A Science-Organized Community: Organizing U.S. Climate Modeling (3)
A Science-Organized Community: Organizing U.S. Climate Modeling (3)
In the previous entry I set out the need of a scientific organization; that is, an organization that is designed and run to honor the tenets of the scientific method. This stands in contrast to, say, a laboratory or a center that is populated by scientists carrying out a multitude of projects, each following the scientific method. One motivation for the scientific organization is the steady stream of reports from the past two decades calling for better integration of U.S. climate activities to provide predictions to meet societal needs. At the foundation of my argument is that the way we teach, fund and reward scientific investigation has been, traditionally, fragmenting. Without addressing this underlying fragmentation, there are high barriers to achieving the needed integration. (see, Something New in the Past Decade?, The Scientific Organization, High-end Climate Science).
What does it take for an organization to adhere to the scientific method? Ultimately, I will arrive at the conclusion that it takes a diligence of management and governance, but for this entry I will continue to focus on the elements of the scientific method, and specifically the development of strategies to evaluate and validate collected, rather than individual, results.
In May I attended a seminar by David Stainforth. Stainforth is one of the principles in the community project climateprediction.net. From their website, “Climateprediction.net is a distributed computing project to produce predictions of the Earth's climate up to 2100 and to test the accuracy of climate models.” In this project people download a climate model and run the model on their personal computers, then the results are communicated back to data center where they are analyzed in concert with results from many other people.
This is one example of community science or citizen science. Other citizen science programs are Project Budburst and the Globe Program. There are a number of reasons for projects like this. One of the reasons is to extend the reach of observations. In Project Budburst people across the U.S. observe the onset of spring as indicated by different plants – when do leaves and blossoms emerge? A scientific motivation for doing this is to increase the number observations to try to assure that the Earth's variability is adequately observed – to develop statistical significance. In these citizen science programs people are taught how to observe - a protocol is developed.
Education – that is another goal of these citizen science activities, education about the scientific method. In order to follow the scientific process, we need to know the characteristics of the observations. If, as in Project Budburst, we are looking for the onset of leafing, then we need to make sure that the tree is not sitting next to a warm building or in the building’s atrium. Perhaps, there is a requirement of a measurement, for example, that the buds on a particular type of tree have expanded to a certain size or burst in some discernible way. Quantitative measurement and adherence of practices of measurement are at the foundation of developing a controlled experiment. A controlled experiment is one where we try to investigate only one thing at a time; this is a difficult task in climate science. If we are not careful about our observations and the design of our experiments, then it is difficult, perhaps impossible, to evaluate our hypotheses and arrive at conclusions. And the ability to test hypotheses is fundamental to the scientific method. Design, observations, hypothesis, evaluation, validation – in a scientific organization these things need to be done by the organization, not each individual.
Let’s return to climateprediction.net. A major goal is to obtain a lot of simulations from climate models to examine the range of variability that we might expect in 2100. The strategy is to place relatively simple models in the hands of a whole lot of people. With this strategy it is possible to do many more experiments than say one scientist or even a small team of scientists can do. Many 100,000s of simulations have been completed.
One of the many challenges faced in the model-based experiments is how to manage the model simulations to provide controlled experiments. If you think about a climate model as a whole, then there are a number of things that can be changed. We can change something “inside” of the model, for example, we can change how rough we estimate the Earth’s surface to be – maybe grassland versus forest. We can change something “outside” of the model - the energy balance, perhaps, some estimate of how the Sun varies or how carbon dioxide will change. And, still “outside” the model, we can change the details of what the climate looks like when the model simulation is started – do we start it with January 2003 data or July 2007? When you download a model from climateprediction.net, it has a unique set of these parameters. If you do a second experiment, this will also have a unique set of parameters. Managing these model configurations and documenting this information allows, well, 100000s of simulations to be run, with a systematic exploration of model variability. Experiment strategy is explained here.
What impressed me about climateprediction.net is the ability to design and execute a volunteer organization that allows rigorous investigation with of a group of thousands of people on thousands of different computers distributed all over the globe. Protocols have been set up to verify that the results are what they should be; there is confidence in the accuracy of the information collected. Here is an example where scientists are able to define an organization where the scientific method permeates the organization. Is this proof that a formalized scientific organization is possible? What are the attributes that contribute to the success of a project like climateprediction.net? Are they relevant to a U.S. climate laboratory?
