Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Environmentalist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bread Upon The Water who wrote (25152)	9/6/2009 10:13:06 PM
From: Maurice Winn	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 36918

The point about computers is not just "garbage in = garbage out" though that's the precise explanation, it's that computers do exactly what people tell them to do. So when somebody wants to get a particular output from their computer model, they can design the programme to do exactly what they want and give them exactly the output they want. A computer model is just a theory expressed in computer lingo. When the answer comes out "Global Warming", it doesn't mean there will be global warming, it just means that the people who designed the computer programmes told it to put out Global Warming. They might not even have deliberately intended that, but judging by the politics and language of those who make those models, they certainly do seem to have a very very powerful bias and interest in the outcome, which is not how objective science works. I, on the other hand, have no interest in any particular outcome, global warming or not global warming, climate change or not, Greenhouse Effect or not. Initially, I assumed there was a problem. Then I got my back of envelope out and decided there wasn't going to be a problem. The amount of oil, gas, coal, peat and limestone to cement all emitting CO2 seemed to me so enormous that it must be a problem. But when it's all added up and the rate at which CO2 is stripped from the atmosphere is considered, and how much technology and human population changes, it's not at all clear that CO2 emissions over the next 200 years will be a problem rather than a benefit [overall - your local situation may vary]. As the decades have rolled on since the early 1980s when I started thinking about it, CO2 levels have risen and it looks as though 450ppm will be doable soon enough. 500 ppm looks a stretch because by 2037, Peak People will be in and then the human population will reduce by choice if H5N1 or something even more dramatic doesn't do it first. Long before environmentalism was fashionable, I was an environmentalist because where I lived and played was ruined by pollution. It's annoying that so-called environmentalists have a holier-than-thou attitude as though people who disagree with them think it's a good idea to destroy the environment and live in pollution. They are like cultists who have the one true religion and others must be smote about the head. In the early 1970s we recycled everything. I don't mean just a few cans, I mean everything except sewage. Now I realize that was uneconomic foolishness so I chuck everything in the rubbish and if somebody wants to sort it and recycle it, they are welcome to it. When I see "holier than thou", they just look dishonest and ignorant. Wharfie for example thinks merely scoffing "Denialist" is a winning argument. Or chucking in a link to a photo of an iceberg melting or the latest silly and superficial study. Computer models put out what the designer wants. They are proof of nothing. The proof comes when their predictions are tested against reality over a period of time and are found to be spot on. But even then, that's not a guarantee they are right, it just makes it more likely. So far, their models are not even approximately right. That's hardly surprising since the latest sun-spot cycle has upset the apple cart and been nothing like the so-called experts were predicting. If the computer models don't predict the sun's output, they aren't worth much because the sun is the big effect. Next is water. Apparently models didn't even include clouds, and I suppose therefore not snow cover, dew points, desert cover, chlorophyll cover. That means they are useless [or at best good fun to dabble in for enthusiasts]. Mqurice