# "Climate Change" Was Supposed to Spawn Monster Storms-What Happened? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [May 10, 2013, 12:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982 "2013-05-10T12:10:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![chacoguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/50afbb/32.png) [@chacoguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chacoguy)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2013, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/41 "2013-05-11T02:18:16Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > [except that we’re now in a state of global cooling.](http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/05/31/sorry-global-warming-alarmists-the-earth-is-cooling/) [Bullshit.](http://blogs.agu.org/wildwildscience/2013/04/27/march-2013-is-337th-consecutive-month-above-20th-century-average/) ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2013, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/42 "2013-05-11T02:29:08Z")
A more direct take on the bullshit by Easterbrook: > **[Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Don Easterbrook](https://skepticalscience.com/lessons-from-past-climate-predictions-don-easterbrook.html)** > > This is the first in what we plan to be a long series of posts evaluating climate predictions by both so-called 'warmists' and so-called 'skeptics' re-posted on 'skeptic' blog WattsUpWithThat (WUWT) in which he predicted imminent global cooling.  His... > [@](#): > > In short, over the first decade of his global cooling projections, Easterbrook has already been wrong by between 0.3 and 0.5°C. This awe-uninspiring result is due to the fact that Easterbrook’s is not a physics-based model. He simply assumes that correlation equals causation and future climate change will be similar to past patterns. However, given that human greenhouse gas emissions are dominating current and future climate changes, ignoring this elephant in the room is the primary cause for Easterbrook’s projection inaccuracy. And this was known \*\*before \*\*Ferrara at Forbes decided to swallow the bait from Easterbrook. ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/happy_fun_ball/32/17664_2.png) [@Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Fun_Ball)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2013, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/43 "2013-05-11T03:50:06Z")
Yeah, reading Easterbrooks paper made me laugh out loud. Excuse my french, but the fucking deniers are always bitching about the current models, models that rely on laws of physics and have actual explanatory power, that they aren’t real science. Then they hang their fucking hats on that. The guy is basically extrapolating from past events, but for whatever reason this retired geologist’s science is better than the hundreds of scientists worldwide, people who have spent their careers, in many cases decades of their lives, studying this issue and trying to advance the science. All because it goes against their anti-regulatory ideology. Sometimes ideology has to give to reason, but deniers won’t go there. Fucking amazing. ---
**Author:** ![\_3Bill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/_/b9e5f3/32.png) [@\_3Bill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/_3Bill)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2013, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/44 "2013-05-11T04:02:23Z")
> [@Prof.Pepperwinkle](#): > > Data and speculation from The Heartland Institute. They also dispute the link between secondhand tobacco smoke and health problems. > > In _Merchants of Doubt_, Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway wrote that the Heartland Institute was known “for its persistent questioning of climate science, for its promotion of ‘experts’ who have done little, if any, peer-reviewed climate research, and for its sponsorship of a conference in New York City in 2008 alleging that the scientific community’s work on global warming is fake.” (from Wiki) Speaking of the Heartland Institute, does anyone know what Lord Monckton’s been up to lately? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2013, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/45 "2013-05-11T04:29:19Z")
> [@\_3Bill](#): > > Speaking of the Heartland Institute, does anyone know what Lord Monckton’s been up to lately? He is a birther now. \*\*\*No. I’m not making that up. \*\*\* > **[The Monckton Files: Cracked](https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2012/05/29/the-monckton-files-cracked/)** > > His Lordship, the Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (glory be to his Beneficence) has long since careened over the Cliffs of Insanity, but we keep listening to no avail for the “splat.R… BTW, that is an article from \*\*still \*\*conservative Republican scientist Barry Bickmore from BYU, lately he is really letting the Republicans know that the denial act will, sooner rather than later, become a big albatross on the neck of the politicians that prefer to ignore science. > **[Climate Asylum](https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/)** > > A Republican Scientist Advocates Sane Energy Policies > [@](#): > > A number of Republicans like me believe we are shooting ourselves in the foot by acting like a bunch of slack-jawed yokels and tinfoil-hat-wearing loons with respect to climate change. [Here’s a very good National Journal article about moves within the Republican party to start addressing climate change.](http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/the-coming-gop-civil-war-over-climate-change-20130509) ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2013, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/46 "2013-05-11T05:00:22Z")