Bringing this back to the scale of U.S. climate activities – in 2008 there was a Policy Forum in Science Magazine by Mark Schaefer, Jim Baker and a distinguished number of co-authors. All of these co-authors had worked at high levels in the government, and they all struggled with the desire and need to integrate U.S. climate activities. Based on their experience they posed an Earth System Science Agency made from a combined USGS and NOAA. In their article they pointed out: “The synergies among our research and monitoring programs, both space- and ground-based, are not being exploited effectively because they are not planned and implemented in an integrated fashion. Our problems include inadequate organizational structure, ineffective interagency collaboration, declines in funding, and blurred authority for program planning and implementation.” Planning and implementation in an integrated fashion, I will add – consistent with the scientific method – that is what is needed for a successful scientific investigation by an individual; it is needed to make climateprediction.net substantive; it is needed for any climate organization that is expected, as a whole, to provide integrated climate information.
r
Figure 1: Location of participants in climateprediction.net. From the BBC, a sponsor of the experiment.
Reader Comments
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 — Blog Index
It saddens me, and obviously many others, to see the inability of some to at least respectfully consider what they don't want to hear. I learn from this site(good and bad)everyday, and hope I can always provide something in return. I frequently post "peer reviewed papers" that rarely garner comment from anyone, and probably for good reason. Just ask about cosmic rays and low level cloud formation considerations in the climate models. Nothin~
With respect to the COI item spattered about earlier, this should give you an easily understood layman version of what I reference.
Energygate ?
The IPCC is an underling entity of the WMO , but the IPCC has no governing code of ethics and only an informal guidance document. WMO has the documented policy, along with others, linked below. I find it completely unacceptable for the IPCC's type of exemption to even exist considering the stakes involved. Then to blatantly toss the policy they tout they developed and not apply it to their new report,,,what does that tell you? Hence, another example as to why we see so much that provides for less trust by most in IPCC. I will not waste any time reviewing the items that have been hashed over many times. Bottom line, the logic is prevailing.
http://www.wmo.int/pages/governance/ethics/Code%2 0of%20Ethics%20%28E%29.pdf
I shall waste no more of my PCO2 footprint on you tonight :)
China is laughing all the way to the bank thanks to NAFTA!
The heat was released elsewhere!
What is with all the yelling? Are you hoping that people in the other blogs will hear you as well?
“I do have the decency to properly acknowledge the quotes I am pasting.
From post #79” … My sincerest apology to you, sir. I had thought that you would recognize your own words without me having to make specific notice to such. I saw no reason to announce to the entire blog that I was responding to your words since I was addressing you directly and not the entire blog.
Do you suggest that since you believe we could not completely reverse the effects of AGW that we should do nothing at all? ...... Your car is nearly out of gas. Shouldn't you be driving faster?
“NO!
And you know its a ridiculous leap to conclude so.” … Again, I do apologize to you, sir. Is this really more of a ridiculous leap to a conclusion than was your implying that we should not do anything concerning global warming because we cannot reverse it and it would cost money to do so?
“Reports on cap and trade by government, and by think tanks independent, left-leaning and right-leaning, all conclude that cap and trade is an economic loser. Studies from the National Black Chamber of Commerce, The Brookings Institution, the Energy Information Administration, the Congressional Budget Office, the Environmental Protection Agency and The Heritage Foundation all found net decreases in income and employment. And the net decrease is after our government spends taxpayer dollars to build more expensive windmills and solar panels” … I happen to agree with you that a “cap and trade” policy will not work and cost too much. I agree but, not for the same reasons that you do. Our government spends tax dollars subsidizing the oil and coal industries now and has subsidized the oil industry for over 100 years. I am not so ignorant as to believe that these resources will still be available to us in the long term. Oil and coal are both finite resources, no matter how much you believe that they are not. Windmills and solar panels may be more expensive than is oil and coal now but, this will not always be the case as these resources become more scarce and more expensive due to such shortages we will see in the future. I believe it serves us, the human race, better to spend now on renewable resources to offset the future declines in the finite energy resources. Energy needs, in the future, will still have to be met even as the finite resources become less available to us. We are already making efforts to extract the finite resources where we are expending more and more energy to extract them. We are approaching little to no net gain in energy by continuing down this path. Yes, these finite resources will last for perhaps another 100 years or a little more. Are your concerns based on what gets you through your lifetime and not so much for our future generations? Let us also not forget that both the oil and coal industries have an impact on a commodity that is more valuable to us than the oil and coal itself. Clean drinking water. Solar and wind energies do not have this adverse impact on clean drinking water.
