every other scenerio he had thrown at the wall, he should not have cited that one?

Seems like Hansen should have just cited his "main hypothesis" then if he wanted it to be taken as his main testimony. Then again, if he did that, he might have chosen the wrong one

You don't honestly believe that what you just wrote is a legitimate defense of Crichton, do you? You understand, don't you, that creating a best-case, most likely case, and worst-case scenario is a very common practice in both science and business? The burden in this case is not on Hansen to foresee how critics will misrepresent his testimony a decade or two in the future, but on people like Crichton to report it accurately. Hansen's motives for creating three scenarios are not at issue here, and for all we know, maybe he was told by the committee or a superior to prepare and present all three. Hanson apparently was very clear that the middle scenario (the one that has been pretty accurate in its predictions) as the most likely. And Crichton and Michaels have come pretty close to outright lying by implying otherwise.

Oh, and one more thing you might want to consider about Hansen's testimony. He did emphasize Scenario B, the most likely scenario over the other two in his testimony.

In his testimony, Hansen presented maps of future global warming that were based solely on scenario B (the mid-range projection), which he described as the most likely outcome. Scenarios A and C were meant to represent upper and lower bounds of the uncertainties in future projections.

[Arles]

But Hansen himself has since admitted his 1988 testimony jumped to conclusions not supported by the data. Again, it seemed like he was searching for potential outcomes more than providing one solid theory. Here's his exact words in a 1998 article (Summary on p. 8):

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1998/...ansenSatoG.pdf

The Missing Climate Data. The large changes in climate
forcing trends in just the past 1–2 decades emphasize the
difficulty of long-term climate projections and our ignorance
of many issues that influence predictions for the 21st century.
For example, why has the CO2 growth rate leveled out in the
past two decades, despite increased emissions and deforestation?
Might the implied missing CO2 sink(s) begin to ‘‘fill up’’
or even become future CO2 sources, or will the sinks grow as
airborne CO2 increases? Why has the growth rate of methane
plummeted? Will it accelerate again, or is it possible that we
could take steps to make its growth negative, thus balancing
some of the CO2 warming? What are aerosol direct and
indirect climate forcings and how are they changing?
Despite the emergence of climate change as a topic of global
strategic importance, support for the fundamental research
needed to develop quantitative understanding of such issues
has not increased markedly, especially for university research.
Perhaps there is a feeling that stressing knowledge gaps will be
detrimental to environmental conservation efforts, or that
calls for research support appear to be a case of ‘‘feathering
one’s own nest.’’ But without improved support of fundamental
research we cannot reliably predict future changes of
climate forcings and climate itself, and thus it will be impossible
to assess accurately the effectiveness of policy options.

Basically, he was saying that we don't have enough information yet to make any kind of decision on this issue. Yet, many with an agenda, are taking his projections in 1988 as fact for the existance of Global Warming when even he does not feel comfortable with that assertion given the many holes in the data. Wonder why Pew glossed over this newer account?

As to his 1988 testimony, he gave three scenerios yet hammered the "worst" repeatedly in order to get more funding. There was a report in both Time (July 4, 1988) and the Boston Globe that reported only the "worst" theory and how he responded after giving it (from Time):

[Hansen] is 99% certain that the higher temperatures are not just a natural phenomenon but the result of a buildup of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other gases from man- made sources, mainly pollution from power plants and automobiles. Said Hansen: "It is time to stop waffling and say that the evidence is pretty strong that the greenhouse effect is here."

So, given this was the study given the most press from his testimony and the one that prompted numerous attempts (many successful) to create legislation on this issue, it would make sense that it would be the one Crichton cited. And, in none of these articles did Hansen state that the Globe, NY Times or Time magazine should not talk about his "worst case" exclusively.

So, regardless of which theory he meant to be the "real" one in the testimony, the worst case was trumpeted in the media and helped him get a lot of funding. And he wasn't all that eager to bring the discussion back to case B and C when the funding and legislation was being discussed. So, for Crichton to report this scenerio primarily in his book makes some sense given the ferver it created.

[Raiders Army]

From what I've learned, too many urban centers (like big cities) will produce pollution which you can send a settler or engineer to clean it up (the engineers are faster). Additionally, once we learned nuclear power, there are nuclear pollution areas that the settlers and engineers have to clean up as well.

[weinstein7]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

From what I've learned, too many urban centers (like big cities) will produce pollution which you can send a settler or engineer to clean it up (the engineers are faster). Additionally, once we learned nuclear power, there are nuclear pollution areas that the settlers and engineers have to clean up as well.

If only we could build the Hoover Dam...

(I never understood how Civ decided that hydro power was so environmentally friendly)

[dixieflatline]

Originally Posted by Riggins44

An article that presents some facts regarding global warming.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/artma...ticle_141.shtml

To summarize, it pretty much states that the warming trend of the sun explains the earth's increase in temperature. See diagrams in article.

Wow that article has so many problems with it I don't even know where to start. But let's just address the main problem that people who don't believe that humans caused global warming. See B) below.

