Re: Limit climate change?
"But climate change isn't happening. You've posted about a thousand articles saying so."
No. The climate is changing. That is not – and never has been – in dispute. It's been changing ever since the Earth formed.
The "debate" – and I use that term in its loosest possible sense – is about humanity's contribution towards it, and the resulting level of catastrophism – if any – that will result.
The opposing sides of the debate – and there really are more than two sides to it – are:
1. Who the f*ck cares what the human contribution is? Surely all that matters is what should we do about it?
2. Okay, if humans are contributing towards Climate Change, is it really as much as the media says it is? If not, see 1.
3. Are things really going to be as catastrophic as the Chicken Littles are claiming? So far, there is little evidence to suggest that the skies really are about to fall on our heads.
4. Where's the evidence that we have a real handle on how this complex system works in the first place? We hear endless talk about computer models, yet we also see articles like the one Mike Lewis just reported on in this very item that prove we don't have all the information necessary to create accurate climate models.
That last point is also the reason why Mike Lewis is reporting on this debate in a website called "The Register" aimed at IT professionals: the AGW camp's incessant blethering on about "computer models"...
Anyone who has ever programmed a computer knows that a computer model is merely an interactive illustration. Illustrations prove nothing. They are also only as good as the data that went into their construction. Ergo, a computer model cannot be used to support a hypothesis. It can only be used to illustrate it.
The fact that we are still seeing articles in major peer-reviewed journals like Nature that reveal previously unknown facts about how the Earth's complex climate actually works is sufficient proof that we do not have all the data needed to create wholly accurate predictive climate models. Which means the old IT "Garbage In, Garbage Out" cliché applies in spades.
The more complex your computer model, the more bloody accurate the data it's derived from needs to be. Given how easily even a computer model can spin off into the realms of utter bollocks given even a slightly incorrect data or algorithm, anyone claiming to have cracked this stratospherically difficult nut is, for the present at least, either lying, ignorant, or both (i.e. a politician).