“o review: Both the House and Senate climate change bills plan on scaling back CO2 emissions 17 percent by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050. According to United States Census figures, the population of the U.S. will increase by thirty million by 2020 and by 100 million by 2050. So where will the cuts come from? From America's coal industry, which will be shuttered; from our manufacturing sector, which will be moved offshore; and from our livestock industry, which will also be sent abroad.” … Yes, indeed. Where will the cuts come from? When oil is $200/barrel how will we to continue to grow our economy? When Europe and China are already preparing for the future now by bringing in more solar and windmill power do we spend even more of dollars to pay them to show us how to do it? While we still scrape to extract that last barrel of oil or open another hole to extract even m ore difficult to reach coal they will be out producing us and living a better lifestyle than us because they did prepare for their future energy needs. How does this improve your bottom line? BTW, in case you have not noticed, our corporations have been moving our manufacturing jobs offshore for YEARS and we already import MANY of our foods now. This includes beef. Why? Is it because we cannot produce enough food here to feed us? No! This is because of globalization that demands we accept their products even if we are more than capable of producing them here. Are our jobs being sent overseas now due to a lack of energy sources here? No? Well IT will be, in the future, unless we prepare for our future energy needs now, as are other nations doing now. You simply cannot escape this reality.
“We can and must support commonsense policies that protect our environment, but that goal can be achieved without abandoning 70,000 or more Pennsylvania jobs and imposing higher gas and electricity prices on all Pennsylvanians. A focus on renewable energy, conservation, low-carbon energy like natural gas, nuclear energy and cleaner-coal technology are all part of the solution. But as unemployment climbs toward 10 percent, protecting our hard-working families must be our first priority.” … I agree with you. We cannot abandon the 70,000 or more jobs in Pennsylvania. I never suggested that we can abandon oil completely and move solely to renewable energies. I am very aware that oil and coal are still needed and will be for quite some time. This, however, should not suggest we do not start looking past the eventual end of “cheap” oil and gas. The day is coming when oil and coal are not “cheap” to use. Do you not see this reality now or have you been blinded to the cost of the barrel by your obvious political ideologies?
“%u201CThis is a perfect example of the EPA implementing rules and regulations without considering the devastating impact they may have on local economies and jobs,%u201D Capito said. “ …. My turn, to post a link. The Supreme Court ruled that it is the EPA’s responsibility to regulate CO2 emissions.
Link
Do you suggest that the EPA violate the order of The Supreme Court? On what grounds? Would it be that you disagree with a Supreme Court ruling? Well, stand in line, buddy, you are not alone! Still, we abide by the Supreme Court rulings because our Constitution states that they have this authority. Where are we, as a nation, without our Constitution?
“Capito said she will write a letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson asking whether the agency took into account the economic impact of its regulations.” … She can write all that she wants to. She has the right to do so. She may wish to convince the Supreme Court that their decision was wrong based on economic costs, alas, so many of wish that we could!, but there are also economic costs associated with not regulating CO2 emissions. CO2 is an environmental hazard to us all when allowed to reach levels that are disadvantageous to our health and future prosperity. The economic costs, in health terms alone, are substantial when you consider that bacteria grow faster and more easily in a warming environment.
"Let me be clear, it%u2019s decisions like the one made by AEP today that demonstrate the urgent need to rein in government agencies like the EPA, preventing them from overstepping their bounds and imposing regulations that not only cost us good American jobs, but hurt our economy," said Manchin, an outspoken critic of the EPA.” … See the link I supplied above. The EPA is NOT overstepping their boundaries when the Supreme Court ordered the EPA to regulate CO2 emissions. BTW, should the EPA be dissolved and abandoned, who will look out for environmental interests? EXXON? BP? Walmart? Just curious.