Originally Posted by Arles

A) How do we know it will continue to get "warmer"
B) What's to say human beings can impact this in any appreciable manner.

Most data suggests that man's impact on the "warming" of the Earth is very minimal compared to non-man controlled actions (aspects of the sun, Volcanos, ...). What I find quite amazing is how people think if we just use a little less hairspray or increase car emission standards, somehow we can stop global warming.

If a volcano goes off in the next 100 years, it will do 10 times more damage to the atmosphere and "increase global warming" more than man's entire efforts for that century. Should we go out and try to plug active volcanos then?

A) We know it will get even warmer because that's what the computer models tell us. I know that some people won't be too happy with that answer but believe me scientists base much more important decisions on computer models.

B) Here is the main point. Lot's of different variables affect the earth's heat. Things on earth not including man(volcanos, clouds, earth's magnetic field etc...) and things not on earth(the sun, asteriods, etc...) play a role. The computer models are spot on predicting the data back thousands of years when taking accout for all of these factors. They all fail to predict this current uptick in temperature. When you add in CO2 levels everything fits.

The key here is that even though lots and lots of variables contribute much more than current CO2 levels to the temperature of the earth, scientists understand how they contribute. CO2 levels currently have a small impact on the earth's temperature but a measureable one. Notice I am not predicting doom here or suggesting that everyone stop using their cars. Most scientists who work on global warming aren't predicting doom either. Some are though and they are the ones that are getting more press because that is a better story.

That isn't to say that we should just ignore these effects either. It is something that needs studying. Studying that currently isn't being done or isn't being done enough.

BTW, here is the CNN press release on the oceanic study that ends this debate. Case closed, the world is warming up. We are indeed having an effect on the increase. It is a small effect right now but something to be mindful of in the future.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by dixieflatline

A) We know it will get even warmer because that's what the computer models tell us. I know that some people won't be too happy with that answer but believe me scientists base much more important decisions on computer models.

Are these the same models that like to tell the weathermen that it will stop snowing any minute now, when it continues to snow all day along and dumps 20 inches on you? Or that has absolutely no clue where a hurricane will be more than an hour or two out? Some of the rest of your points are good, but it's absolutely ridiculous to believe that any climate-predicting computer model is worth much of anything right now.

[Arles]

This is the same Tim Barnett that said:

Despite government pressure on NASA not to support the scenario in The Day After Tomorrow, scientists are backing the science behind the film. The part of the film most of them object to has to do with the compression of events that they think will happen gradually. Marine physicist Tim Barnett says, "What happens will frankly be worse than what they show, in the long run. Our lives and all our systems will get stretched and stretched and pushed and pushed. The conflicts that will come up will be remarkable."

He also said the West was going to have a continued drought for the forseeable future and it wouldn't get better for atleast a decade on May 5, 2004. Here's his response to people questioning the "gloom and doom" of his study:

I've been on a lot of projects and I've never seen one before this where the news was all bad, but that was the case here," said Tim Barnett of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, lead author of the study. "The model we used is the least sensitive to (increases in) greenhouse gases of all the models in the world, so what I'm telling you is really the best-case scenario.

Well, in the first four months of 2005 we have already eclipsed our "projected" rainfall for the year in Arizona and between November and March, we have gotten around 10 inches (the average yearly rate is about 4).

Here's another question that hasn't been asked - the North Pole has experienced very short summers the past three years with less than usual melting - esp in 2004. That is completely at odds with his computer "simulation" baseline:

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/essay_untersteiner3.html

The kicker for me is:

"Could a climate system simply do this on its own? The answer is clearly no," Barnett said.

"It's a good time for nations that are not part of Kyoto to re-evaluate their positions and see if it would be to their advantage to join," he said.

Given me a break, we have had significantly higher swings back when the only "emissions" in the atmosphere came from animals and cave men after a big dinner. This guy is basically the lead "scare-guy" on global warming and has made it his life's goal to end the debate on man's impact on global warming (if it indeed will continue to occur).

Even if there has been a slight increase in temp, there are so many factors at play and other aspects that make it extremely unlikely man is having all much of an impact. I have no problem with studies on this issue and more research, but I have yet to see any piece of evidence to show car emissions and the other babble in Kyoto (which is his true motive for going into all this) is any more responsible for these "trends" than natural causes.

[dixieflatline]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Are these the same models that like to tell the weathermen that it will stop snowing any minute now, when it continues to snow all day along and dumps 20 inches on you? Or that has absolutely no clue where a hurricane will be more than an hour or two out? Some of the rest of your points are good, but it's absolutely ridiculous to believe that any climate-predicting computer model is worth much of anything right now.

