Merged Recent climate observations disagreement with projections

[Wowbagger]

Validation as in matching the models projections to reality (not in the past).

That is part of what I just said!! Sheesh. What part of replication (of results) and evidential support, did you not understand?!

Europe is not doing so well...

All that hardly builds a case for "Command and Control", though.

If you understood free markets you would realize how ridiculous this statement is. Public policy has NOTHING to do with free markets. Government is not a market force.

Well, yeah, I agree. But, I find it funny that so many of the critics of Cap and Trade seem to have the opposite ideas about them, than you do.

Oh they collect money from it...$$$ Billions.

From an auction. Not from taxes.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Poptech, I realize there's a lot for you to respond to, but can you try and focus when someone asks you a simple question? You asserted:

No I seek to stop using useless computer climate models and simply deal with empirical data and experiments.

I highlighted experiments because you seem to be suggesting there are experiments we could do that would replicate global climate systems and predict change or stasis based on those experiments instead of computer models. I then asked how exactly we would conduct such experiments:

It's statements like these that exemplify why computer science should be called computer engineering. How exactly are we to conduct an "experiment" that replicates global climate systems and predictive changes based on changes in variables? Build another Earth?

Slartibartfast and the Magratheans exist only in science fiction.

To which you responded:

You can't which is exactly my point.

Which doesn't answer my question nor support your assertion that there are experiments we could do in lieu of computer models.
Are there experiments we can do or not, and if so, what are they?

[URL="http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2008/06/04/cap-trade-is-not-a-market-solution/"]Cap & Trade Is Not A Market Solution[/URL] (Robert P. Murphy, Ph.D. Economics)

Do you have even a clue as to what a non-biased or scientific source is? An energy industry think tank ain't one.

 

[Poptech]

I'll let the record speak for itself, PT. You can rest assured that plenty of others here have read the record and come to similar conclusions to mine. But if you insist upon deluding yourself, go ahead - whatever makes you sleep well at night.

Just don't expect the rest of us to go along with it, especially when your arguments are laid out like this. Kind of sad, actually,

What is sad is you cannot produce anything I have actually said that supports your misinterpretation of what I did say. Please let the record speak for itself. Oh I sleep very well at night because I actually know what I said not what you distort it for your own strawman arguments.

 

[Poptech]

That is part of what I just said!! Sheesh. What part of replication (of results) and evidential support, did you not understand?!

The models have not been validated in this way.

All that hardly builds a case for "Command and Control", though.

Central Planning is central planning no matter what you want to call it.

Well, yeah, I agree. But, I find it funny that so many of the critics of Cap and Trade seem to have the opposite ideas about them, than you do.

Really? Not true free market economists.

From an auction. Not from taxes.

That is why it is called a stealth tax.

 

[Poptech]

I highlighted experiments because you seem to be suggesting there are experiments we could do that would replicate global climate systems and predict change or stasis based on those experiments instead of computer models.

You cannot predict the climate so there is nothing to replace the computer climate models. Thus I answered your questions. I stated we should use empirical observations and experiments for climate science, I made no claim of them replacing computer climate model predictions but that doesn't make any sense. You are attempting to replace something that does not work as if you can with something that "works". If you cannot predict the climate then there is nothing to "replace".

Do you have even a clue as to what a non-biased or scientific source is?

Do you have any clue how free markets work? Obviously no, which is why the source is irrelevant.

The number of permits is an arbitrary scarcity imposed by government fiat. In the real market, resource prices indicate genuine scarcity.

What none of you get is all green solutions to problems are central planning. Which is why I asked my question in another thread that almost no one answered. It is not just a lack of understanding of the limitations of computer systems but also economics. Proponents of AGW believe that government central planning can solve problems.

 

[technoextreme]

Name one automobile approved safe by the NHTSA based solely on computer models

Every single one.

 

[Poptech]

Every single one.

Really so no real world crash tests are done for the model car?

 

[BenBurch]

Crash tests are simulations. Unless you want to volunteer to replace the dummy?

 

[Myriad]

No I don't support quantitative economic modeled results. I have already said this.

Climate plans could cost families $1,600 (The Washington Times)
Duke Energy CEO: Cap-and-Trade Plan Would Raise Electric Rates 40% (The Wall Street Journal)

And yet, you just cited another news article (a far cry from the peer reviewed research papers I requested, by the way) reporting findings based on quantitative economic modeled results.

The Times article reports on a Congressional Budget Office analysis for which the future price of emission allowances is the key factor. And how was that future price estimated? "On the basis of an analysis of the results of several economic models, CBO estimates that if the legislation was enacted, the auction price of emission allowances for those gases would rise from..."