“Solar power subsidies have helped bankrupt the Spanish economy, and the very government officials who have peddled these schemes are backpedaling furiously to keep their jobs as their taxpayers rise in revolt. The government is slashing subsidies left and right, but it may already be too late to save their economy. Meanwhile, at least one Spanish solar power company has found a temporary bandage to slow its fiscal hemorrhaging -- the American taxpayer. Democratic Congressman Paul Kanjorksi, who was not reelected in November, has a nephew who "worked" for the Spanish solar company Abound. Somehow, this foreign company was blessed with a 400-million-dollar federal grant. Abound will probably join its rivals in Spain into ruin -- the Spanish landscape will be littered with uneconomic solar power plants that will bear more than a little resemblance, metaphorically speaking, to the windmills of Miguel Cervantes' Don Quixote.” … I find it very amazing that the belief that Spain’s economy is tanking because of its subsidies on solar power is even considered as the primary culprit in their failing economy. I think a little more realism is in order here.
“This tsunami of bankruptcies is headed our way.” … I agree 100% but, it is not for any subsidies on solar power!
“Many of the execs and investors behind these green schemes are Democratic donors and those who have toiled in Democratic party politics for years.” … Golly, gee wiz, Walley! This is a no brainer conclusion when you consider that the Koch brothers do their utmost to influence the energy policies of the Republican party. Gee, I wonder what special interest they may have in any of this? Do you know?
“ Solyndra was another solar scheme that received 535 million dollars in federal tax dollars. The "investment" was widely touted by the Obama administration. The firm was chock-full of investors and executives who were generous Democratic donors and activists. One of its biggest investors was a big bundler for the Obama-Biden campaign
Solyndra also closed one of its plants and laid off workers after gouging on the aid.
But wait...there is more. The hucksterism runs rampant.
Solyndra's auditor could not issue an opinion that would have allowed the company to go public and for its investors to cash out. The reason? Solyndra was so badly run that doubts were raised regarding its ability to continue as a going concern. The backers may have lacked much as investors and scientists. But as crony capitalists, they excelled.” .” … Shocking! Shocking, I say! I feel compelled to post another link!
Link
“I never said I was an expert.
That was just an obvious smear directed at me.
So I let the experts tell the story.” … Please, explain how this was smear against you. I am curious as to how this is so.
And BTW!
“. And just a question.....
If all across the controlled lands of the World,Every country adopted the Climate agenda,
How much warming could be reduced ?
Reduced by how many degrees?” … I do not have a direct answer for this other than to suggest that it would be far more warming than if we did nothing.
“I asked a question.
And you can answer it cant you?
Or are you not an expert?” … No, I am not an expert. Nor did I suggest that I was. I made no statements that are pro or con AGW. I did not say anything that would try to sway your opinion one way or the other. What I responded to was your suggestion that since we cannot reverse the warming, and it would be costly to try, that this is not a reason to not try to combat any future warming.
“And just this for a cherry on top.
From #79” … Hmmm, your cherry did not make it to the top. It must have taken a fall somewhere along the line.
I have no issue with those that are true skeptics. I have issues with self induced ignorance of the subject by those that wish us to believe them over the ones that have actual knowledge of the subject. The subject matter can be of any subject.
“So do you have a problem with your ignorance on extreme environmental policies decimation of economies?” … You would have to first give your examples of “extreme environmental policies” and the financial impact of implementing them and the financial impact of not implementing them. Seeing as to how I never tried to convince you that AGW is real, or a sham, then I was not trying to sway you with any knowledge of the subject. Should you think otherwise, please, quote anything I said that makes you believe that I think AGW is real, or a sham, or even that I tried to convince you of such. I asked you questions and made comments solely on your line of reasoning and not as to if AGW is real, or a sham. … BTW, if I should find the cherry that you placed on top, I will make due note of such on this blog. Should I first reference this post, or will you recognize that any such mention will be directed at you?
“I don't accept any computer climate models.” … Yes, you made this abundantly clear. How does this disprove or prove AGW?
“ They are designed by people who have a stake in showing increasing temperature.” … You are aware that there are those that have a stake in running their own computer models to try to disprove AGW, are you not? How do you substantiate your claim that these computer models are designed by people who have a “stake” in showing an increasing temperature? What do they gain from doing so? A job? Do you actually believe that most climatologists “design” models that would show a warming trend? Do you have any evidence that would substantiate this claim? I am NOT a firm believer in AGW. I cannot discount the fact that Co2 is a greenhouse gas either nor can I discount the fact that our activities contribute to the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. I am willing to see the evidence that we do not contribute enough CO2 to have any impact on AGW. I will follow where the evidence leads.