That's the funniest thing I've read in a while! Seriously though to answer your question the weatherman computer models and the global warming computer models are completely different even though it seems like they should be the same. They are built in a similiar way though taking data recent data and then extrapolating into the future. The daily weather though is much harder because it takes previous similiar weather patterns from the past couple of days and tries to guess what will happen the next day(or longer!). You can get into lot's of trouble like this. The global warming models take previous years worth of data and then extrapolate and they don't care if one region gets some extra snow in a day(or winter) just that the global picture works out. I've posted this link before but it still appears to be the best one out there at explaining all the factors that go into climate modeling and show a bunch of data on the subject. The plot on the very bottom shows models without CO2 and how poorly they fit the data, models using only CO2 and how poorly they fit the data, and a cobined model and how well it fits the data.

http://www.esr.org/outreach/climate_...pact/man1.html

So even if you don't trust you weatherman you can still buy into this.

[Ryche]

In terms of impact on humans, an ice age would have a vastly more significant impact than global warming. Let's keep our house warm.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by dixieflatline

That's the funniest thing I've read in a while! Seriously though to answer your question the weatherman computer models and the global warming computer models are completely different even though it seems like they should be the same. They are built in a similiar way though taking data recent data and then extrapolating into the future. The daily weather though is much harder because it takes previous similiar weather patterns from the past couple of days and tries to guess what will happen the next day(or longer!). You can get into lot's of trouble like this. The global warming models take previous years worth of data and then extrapolate and they don't care if one region gets some extra snow in a day(or winter) just that the global picture works out. I've posted this link before but it still appears to be the best one out there at explaining all the factors that go into climate modeling and show a bunch of data on the subject. The plot on the very bottom shows models without CO2 and how poorly they fit the data, models using only CO2 and how poorly they fit the data, and a cobined model and how well it fits the data.

http://www.esr.org/outreach/climate_...pact/man1.html

So even if you don't trust you weatherman you can still buy into this.

utter and complete horse shit. no computer model is going to have the accuracy to predict changes in GLOBAL factors. Again this goes back to the fact that there isn't enough data ANYWHERE to come to any conclusions either way, we don't know if it will get warmer, we don't no if it will cool off, we don't know if the planet will explode.

IE the keys words here "WE DON'T KNOW"

Everything in those models is based on a hypothosis of one or more scientists, and through data they collect, is biased toward their opinions. As was stated eariler, without soe sort of large scale blind research, wehere the data can't be corrupted or catered to one sides opinion its all a bunch of steaming horse manure.

Computer models are the answer...please...people program models, people make mistakes, models are full of mistakes.

[dixieflatline]

Originally Posted by RendeR

Again this goes back to the fact that there isn't enough data ANYWHERE to come to any conclusions either way

Your right, lack of data is clearly the problem here.

Originally Posted by Arles

Given me a break, we have had significantly higher swings back when the only "emissions" in the atmosphere came from animals and cave men after a big dinner.

Yes there have been big swings in the past like you say, but these swings are understood. The models match with those swings. Just because this swing isn't the biggest doesn't mean that we can't undrestand it.

[Arles]

Yes there have been big swings in the past like you say, but these swings are understood. The models match with those swings. Just because this swing isn't the biggest doesn't mean that we can't undrestand it.

Just because a model happens to match these swings for a decade does not mean we fully understand the cause. There's also a lot of unaccounted noise in the data that has been thrown out in these studies (ie, the shorter and cooler summers in the North Pole). If you look at the predictions, both "B" and "C" had a very similar first 10 years. Where the difference came was 20-30 years down the road and there is nothing in any of those three scenerios that leads me to believe the next 20 years will fall in line with those simulations. If you get enough data points, you can pretty much make any projection you like and get away with it. The increase in CO2 predicted in the 80s has fallen well short of Hansen's main projections as well (from the Boston Globe):

Though Hansen predicted that the next 10 years will be the hottest in US history, he was encouraged that releases of so-called ''greenhouse gases'' are growing much more slowly than 20 years ago. Already, he said, the slower growth has delayed by 50 years the date at which greenhouse gases in the air will double their pre-industrial levels. ''I would prefer to think we have turned the corner, and we have the potential to make greenhouse gas growth rates decrease even further in the future,'' Hansen declared.

This is what drives me nuts. When things cycle worse - it's because we are doing something wrong. When they cycle back or slow down, it's because we are suddenly now doing something better (of course, no one can ever figure out what that thing is). There are a great deal of natural climate shifts and I am sure that the world's population has a minor impact on that from time to time. But to act as if there is legit science that shows by accepting the Kyoto Accords or some similar method we can somehow impact this process is a major leap of faith.

From everything I have read and seen, going to the Kyoto would be akin to taking a thimble of sand off the beach and throwing it in the ocean from a global climate perspective. The global warming issue has gone from an interesting intellectual exercise to try and see what some factors could be and matching trends to a rally point for pro-environment and anti-business groups (mostly based in Europe) to try and stick it to the US.

Until someone shows me proof that humans can somehow chnage the climate and it's trends that have formed over millions of years, I am not going to worry about crazy ideas like Kyoto. Now, I will still look at the science on a potential warming trend, but it's a simple academic exercise as there is little we can do to change it.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by dixieflatline

Your right, lack of data is clearly the problem here.