The other news article doesn't mention economic crippling, and seems to be based on one power plant owner's unsubstantiated claims. The claims amount to complaints that under a cap and trade plan, the electricity his dirty plants generate would cost more. Well duh! That's the whole idea, to internalize the externality of harmful climate effects. Same as it costs me more to pay sewer rates than to dump my raw sewage onto the street (and because the street I live on is sloped, the sewage would flow downhill and not bother me at all, so I'm paying for nothing!)

So far, when asked to support your claim of "crippling" economic consequences to carbon measures, you've offered only reports based on economic models that you yourself say are useless, and one man's panicked claim that the measure would do... exactly what it's supposed to do, redistribute capital from higher carbon emission industries to cleaner ones.

I'm still curious, so I must ask again. Why do you believe "crippling" economic harm will result, and what evidence can you offer that you, yourself, believe in?

It's starting to look like you have none.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Wowbagger]

The models have not been validated in this way.

That would be such a scandal, if that were true! A breakdown of the scientific method, the likes of which we have not seen, in hundreds of years!!

So, you mean all those years spent verifying the results in the field, and replicating those results by independent parties, and all the consistency with other, well understood models and concepts was all a lie?! That none of that ever happened?!!

You must have some awfully powerful evidence to demonstrate that!

Central Planning is central planning no matter what you want to call it.

Ultimately, it is market driven, though.

You might have some papers claiming the market solution does not work. Someone else will have to look into that. But, you are not making a case that the government is taking over control.

Really? Not true free market economists.

Most free market economists, that I know, like the fact that Cap and Trade is using free market concepts to deal with carbon pollution.

That is why it is called a stealth tax.

Then, when you want to build your plant, make sure it is clean and efficient!

You can either save money, by not buying credits; or make tons of money by selling them!

It is hardly a "stealth" plan, since everyone knows what is going on.

And, it is hardly a "tax" in the same way that buying government bonds is not a tax.

You are correct in that the government could generate revenue from this. But, if that is really your core concern, then have the discussion stick to that. You don't need to get into all this "models are phooey" nonsense.

Tell us why it is a bad idea for the government to generate revenue in innovative ways.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Which doesn't answer my question nor support your assertion that there are experiments we could do in lieu of computer models.
Are there experiments we can do or not, and if so, what are they?

Poptech isn't interested in offering anything constructive, he/she just wants to tear down accepted climate change science because he/she doesn't like its conclusions. It's like how creationists offer nothing scientific in place of evolution, they just harp on how wrong/bad/evil evolutionary science is.

That is also why PT is doing everything they can to avoid directly addressing questions such as yours, mine, and Wowbag's, and when we keep on pressing him/her for straightforward answers PT starts going off about how we don't understand, we're lying, or (my favorite so far) how their posts are "being censored".

Presumably from the economic derail in the thread, this is likely due to his/her ideological position regarding free markets.

Combine all this together and it's the classic mark of a pseudoscientist.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Really so no real world crash tests are done for the model car?

Key word there, Poptech.

Is every single car sold on the market crash tested?

 

[Wowbagger]

Key word there, Poptech.

Is every single car sold on the market crash tested?

Of course, it might be worth noting that computer model cars are crashed, before they even spend the money to crash real ones.

The computer models have a way of working out the vast majority of kinks, before steel is even welded.

That way, by the time the physical models are built and tested, it is to confirm that the design works (and perhaps tweak it, a little), rather than testing it all out, wholesale.

 

[BenBurch]

I'd like him to address the model run methodology of the climateprediction.net cloud. In what way is this not actually better that the model validation methodology he proposes? In specific. I want actual technical reasons not "it can't."

 

[Molinaro]

It won't?

 

[BenBurch]

It won't?

LOL

 

[aleCcowaN]

Poptech ...

... or (my favorite so far) how their posts are "being censored".

...

You think that? How come? Just ten posts containing "censor" and "censored" by this author are hardly a pattern. We should adopt the higher standard of proof this individual uses.

Besides, having this individual used ten times "censored", probably he/she used a hundred times "please" and "I apologize" or "I stand corrected" and "Thank you" (none ironically), as surely a search within the site would show.

 

[technoextreme]

Really so no real world crash tests are done for the model car?

What makes you think I was referring to the car? I completely forgot that crash test dummies are human models. Its not exactly the easiest thing in the world to model either.

 

[mhaze]

What is sad is you cannot produce anything I have actually said that supports your misinterpretation of what I did say. Please let the record speak for itself. Oh I sleep very well at night because I actually know what I said not what you distort it for your own strawman arguments.

Alinsky's Rules for Radicals, at work again.

Again, ineffective.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Alinsky's Rules for Radicals, at work again.

Die bogus meme die!

Maybe this will at least drive it off.