“I took you at your word that the "models" were accurate for the flood predictions which are exponentially easier to predict.” … Why would you take anyone’s word that the computer models on flooding are accurate? They are models and models cannot take into account any unknowns. Does this mean that flooding is a sham because the computer models are not completely accurate and miss some of the forecast?
“ The current climate models use statistical "garbage" compiled by so-called scientists that no-one can trust” … And you know this how? I fully understand that you do not trust them but, should no one trust them because you do not trust them? You need to prove to me that they cannot be trusted, if you wish to make such claims against them. Should I instead believe those that have a known vested interest in keeping everyone misinformed on the evidence that supports AGW? I hate to be a name dropper but, the Koch brothers come to mind. Are you able to give me proof that the Koch brothers should be believed over the many highly degreed climatologists that support the AGW theory? As I say, I am ready to be convinced otherwise but, you have yet to show any proof in your statements. Nothing, absolutely nothing would make me happier than to be able to have proof that the climatologists are wrong and the Koch brothers are right. Where is the verifiable evidence of this?
“The more light that is shone on these models, the more that one can see the undeniable bias.” .. . Again, show me the proof of the validity of this statement. I can make many such claims. Should they be believed just because I said so? Would you want further proof other than my saying so?
“You, certainly, have shown your bias when it comes to AGW.” … Where have I shown my bias towards AGW? I have shown nothing more than a bias towards unsubstantiated claims by someone that has already shown their bias. All I ask for is the verifiable proof of your claims and I will VERY willingly believe as you do. Until then, I am not fully convinced by either side. I will say that “the other side” has shown me more evidence to support their viewpoints than you have been able to do so far. That does make you wrong. That just means you are lacking in your evidence.
“ I lived in the New Orleans area for most of my life. I can't even count how many times I saw models such as the GFS change the potential hurricane forecast up until hours before landfall.” … I am NOT an expert on the weather either but, I do know that the GFS has nothing to do with predicting GW or AGW or the lack of. Weather and climate are not the same thing. BTW, I have lived in the Houston area for most of my life. I have seen many a blown weather forecast. Does this prove or disprove AGW? I keep forgetting.
“Do you really think that we can trust models?” … I trust that models are indication of what things could be. I do not trust that they show absolutes of what things will be. Still, without models, what do you base your forecasts on? The Farmer’s Almanac?
“ Perhaps, in the future, when your kind can no longer deny that global cooling is incorrect, you will come to your senses.” … My kind? What IS my kind? Yes, I do agree. Should we become entrenched in a global cooling reality then I will easily side with the global cooling theory. Wouldn’t everyone? Do you suggest that there would still be some deniers? How could that be? That just does not make any sense at all!
“ No one who has an objective mind can believe in this global warming hogwash.” .. I am objective. Convince me. I can be convinced to your way of thinking, given the evidence to believe and not just your opinion that I should I already believe. Come now. Let us be more objective than that!
“ Those who do believe in it, are, in the vast majority of cases, liberals.” … That may be true. The truth may also be that most Republicans, not conservatives, believe that global warming is hogwash. Gee does this mean that AGW is true or a sham, based on your simple statement? Me? I am an independent that is not entrenched with either ideology. I am also willing to say that I am more of a fiscal conservative than are you or 90% of the posters on this blog. I am for cutting welfare and that includes corporate welfare. The Republican ideology could not stomach such a thought. A true fiscal conservative could easily do so. Why do we give tax dollars to corporations that are sitting on record amounts of cash? Why do we give subsidies to corporations that are making record profits? When the U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that corporations are people too, then why are they not taxed like the rest of us people? Why do they exist under different laws than the rest of us people? Should any person behave as many corporations do, we would soon be in prison for nothing less than fraud! … Sorry! I lost focus! See what happens when you bring up political ideology in a conversation that has NOTHING to do with political ideology?
“They have a liberal mindset for every aspect of their being. Liberalism is a mental disorder.” … Oh! I see you listen to Michael Savage too! He is such a genius! How could we all exist before he coined so many tags, labels and generalizations for us?
“ It clouds rational thinking.” … Here! Here! Will you, please, give me an example of what you believe is “rational” thinking? I feel so deprived.
“ Those "scientists" who support AGW are usually looking out for their wallet. Just take Jim Hansen. He's made hundreds of thousands supporting his position.” .. Oh, yes. I agree. Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are in a constant battle to keep them out of their neighborhoods. Did you know that the Koch brothers had to move TWICE because this became such a problem for them?