Yes there have been big swings in the past like you say, but these swings are understood. The models match with those swings. Just because this swing isn't the biggest doesn't mean that we can't undrestand it.

And your showing data for ONE region, yay, so antarctica has had some big swings, and is having another, so what? its not a radical shift, there is no direct correlation to the CO2 concentration and this specific high point in temperature, and I'm sorry you disagree, but you can't show me a computer model that I won't be able to look at and point out several severe flaws in its algorithms for decision making, why is that you say? because they're created by p[eople who WANT to have a specific result from their models. I'm not trying to say all scientists and researchers are dishonest, I AM saying however that like any other human being they will strive to deliver the results people are looking to prove who hand over the funding for them to do so.

There is no direct proof that this shift in temperature is anything more than a regular natural occurence, and until someone can actually deliver verifiable proof of such, I will continue to state :

Global Warming is utter horseshit.

[clintl]

75% of climatologists disagree with you.

[RendeR]

They are entitled to their assholes...errr opinions.....

[dixieflatline]

Originally Posted by RendeR

I'm not trying to say all scientists and researchers are dishonest, I AM saying however that like any other human being they will strive to deliver the results people are looking to prove who hand over the funding for them to do so.

There is no direct proof that this shift in temperature is anything more than a regular natural occurence

Wow I certainly hope that there are few scientists out there that are doing that. If a group of scientists were to do such a thing though it would be hard to pull off since other scientists do similiar work and cross check results. You would be surprised how much peer review there is in the science community. When I say computer models it's because there are many of them and they have all agreed that you just can't predict this uptick with natual causes alone. Believe me, if someone could come up with a model that matched the data so well and only used natural causes that would change everything. And don't think that people haven't tried to find such a model. Yes that plot that I showed was only for antartica but other data for other regions exist(though not as far back).

Just out of curiousity, what would statisfy those who don't believe in human's causing global warming that it really does exist? If a computer model was found that explained the data with only natural causes then I would be convinced that human's weren't having an effect for instance.

BTW, one of the beautiful things about science is the fact that scientists aren't afraid to be wrong. Newton's law of motion are all wrong. Einstein was completely wrong about quantum mechanics. You look at some data, hypothesize about what's going on, and then test it, and test it, and test it. If it passes these tests great. If it fails every one that's great too because now you have more information about what's really going wrong. If it passes several tests but fails in a certain region then you modify it(like newton's laws). This is the way the science should be done.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by dixieflatline

Just out of curiousity, what would statisfy those who don't believe in human's causing global warming that it really does exist? If a computer model was found that explained the data with only natural causes then I would be convinced that human's weren't having an effect for instance.

You blew this off above, but I'll say it again anyway: I'll be more likely to believe these predictions when they finally prove they can predict climate change with any sort of reasonable accuracy. When 24-hour weather prediction starts hitting something close to 100% accuracy, I'll start believing they have a solid grasp of what affects our climate. Right now they are regularly wrong 8 hours in advance (heck, this past winter my forecast was for "occasional flurries" and it did not change to "light snow" until 1/2 inch had already fallen).

There are clearly factors that affect our weather and climate that the scientists have not found or identified, or they have the weights way off (i.e. something is affecting the climate more than they think). They have not demonstrated yet that they understand these enough to make predictions, so why should I believe much of anything they predict right now?

A key problem here is that the timeframes are so huge. We won't know for quite some time (decades at least) if these large-scale global climate models are accurate. Should we be making drastic economy-affecting changes based on computer models that have yet to be proven?

[Raiders Army]

Humans do affect the environment (there is no inconceivable way we do not). As to what that affect is, it's like how many licks does it take to get to the center of the Tootsie Roll lollipop. The world may never know.

[dixieflatline]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

You blew this off above, but I'll say it again anyway: I'll be more likely to believe these predictions when they finally prove they can predict climate change with any sort of reasonable accuracy. When 24-hour weather prediction starts hitting something close to 100% accuracy, I'll start believing they have a solid grasp of what affects our climate. Right now they are regularly wrong 8 hours in advance (heck, this past winter my forecast was for "occasional flurries" and it did not change to "light snow" until 1/2 inch had already fallen).

I didn't mean to blow this off. Weather simulations are completely different from climate simulations. Weather simulations are much, much, harder than climate simulations from what I understand. And the data seems to bear that out. Look at how well the models match the data.

There are clearly factors that affect our weather and climate that the scientists have not found or identified, or they have the weights way off (i.e. something is affecting the climate more than they think). They have not demonstrated yet that they understand these enough to make predictions, so why should I believe much of anything they predict right now?

If there was a weight way off or something big that the scientists were missing how come the models fit the data so well? Sure these models are completely useless at telling you if it's going to snow today or not but that isn't their point.

A key problem here is that the timeframes are so huge. We won't know for quite some time (decades at least) if these large-scale global climate models are accurate. Should we be making drastic economy-affecting changes based on computer models that have yet to be proven?