> [@L. G. Butts](#): > > Yeah, reading Easterbrooks paper made me laugh out loud. Excuse my french, but the fucking deniers are always bitching about the current models, models that rely on laws of physics and have actual explanatory power, that they aren’t real science. Anybody who has ever modeled ANYTHING knows the likelihood of an accurate prediction is in proportion to the simplicity of the data inputs. We accept that the predictions 100 years from now are accurate yet we can’t plot out the weather more than a week and it’s iffy at best how accurate that is. What is far far worse are the actions taken based on these predictions. There is no ROI mindset to any of it. We’re trying to smother a campfire with truck loads of money instead of 5 cents worth of water. removing co2 is not the only solution to the problem but that apparently is the only one pursued. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2013, 5:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/47 "2013-05-11T05:12:36Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Anybody who has ever modeled ANYTHING knows the likelihood of an accurate prediction is in proportion to the simplicity of the data inputs. > > We accept that the predictions 100 years from now are accurate yet we can’t plot out the weather more than a week and it’s iffy at best how accurate that is. > > What is far far worse are the actions taken based on these predictions. There is no ROI mindset to any of it. We’re trying to smother a campfire with truck loads of money instead of 5 cents worth of water. > > removing co2 is not the only solution to the problem but that apparently is the only one pursued. Not accurate at all to say that there is no ROI [http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/03/02/434413/economist-william-nordhaus-slams-global-warming-deniers-cost-of-delay-is-4-trillion/](http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/03/02/434413/economist-william-nordhaus-slams-global-warming-deniers-cost-of-delay-is-4-trillion/) > [@](#): > > This leads to the second point, which is that the authors summarize my results incorrectly. My research shows that there are indeed substantial net benefits from acting now rather than waiting fifty years. A look at Table 5-1 in my study A Question of Balance (2008) shows that the cost of waiting fifty years to begin reducing CO2 emissions is $2.3 trillion in 2005 prices. If we bring that number to today’s economy and prices, the loss from waiting is $4.1 trillion. Wars have been started over smaller sums.1 > > My study is just one of many economic studies showing that economic efficiency would point to the need to reduce CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions right now, and not to wait for a half-century. Waiting is not only economically costly, but will also make the transition much more costly when it eventually takes place. Current economic studies also suggest that the most efficient policy is to raise the cost of CO2 emissions substantially, either through cap-and-trade or carbon taxes, to provide appropriate incentives for businesses and households to move to low-carbon activities. And the reason why controlling (“just removing” is the real of geo-engineering) is considered is because it also makes more economical sense. > [@](#): > > Policies implemented today serve as a hedge against unsuspected future dangers that suddenly emerge to threaten our economies or environment. So, if anything, the uncertainties would point to a more rather than less forceful policy—and one starting sooner rather than later—to slow climate change. > > ``` > The group of sixteen scientists argues that we should avoid alarm about climate change. I am equally concerned by those who allege that we will incur economic catastrophes if we take steps to slow climate change. The claim that cap-and-trade legislation or carbon taxes would be ruinous or disastrous to our societies does not stand up to serious economic analysis. We need to approach the issues with a cool head and a warm heart. And with respect for sound logic and good science. > > ``` ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2013, 5:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/48 "2013-05-11T05:21:29Z")
As for the really silly points on model accuracy and weather predictions: > **[How reliable are climate models?](https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm)** > > \While there are uncertainties with climate models, they successfully reproduce the past and have made predictions that have been subsequently confirmed by observations.\ > [@](#): > > While there are uncertainties with climate models, they successfully reproduce the past and have made predictions that have been subsequently confirmed by observations. > **[The difference between weather and climate](https://skepticalscience.com/weather-forecasts-vs-climate-models-predictions-intermediate.htm)** > > \Weather is chaotic, making prediction difficult. However, climate takes a long term view, averaging weather out over time. This removes the chaotic element, enabling climate models to successfully predict future climate change.\ > [@](#): > > What the science says… > Weather is chaotic, making prediction difficult. However, climate takes a long term view, averaging weather out over time. This removes the chaotic element, enabling climate models to successfully predict future climate change. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2013, 5:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/49 "2013-05-11T05:29:51Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Not accurate at all to say that there is no ROI > > [http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/03/02/434413/economist-william-nordhaus-slams-global-warming-deniers-cost-of-delay-is-4-trillion/](http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/03/02/434413/economist-william-nordhaus-slams-global-warming-deniers-cost-of-delay-is-4-trillion/) > And the reason why controlling (“just removing” is the real of geo-engineering) is considered is because it also makes more economical sense. I never suggested a delay so that argument makes no sense. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2013, 5:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/50 "2013-05-11T05:50:37Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > I never suggested a delay so that argument makes no sense. The de facto “action” coming from the deniers in congress is to delay or do nothing. Under those constrictions the solutions coming from people that usually tell you that there is nothing to worry about will be on occasion ineffective. The solution is to tell the powers that be to stop the delays and realize that there is a problem, as the saying goes, only when we get to elect people that are not blind that we will not be led to disaster, we should be able to employ better solutions based on the ROI already made by economists that took a look at the issue already. ---
**Author:** ![PunditLisa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/4af34b/32.png) [@PunditLisa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PunditLisa)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2013, 1:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/51 "2013-05-11T13:15:06Z")
> [@Ken001](#): > > Whatever. What is indisputable is that air water and soil is being polluted to poisonous levels by 7 billion humans. Anything we can do to reverse this can only be good for our neighbours and our children. Are you proposing genocide? ---
**Author:** ![Crafter\_Man](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crafter_man/32/458_2.png) [@Crafter\_Man](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crafter_Man)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2013, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/52 "2013-05-11T13:35:28Z")
> [@Ken001](#): > > What is indisputable is that air water and soil is being polluted to poisonous levels by 7 billion humans. Anything we can do to reverse this can only be good for our neighbours and our children. The quality of our air has been \*continuously improving \*over the past 30 years. At least in the U.S.: [http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/aqtrends.html](http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/aqtrends.html) ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/happy_fun_ball/32/17664_2.png) [@Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Fun_Ball)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2013, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/53 "2013-05-11T14:35:05Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Anybody who has ever modeled ANYTHING knows the likelihood of an accurate prediction is in proportion to the simplicity of the data inputs. > > We accept that the predictions 100 years from now are accurate yet we can’t plot out the weather more than a week and it’s iffy at best how accurate that is. > > What is far far worse are the actions taken based on these predictions. There is no ROI mindset to any of it. We’re trying to smother a campfire with truck loads of money instead of 5 cents worth of water. > > removing co2 is not the only solution to the problem but that apparently is the only one pursued. I have spent many thousands of hours over my twenty-odd year career building and testing models and I don’t know what you are talking about. I even spent several hundred hours in grad school on a model based on the Lorenz equations (which were developed to model weather systems). The likelihood of a accurate prediction for a model depends on the ability to take into account all the variables in the system and the strength of the dependence of your prediction on the variables you incorporate into the model. For a chaotic system like the Lorenz system, the ability to predict is based on you knowledge of the initial conditions in the system and how far in the future you are trying to predict. Weather is [chaotic](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory) (you do know what this means, right?) and thus difficult to predict with any great accuracy over the long run. There is ZERO evidence and no reason to believe that climate is chaotic and thus it is much easier to model. For example, if I double the solar irradiance, I can expect the temperature of the earth to roughly double. If I make the atmosphere opaque to light in the visible spectrum, I will make the earth colder as this is near where the solar irradiance curve peaks (you can model it with a black body curve at 5900 K). If I make the atmosphere more opaque to IR radiation, the earth will heat up as this is where the earth power spectral density is highest. These are pretty simple relationships that have a solid basis in well understood physics. Simplicity of the data inputs has nothing to do with it. What do you even mean? Granted, modeling climate is difficult because of the number of variables in the system and the difficulty in determining their effects. Taking the effects of cloud cover and the reduced albedo of an ice free pole can add uncertainty to a model. Many of these effects are second order at best (when approximated via expansion) but however they may decrease or amplify the overall trend, making the atmosphere more opaque in the IR will tend to make the planet hotter. Simple physics. Regardless, you do realize that Easterbrook is not even modeling right? He is fitting past data and extrapolating. He has nothing in his predications that describe how different variables in the system affect the system. He is simply plotting the temperature of the globe against different variables and fitting them and then extrapolating to get a prediction. This is not a model, but you seem to believe that it is more valid than a model based on actual physical laws though I have yet to hear you explain why. Is