“ Algore stands to make billions should carbon credits take off. It's all about the money.” … Geeze, guy! I thought you were in favor of people making money? Is this not so, or do you reserve this for your kind? How does this prove or disprove the science concerning AGW? Somebody is going to make money no matter how the reality comes to be on AGW. Do you not realize this already?
“If this were actual science, I'd be the first to join the bandwagon.” … OK, the study of our climate is NOT actual science? This is a rather bold statement to make. What does constitute actual science? Any study that agrees with your predetermined beliefs in what it should be?
“It's about politics, governmental control, more wealth for those in power, and more taxes.” … First, those that have wealth already will continue to grow their wealth and it will have nothing to do in what we believe about AGW. Absolutely nothing! Science is not political. The politicians have made it political and this is due, in large, to professional lobbyist that reap the benefits by making it political.
“I'd like to prevent all of the above. Until "global warming science" begins following the tried and true scientific method, it't nothing but a supernatural theory in my manner of thinking.” … Tell me, what is the “tried and true scientific method” that you speak of? How do today’s climatologist difference in how they do the science?
“ Wake up and smell the money.” ….”When there is blood in the streets, I am making money” – Baron Rothschild - 1871
Weird years such as this one will become the norm with continued warming.
Not my data NOAAs data.
More NOAA data for you. It means more tornadoes and severe weather for you.
Over the last 800,000 years, natural factors have caused the atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration to vary within a range of about 170 to 300 parts per million (ppm). The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by roughly 35 percent since the start of the industrial revolution. Globally, over the past several decades, about 80 percent of human-induced CO2 emissions came from the burning of fossil fuels, while about 20 percent resulted from deforestation and associated agricultural practices. In the absence of strong control measures, emissions projected for this century would result in the CO2 concentration increasing to a level that is roughly 2 to 3 times the highest level occurring over the glacial-interglacial era that spans the last 800,000 or more years.
Seriously my Bass ate him.
More NOAA data.
Climate Model Indications and the Observed Climate
Global climate models clearly show the effect of human-induced changes on global temperatures. The blue band shows how global temperatures would have changed due to natural forces only (without human influence). The pink band shows model projections of the effects of human and natural forces combined. The black line shows actual observed global average temperatures. The close match between the black line and the pink band indicates that observed warming over the last half-century cannot be explained by natural factors alone, and is instead caused primarily by human factors.
The temperature rise is the proof for NOAA. What's the matter you don't trust NOAAs data or something?
Gee, spathy, it seems you neglected to mention that the article from the Boston Globe only extends to the first four paragraphs; the baseless opinion and hyperbole in the final three paragraphs is from the radical right America Thinker website. Please edit accordingly. Thanks!
Precisely. We've had lots of such "crazy years" lately. The question is, how many is it going to take to before the public swings around to believing in science rather than denialist fantasies?
If NOAA told you a category five hurricane was going to hit your house tomorrow and you lived in Key West Florida would you evacuate?
Did you evacuate? Which storm was it?
Which storm was it?
So you agree with my oft-repeated statement: the only thing as outrageous as claiming with 100% certainty that a particular weather event is a direct cause of climate change is claiming with 100% certainty that that weather event is NOT a direct cause of climate change.
A cat 5 storm could never reach Houston as a cat 5.
LOL!
Read Dr. Masters blog today. Pretty convincing to me how about you?
img src="
No we are running out of gas. It is a limited resource.Go ahead and fill up make it even worse.
Link
Don't worry, Rusty; as the planet continues to warm, those EXTREMES will become NORMAL--then we can all just pretend they haven't happened. Pretty cool, no?
No, not models: real world observation.
With those observations in hand, honest people are left with but a few options:
A) Refuse to acknowledge that the climate is changing;
B) Acknowledge that the climate is changing, but deny that man has had anything to do with it.
C) Acknowledge that the climate is changing, and admit that man is partially, mostly, or wholly responsible.
Now, in selecting 'A', a person is simply not being honest. Period. In selecting 'B', there's a bit more honesty, perhaps, but a dismissal of most of the extant climate science. And that, of course, leaves only 'C'. And since 'C' is the obvious option--why are the deniers still denying?
Viewing: 101 - 151
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 — Blog Index