If the models have done such a good job of matching that data for such a long time why shouldn't we believe them? Why are the next 20 or 30 years the testing grounds for these models. Why not the past 30 years where they are right inline with the data?

That said I am NOT suggesting that we completely mess with the economy to "fix" these problems. These models don't tell you anything about the repercussions, if any, to the earth. Other research is needed to answer that question. I mearly suggesting that we go forward and start studying what effects these could have on the enviroment. There is precious little quality information out there about what would happen if the temperature does go up by 2-3 degrees. There is a lot of guesses and doomday speak but no good studies. In my mind these models have shown that further study is warented.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by dixieflatline

Your right, lack of data is clearly the problem here.

...

Yes there have been big swings in the past like you say, but these swings are understood. The models match with those swings. Just because this swing isn't the biggest doesn't mean that we can't undrestand it.

As for lack of data. I don't think anyone is really making that claim. In fact even the skeptics are pointing to the very scientific reports being used to document Global Warming, the small printed parts where the Scientists say that there is actually too much data to accurately model, predict, or even draw a meaningful conclusion as to the cause of even the meager warming seen. There is a lot of data, and more variables than scientists can deal with. More variables than the computer models can deal with. Certainly more variables than are used in computer models designed by people with a specific result in mind.

Also, about your pretty graph. There is a reason it isn't considered predictive. That is because there is no indication that the rise in temperature wasn't causing the increase in Green House Gasses. You do know what plants produce through photosynthesis right? C02. You understand that plants thrive in warmth, right? Don't bother correcting me. It's been done, and Yes, I'm an idiot. Forget this paragraph even happened.

Not many people are claiming there isn't global warming. While many more will argue whether or not CFCs are the cause of it. My problem with the Global Warming Evironmentalist types is that they claim man is behind it. There is just no freaking evidence of that. What caused the global warming before man was building factories with smokestacks? What did man do thousands of years ago when the earth was warmer? What did the Dinosaurs do to bring about one of several Ice Ages? Doesn't it just seem possible that the earth's climate goes through cycles? Man doesn't have to be the cause of this.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by dixieflatline

If the models have done such a good job of matching that data for such a long time why shouldn't we believe them? Why are the next 20 or 30 years the testing grounds for these models. Why not the past 30 years where they are right inline with the data?

Because it's borderline TRIVIAL to make a model that matches old data (or at least much, much easier than creating a model that predicts future behavior). You know what the end result is, so you keep tweaking your rules and variables until the results are correct. That doesn't mean that the same model will be accurate in predicting future trends, just that it happens to match what happened before.

Example: Flip a coin 1000 times. Heads comes up 55%, Tails 45%. I can easily make you a model that simulates a flipping coin and matches that data. That won't be an accurate model, though.

We don't know these models are correct until time proves them correct. Heck, if man has such a big influence on the environment as you are claiming these models prove, and man has a bigger and bigger impact as we become more industrialised, how can you claim that past performance proves future performance? Since man is introducing new factors all the time, how do you know the models accurately predict the impact of those new factors, since they aren't in the data you're claiming proves their validity?

[Whar]

The data from Antartica is significant since it shows a consistent pattern of behaviour for 400,000 years. As a planet we move from Ice Age to a interglacial period back to ice age over and over. We should be slowly moving towards another Ice Age right now. We should see falling CO2 levels to match this as we have over the last 400,000. The problem we do not. Instead of falling the CO2 levels have risen in the last 8000 years.

There may be a natural reason for this with a period greater than 400,000 years. However we know how heat is transferred to the Earth and we understand the spin of the Earth and its orbit. No one has been able to produce a solid reason for this CO2 increase based on nature. Some have posited it is related to the rise of Agriculture while evidence provides support for this it still needs more work.

Solid evidence exists from multiple sources confirming a rise in world wide temperatures. While slight it is certainly measureable and present, however the effect of increased tempurature is still in doubt. The more extreme have argued that catastrophic events will result mostly centering on ocean currents. Among the more extreme is the glaciers of Greenland will melt flooding fresh water into the Atlantic and significantly alter water flow off its coast. However Greenland is not melting fast enough to produce this result. Nor do we know if Greenlands glaciers will continue to melt over the next several years.

[Surtt]

Originally Posted by dixieflatline

Your right, lack of data is clearly the problem here.





Yes there have been big swings in the past like you say, but these swings are understood. The models match with those swings. Just because this swing isn't the biggest doesn't mean that we can't undrestand it.

So...
The rising temperature is releasing more CO2 into the atmosphere.

This is pseudoscience at its best.

Nice chart, very eye catching,
shows correlation,
not cause and effect.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Arles

Until someone shows me proof that humans can somehow chnage the climate and it's trends that have formed over millions of years, I am not going to worry about crazy ideas like Kyoto. Now, I will still look at the science on a potential warming trend, but it's a simple academic exercise as there is little we can do to change it.

What Arles isn't telling anyone is that he's secretly hoping for Global Warming to be true so that he'll eventually have oceanfront property down there in Arizona.

