SAPenguin, the issue many people have with the climate change debate is that the entire issue is based on projection models that are attempting to predict future outcomes based on historical data. This is the modern version of the study that shows that we will run out of oil in 5-10 years. Those studies started coming out in the 1970's and it hasn't happened yet. The reason being is in order to achieve a "run out" date, you need to measure current consumption, perhaps even consider an increase in consumption each year, but you need to discount the discovery of new oil, and new techniques to visit old wells. So given those parameters, then of course it looks like we'd be looming over the edge. Realistically, there ARE new oil discoveries and even more importantly, technological advances that allow greater levels of oil recovery from old wells. At the time I was in college, the figure was something like 80% of new oil production each year actually came from using better technology on established wells.
Okay, now that is out of the way, let's go back to this model prediction issue. With model prediction, all the variables are up to the model builder. There is a clear narrative in some circles of climate science, as we can see demonstrated by ideas like carbon credits. Once political figures discover that economic controls can be leveraged against society under the guise of protecting everyone from themselves, coupled with a scientific community that has learned that if something is not an emergency, then it won't get funded, then we start to develop a narrative that may be considered to be disingenuous.
So, with all of that said, we must revisit the predictive models once again. When someone says the science is settled, the only thing that is really settled is the recording of past data. What the future holds is certainly NOT settled, in any way. Just as you can run a program to predict future commodity prices, or future housing prices, you can manipulate your model parameters to favor whichever outcome you prefer. Either way, as we have been shown with housing bubbles and our current low oil prices, the models don't work as well as we'd like. Essentially, climate science could more accurately be described as climate economics; and as you may already know, there have been at least two sides of the economic debate for as long as there have been economics.
The most unfortunate part of the climate debate, is that I don't believe people would be so angry about anything, and more open to discussion, if political narrative and chicken little hysterics were not driving everything. It is one thing to suggest a change, and another to force one.
With that, I leave everyone with two entertaining pieces of media.
First is a portion of a TED talk by Allan Savory about a time when he was wrong, dead wrong, about grassland turning into desert. You can watch the longer video if you want, but the 10 minute audio is enough. I encourage everyone to listen, because his story may be an account of one of the most severe f*ck-ups I've ever heard. It's worth the listen.
http://www.npr.org/2013/11/15/243721...nto-grasslands
Second, we have a projected rap battle between two famous economists based on our historical data of their beliefs. Could anyone even be considered an "economics denier?" Enjoy.
