View Single Post
Old 04-17-2013, 02:08 PM   #48
AustinChief AustinChief is offline
Administrator
 
AustinChief's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Austin
Casino cash: $12214
Quote:
Originally Posted by tiptap View Post
So with the reduction in research as part of the cut back in government spending, where will this continued research get money on all the fronts of efficiency, conservation and alternate energy systems. Will we get it from coal, oil and gas? Their economic interest is seems un-altruistic.
I am in full support of government spending on RESEARCH in this area. Not spending on technologies that should be developed by the private sector, but spending on the science needed to gain a better understanding and produce accurate modeling. I can't think of anything that represents a more important aspect off National Defense than this in the long run. In a perfect world, I'd like to see the funding somehow insulated from the whims of politicians and also be large enough to destroy any agenda driven research that relies on scare tactics and media manipulation to insure that the research continues.
To be clear, this is the research in HOW the entire global climate works and the basic science... any research on tech should be private companies. If the tech can't prove itself in the free market than it's likely crap anyway. No place for government in that side of things unless you think we can weaponize climate tech. Lightning guns for the win!

Quote:
Originally Posted by tiptap View Post
As far as being a white knight, you have offered no hypothesis to account for any change in temperature. That better solution would be a white knight. No you are a diligent skeptic. Needed but to accept that we can not have any level of understanding, that the physics applied to atmosphere cannot be done, is to leave the area to mysticism. And to being hijacked by those whose religion is profit alone.
Actually I have offered alternate hypotheses many times before(solar variance for example) ... but that isn't necessary in this case. I am more interested in exposing the fraudulent claims of hacks that distort the science to prop up their agenda.

And where have I EVER said this is UNKNOWABLE? I have stated that I think we can't make accurate models RIGHT NOW mostly due to a lack of computational power. We also lack full understanding of some of the basic principles. A good example would be the shift from 4.2C to 3C to now many are jumping on 2.5C as an accurate figure for doubling. At some point we'll get that right.. but I certainly don't trust the current guesswork to be accurate. With continued research (needs more funding and less politics, no clue how to accomplish either) and a huge jump in computational power we very well could end up with models that are predictive and accurate. Whenever we achieve practical quantum computing (20-30 years I would guess) I expect to see a huge leap forward in this field... but that means we have A LOT of ground work in the field to get done before we get to that point.
Posts: 15,272
AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.
  Reply With Quote