I'm on to you Arles!!!

[Arles]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

What Arles isn't telling anyone is that he's secretly hoping for Global Warming to be true so that he'll eventually have oceanfront property down there in Arizona.

I'm on to you Arles!!!

You caught me

I actually don't mind the pursuit of answers for the current warming trend. In fact, I find a lot of the research very interesting. I just get a little agitated when the leap is made to man's role in these changes. Until we get a little more data and confidence on what man can (or cannot) impact, basing economic policy on global warming seems like shooting someone in the leg to remove a mosquito.

[Mr. Wednesday]

Originally Posted by dixieflatline

If there was a weight way off or something big that the scientists were missing how come the models fit the data so well?

With enough fitting parameters, I can make a model to fit any data I want. Saying "gee, this model really fits the data well!" is a completely empty assertion, since it's designed to fit a significant portion of that data. OK, I'm oversimplifying -- if the model is relatively simple with few fitting parameters and it still fits existing data well, it has value as suggesting that the variables are significant in controlling the behavior. But since the big deal here is predicting the future, it would be nice to have some evidence that the models have predictive value -- that one of these "nice fit" models not only handles its source data well, but also tracks well with what happens after its source data is turned off and it's left to its own devices.

[Mr. Wednesday]

Originally Posted by Surtt

So...
The rising temperature is releasing more CO2 into the atmosphere.

This is pseudoscience at its best.

Nice chart, very eye catching,
shows correlation,
not cause and effect.

So if the correlation is not the causation, what is the common factor, and can you formulate a model that captures the effect?

[Mr. Wednesday]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

You do know what plants produce through photosynthesis right? C02.

I do. Apparently you don't.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Arles

You caught me

I actually don't mind the pursuit of answers for the current warming trend. In fact, I find a lot of the research very interesting. I just get a little agitated when the leap is made to man's role in these changes. Until we get a little more data and confidence on what man can (or cannot) impact, basing economic policy on global warming seems like shooting someone in the leg to remove a mosquito.

I disagree.

If you shot someone in the leg to get rid of a mosquito, you would have most likely actually gotten rid of the mosquito. Kyoto and the like doesn't promise to be anywhere near that effective.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Mr. Wednesday

I do. Apparently you don't.

Damn it!!!! I just thought of this when I was away at lunch. It was one of those "I could have had a V8" moments. I was hoping to sneak back into the thread, and edit that whole thing out, but alas I have been exposed as an idiot.

I took a stab at thinking of why his graph didn't prove what he was stipulating. Instead I'm now an idiot, and I think I should avoid arguing before my first cup of coffee.

I'm heading straight for that I'm With Stupid thread.

[Surtt]

Originally Posted by Mr. Wednesday

So if the correlation is not the causation, what is the common factor, and can you formulate a model that captures the effect?

What I was pointing out is the chart didn't "prove anything" and was calling BS on it.
It dosn't disprove anything either.
The chart shows an "apparent correlation."

It shows:

1. Higher temps could be causing higher CO2.
2. Higher CO2 could be causing higher temps.
3. Both higher temps and higher CO2 could be the result of some other unrelated cause.

Maybe the local arctic drive inn was showing a racy movie, causing sweating and heavy breathing.
Thus raising both the temp and the CO2 concentration.

It looks like it should show something but dosn't.

[Mr. Wednesday]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

I took a stab at thinking of why his graph didn't prove what he was stipulating. Instead I'm now an idiot, and I think I should avoid arguing before my first cup of coffee.

Well, I do think that Surtt and I have addressed that pretty well.

[dixieflatline]

ok this is my last post of this thread(I hope). I just want to clear up a few points that I haven't made very clear.

Originally Posted by Surtt

What I was pointing out is the chart didn't "prove anything" and was calling BS on it.

Your absolutely correct this plot doesn't prove anything. I just posted it as a reply to show that scientists have plenty of data to work with. I actually wanted to find on without CO2 levels but I couldn't find one.

Originally Posted by Mr. Wednesday

With enough fitting parameters, I can make a model to fit any data I want. Saying "gee, this model really fits the data well!" is a completely empty assertion, since it's designed to fit a significant portion of that data. OK, I'm oversimplifying -- if the model is relatively simple with few fitting parameters and it still fits existing data well, it has value as suggesting that the variables are significant in controlling the behavior. But since the big deal here is predicting the future, it would be nice to have some evidence that the models have predictive value -- that one of these "nice fit" models not only handles its source data well, but also tracks well with what happens after its source data is turned off and it's left to its own devices.

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Because it's borderline TRIVIAL to make a model that matches old data (or at least much, much easier than creating a model that predicts future behavior). You know what the end result is, so you keep tweaking your rules and variables until the results are correct. That doesn't mean that the same model will be accurate in predicting future trends, just that it happens to match what happened before.

These models don't "tune" with recent data they "tune" with very old data and then are run to predict recent data. Scientists have to do this because they can't create another earth to run experiements on so the newer data gets run on as the experiement. When run like this the predictions of the newer data is just like predicting what things are going to be in 20 or 30 years.