it because it is simple? Data fitting and using it to predict future performance is fine if you can reasonably expect future conditions to be the same as past conditions. I have spent the last few months building a “model” of detector output vs. temperature, exposure time, photon flux, micro-channel plate voltage, and total integrated radiation dose for a detector flying on a future Mars mission based upon tens of thousands of images taken in various conditions. I expect it to hold up well. Easterbrook’s predictions on the other hand I don’t trust at all for the simple reason that future conditions are not the same as those used during his interpolation. The CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is higher now than it has been in probably at least a million years. Simple physics tells me that this will tend to heat the earth. This perturbation to the system is guaranteed to have an effect and nowhere in Easterbrook’s “model” does he take that into account. Why are you willing to accept his results but scoff at all the other models out there that are based on know physical relationships? Is it simply ideology? Or are they too complicated for you? And as far as ROI, you and I could very probably agree on many things with regards to mitigation. I am a capitalist and pretty conservative economically. Unintended consequences are easy to come by and it would be relatively easy to make the cure as bad as the disease. But that’s not what we are talking about, is it? We are talking about simple fucking physics and whether the Earth is warming or not based on some article by a highly partisan lawyer for a highly ideological think tank that you linked to. You want to talk about what is smart to do and ROI, I am willing to have a discussion about it; start another thread. I bet we could see eye to eye on many things. You want to try to deny science because of your ideological bent and the data fitting of a retired geologist and a think tank funded by oil companies, let’s talk about how stupid that is right here. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2013, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/54 "2013-05-11T15:23:40Z")
Am I correct in my understanding that actual measured global warming is within, say, an order of magnitude of what would be expected under the solidest laboratory conditions, i.e. shine a light on a sealed box of CO2 at concentration X and temperature goes up by Y? If so, then it is ridiculous to even doubt the fact that if we dump more greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere then it will get warmer. The theory says so, reality says so. Even if reality differs from theory by a fraction, _humanity is already on a track to make these errors irrelevant_. By the end of the century we will bust through any possible discrepancy between theory and reality and get into some truly bad shit, unless there is some heretofore unknown miraculous counterforcing phenomenon. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2013, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/55 "2013-05-11T15:28:11Z")
> [@L. G. Butts](#): > > Why are you willing to accept his results but scoff at all the other models out there that are based on know physical relationships? Is it simply ideology? Or are they too complicated for you? you’re making assumptions about what I’ve said. I started with a simple premise that the current cooling doesn’t fit the models. I’m not dismissing that the earth is warming but I am suggesting that the models of the rate are based on a great number of variables, all of which can skew the end result radically with very little change in the data. It might be warming up faster than the models predict for all we know. There is no way anyone can say with certainty that we understand all the nuanced factors that go into predicting the rise or fall in temperature and it’s arrogant to think we do. We should plan as if we don’t and spend money efficiently toward that goal. > [@L. G. Butts](#): > > And as far as ROI, you and I could very probably agree on many things with regards to mitigation. I am a capitalist and pretty conservative economically. Unintended consequences are easy to come by and it would be relatively easy to make the cure as bad as the disease. We could cut co2 emissions radically with a few simple policy changes and focus of tax money. If we rolled back EPA diesel numbers we could be driving 65 mpg diesels right now. Nothing has to be invented. The cars already exist in Europe. If the federal government would focus on bringing down the cost of biodiesel we would drastically eliminate direct release of co2 from fossil fuels. The technology to do it already exists. The end cost needs to be dropped roughly in half and I have to believe that is doable with the proper focus of research funds. The benefits of this are many. Fuel costs would stabilize which would stabilize transportation costs. We would benefit directly from the taxes that would be generated from fuels created in our own country. We would be sending less money to countries that pose a terrorist threat to us. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2013, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/56 "2013-05-11T15:34:34Z")