Also, it's very hard to create a model that fits this new data(and previous data) well. It's not nearly as simple as you think. In fact none of the models that only uses natural causes fit the newer data at all and all of the models that add in CO2 levels match the data. If just one model that only used natural causes fit the data then I would be convinced. If it were so simple to create a model that predicted the climate there would be hundreds of models out there that used completely different variables. This is not the case. The only models that work are the ones that use the CO2 levels with a correct mixure of natural causes.

Originally Posted by gstelmack

We don't know these models are correct until time proves them correct. Heck, if man has such a big influence on the environment as you are claiming these models prove, and man has a bigger and bigger impact as we become more industrialised, how can you claim that past performance proves future performance? Since man is introducing new factors all the time, how do you know the models accurately predict the impact of those new factors, since they aren't in the data you're claiming proves their validity?

Again the impact here is very small when compared to other forces. I'm not claiming that this is a huge thing or even that it will have any effect on the enviroment. I believe that projections of human output of CO2 are used as imputs to predict future years. I am not an expert but I am believe these predictions are arrived at in a similiar way looking back at past data of CO2 output to predict future CO2 emissions.

You absolutely correct that some other factor that hasn't been present before could be introduced. This new factor would have to have never been present during the earth's timeline that we have data for but if that were to happen then these models would indeed be incorrect. These models are only good if the conditions on earth for the past 400,000 years remain the same. Certianly man is able to produce things not natural found so this is possible.

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Not many people are claiming there isn't global warming. While many more will argue whether or not CFCs are the cause of it. My problem with the Global Warming Evironmentalist types is that they claim man is behind it. There is just no freaking evidence of that. What caused the global warming before man was building factories with smokestacks? What did man do thousands of years ago when the earth was warmer? What did the Dinosaurs do to bring about one of several Ice Ages? Doesn't it just seem possible that the earth's climate goes through cycles? Man doesn't have to be the cause of this.

You are correct that the earth's climate does go in cycles and that there are other large factors that effect the climate much more than CO2 levels. These factors are known and understood by the climate models as they have correctly predicted the climate for thousand's of years. That's the proof the scientists understand these factors. If they didn't understand these large factors then the models would be incorrect for large periods in the earth's history. CO2 levels are a small effect but the natural causes don't predict the current(small) temperature increase. Only models that factor in both large(natural) and small(CO2 levels) causes can correctly predict the climate.

Originally Posted by Arles

I actually don't mind the pursuit of answers for the current warming trend. In fact, I find a lot of the research very interesting. I just get a little agitated when the leap is made to man's role in these changes. Until we get a little more data and confidence on what man can (or cannot) impact, basing economic policy on global warming seems like shooting someone in the leg to remove a mosquito.

I completely agree with you. No economic policy changes should be made until we understand what impact(if any) this temperature increase will have. In fact, no matter what is causing this temperature increase it makes sense to study the results to know what effect it will have on the enviroment. Even if we aren't creating the increase and can't do anything about it studying it will help us prepare for what it might bring.

BTW, I don't think it's such a leap to suggest that man is effect the climate. If you believe that at certain levels CO2(a greenhouse gas) can effect the climate, and you believe that man is emitting CO2(which we are), then the only question is at what level does man have to emit CO2 before we see an increase in temperature. I believe these models show that we have reached that point but even if we haven't that point is out there.

Lastly, I don't think I have done a good job at explaining just how well the models that only use natural causes do at predicting the climate. For thousands of years these models correctly predict the earth's temperature to tenths of a degree celsius or better. We should have great confidence in them because they do such a good job for such a long period of time. Only the last 50 years or so do they fail to correctly predict the climate. Now they are off a degree. This is a large variation for a model that has done so well for thousands of years. Models that add it CO2 levels being back the precision to about a tenth of a degree even for the most recent data. How much more data is needed to show that the natural models are missing something? Do they need to be off by two degrees? Five degrees? Ten degrees? For how long do they need to be incorrect? If 50 years isn't enough time is 100 years enough? 200? What is needed for those who don't believe that man is warming up the globe to prove that it actually exists?

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by dixieflatline

Your absolutely correct this plot doesn't prove anything. I just posted it as a reply to show that scientists have plenty of data to work with. I actually wanted to find on without CO2 levels but I couldn't find one.

Ok, I will grant they have data, but as I've said before, they don't have enough, nor do they have any direct evidence supporting your opinion.

Originally Posted by dixieflatline

These models don't "tune" with recent data they "tune" with very old data and then are run to predict recent data. Scientists have to do this because they can't create another earth to run experiements on so the newer data gets run on as the experiement. When run like this the predictions of the newer data is just like predicting what things are going to be in 20 or 30 years.

The problem here lies with the fact that they're "tuning" with VERY limited data sets...ice core temperature readings are a wonderful tool, but the science behind those is also relatively new and could be proven fallible at any point as new things arise. basing a global warming scare on models including such data is fear mongering at best and sheer foolhardiness on the scientists part at worst.

Originally Posted by dixieflatline

If it were so simple to create a model that predicted the climate there would be hundreds of models out there that used completely different variables. This is not the case. The only models that work are the ones that use the CO2 levels with a correct mixure of natural causes.

This is also a problem in my opinion, stop and think about this for a moment. it IS hard to develop these models, hard and probably pretty damned expensive. I would put a years salary on the line to bet you that damned near every model out there right now used some algorithm's or data sets directly from OTHER models. This invalidates the "They all say the same thing" argument, because unless they're designed and built uniquely they are the SAME model.

Originally Posted by dixieflatline

Again the impact here is very small when compared to other forces. I'm not claiming that this is a huge thing or even that it will have any effect on the enviroment.

This statement goes against your entire argument, so now you're saying that humanity isn't a real significant problem here?

Originally Posted by dixieflatline

You absolutely correct that some other factor that hasn't been present before could be introduced. This new factor would have to have never been present during the earth's timeline that we have data for but if that were to happen then these models would indeed be incorrect. These models are only good if the conditions on earth for the past 400,000 years remain the same. Certianly man is able to produce things not natural found so this is possible.

This would be perfectly acceptable, if you had included extra-terrestial input as well. anything in the universe could have caused this shift, higher solar flares, a large pocket of radiation flowing through this area of the galaxy, divine intervention, who knows? This is why I call BS on the whole fear mongering topic. No one honestly knows, they make up models based on whatever data they can find and claim that it "predicts" or "proves" their opinion, and that is a complete fallacy.

Originally Posted by dixieflatline

You are correct that the earth's climate does go in cycles and that there are other large factors that effect the climate much more than CO2 levels. These factors are known and understood by the climate models as they have correctly predicted the climate for thousand's of years. That's the proof the scientists understand these factors. If they didn't understand these large factors then the models would be incorrect for large periods in the earth's history. CO2 levels are a small effect but the natural causes don't predict the current(small) temperature increase. Only models that factor in both large(natural) and small(CO2 levels) causes can correctly predict the climate.

Again, these predictions are based on very shakey data collected from ice cores. While we haven't found fault with the core data, that is only one VERY small piece of data relating to a vast and immense thing we like to call the environment. Climactic changes cannot be accurately predicted or even modeled based on such data and be truly trustworthy.

Originally Posted by dixieflatline

Lastly, I don't think I have done a good job at explaining just how well the models that only use natural causes do at predicting the climate. For thousands of years these models correctly predict the earth's temperature to tenths of a degree celsius or better. We should have great confidence in them because they do such a good job for such a long period of time. Only the last 50 years or so do they fail to correctly predict the climate. Now they are off a degree. This is a large variation for a model that has done so well for thousands of years. Models that add it CO2 levels being back the precision to about a tenth of a degree even for the most recent data. How much more data is needed to show that the natural models are missing something? Do they need to be off by two degrees? Five degrees? Ten degrees? For how long do they need to be incorrect? If 50 years isn't enough time is 100 years enough? 200? What is needed for those who don't believe that man is warming up the globe to prove that it actually exists?

I commented on the whole ice core data thing earlier, but again, when the majority if not all these models are using much of the same data and using such small data identities like the ice cores as a major basis factor, they simply aren't that reliable in predicting anything.

To conclude, and then I'll leave this topic alone as well, Scientists by definition should be unbiased, but we're all human and humans are biased, no matter how they deny it. Everyone on both sides of this argument can whip up models and definitions and data and tons of factoids and blurbs and precidents which uphold their side of the argument. The point I'm trying to press home here is that we still know NOTHING, we don't have a true cause and effect, we don't have direct and irrefutable evidence that humanity is actually having a significant effect on things,we have no way to verify WHAT in fact may lead to the tiny shift in temperatures that people are seeing.

I'm not ignorant enough to say there is nothing happening, obviously the world has cycles and will change over time. What I am upset about and angered by is the rampant fear mongering that this topic creates within the truly un-knowing in the worlds population. People will believe whatever line they're fed, and its sad that the theories that scientists are coming up with are being twisted and stated as hard facts by the media and over-zealous environmental groups.

As for what it will take to convince me? I don't know, but if at some point I am convinced, I'll come back here and apologize for my vehemence =)

[Mr. Wednesday]

Originally Posted by RendeR

This is also a problem in my opinion, stop and think about this for a moment. it IS hard to develop these models, hard and probably pretty damned expensive. I would put a years salary on the line to bet you that damned near every model out there right now used some algorithm's or data sets directly from OTHER models. This invalidates the "They all say the same thing" argument, because unless they're designed and built uniquely they are the SAME model.

Do you have even the slightest understanding of the way these models are developed?

Going beyond that, complaining about the data sets seems completely specious to me in the absence of a specific complaint -- of course the modelers are going to be using either similar or identical data, because they're trying to use the most accurate data they can use (garbage in, garbage out, and all that).