> [@Ludovic](#): > > Am I correct in my understanding that actual measured global warming is within, say, an order of magnitude of what would be expected under the solidest laboratory conditions, i.e. shine a light on a sealed box of CO2 at concentration X and temperature goes up by Y? > > If so, then it is ridiculous to even doubt the fact that if we dump more greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere then it will get warmer. The theory says so, reality says so. Even if reality differs from theory by a fraction, _humanity is already on a track to make these errors irrelevant_. By the end of the century we will bust through any possible discrepancy between theory and reality and get into some truly bad shit, unless there is some heretofore unknown miraculous counterforcing phenomenon. Look at the technological changes that have occurred in the last century. It’s been an exponential change in virtually every aspect of our lives. We went from cars that got 13 mpg to 40 mpg in 20 years. I literally can’t imagine what transportation or energy production will be like in 90 years. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2013, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/57 "2013-05-11T16:41:08Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Look at the technological changes that have occurred in the last century. It’s been an exponential change in virtually every aspect of our lives. We went from cars that got 13 mpg to 40 mpg in 20 years. I literally can’t imagine what transportation or energy production will be like in 90 years. I will leave this conservative that was booted out of office for thinking that the scientists are right to explain why it is not recommended to just stand and expect that change to come easily: > [@](#): > > …\*\*\* What was known on Capitol Hill? … What do you think is really behind [the rejection] of the science?\*\*\* > > … So when you’re dealing with an existential threat like death or like climate change, if you see it as we are all toast anyway, then denial is a pretty good way of coping. So a convenient way to dismiss the anxiety [that] comes from the awareness of climate changes, you say: “Must not be a real. Scientists must be off.” > > “When you’re dealing with an existential threat like death or like climate change, if you see it as we are all toast anyway, then denial is a pretty good way of coping.” > Another part of that is that if I accept the science, then perhaps it means I need to change my behavior. Perhaps we really do need to figure out how to innovate on the energy front. And if I don’t want to innovate or feel it would be too expensive, I don’t want to admit that I’m selfish, so the better way to dispose of it is to say, “Well, science must not be right.” Dismissing the science becomes a way of getting around changing my life. … > > Another one is there’s an assumption of technological progress, that somebody is going to fix it, whoever that somebody is. I remember speaking with a grandpa who I knew very well, and I know him to be a very caring fellow. … He was upset with me about voting [against] cap and trade. He agreed with that, that I should have voted against cap and trade, but he very much disagreed with any focus on energy and climate. > > So I was talking to him about, “What about your grandkids?” And he said, “I think they can get [by on] their own.” … I don’t think that that caring fellow really meant it quite that bluntly. I think what he meant was, somebody will figure something out. > > And of course my response to him is, well, technological innovation will sure work better if we set the economics right, because what we believe as conservatives, and people who believe in free enterprise, is if you set the economics right, somebody chasing the dollar will deliver to me a better product. They will make money, and they will serve my needs. That’s what makes our system go around. > > But he can’t get to that next step of getting the price on carbon, because if you attach that price, that external hidden cost to the product, it changes economics and all kinds of exciting things happening for the enterprise system. > > But he wants to stick at the point of saying it’s not a cost. The CO2 is not a cost; it’s not a negative. If it’s a negative externality, it’s of zero value. If you attach a zero to it, there’s no change in the pricing structure. So for him, it’s very important to continue to deny the science because he wants to assign a zero to the cost of carbon. > [@](#): > > _ **You are talking about you only know what you want to know. Who were some of the people? …** _ > > It’s really, really disappointing that there are people out there that are selling themselves as experts who aren’t. … Lord [Christopher] Monckton, who is actually a journalist who holds forth on climate science, … people sadly on my side of the aisle have listened to him and presented him as an expert. … > > _ **Why do you think that is?** _ > > Because I think he’s saying something that people want to hear. … > > The thing so unusual about that, though, is that we conservatives are usually the people who use the example of the buggy whip manufacturers. In our passionate advocacy of free trade, we say you can’t hold back the market. > > If the market is saying we don’t need buggy whips anymore because we are going to ride in Henry Ford’s automobiles, then we conservatives, people who believe in free enterprise and believe in free markets, have typically been the ones who have argued against, for example, labor unions, who invariably are the ones trying to hold onto the buggy whips and protect their jobs. > > We invariably are the ones saying you’ve got to roll with this thing. You’ve got to innovate; you’ve got to go forward; you can’t stand still. And we are right in saying that. We are surely right. > > But oddly, on fossil fuels, we are now in the position of saying no, we cannot go forward. We can’t see any future besides fossil fuels, and we insist on “Drill, baby, drill” as the answer. ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2013, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/58 "2013-05-11T18:09:38Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > While there are uncertainties with climate models, they successfully reproduce the past and have made predictions that have been subsequently confirmed by observations. I doubt there are any models that are really very accurate. Do you have examples with data showing level of accuracy? Here is one example of a problem: [http://www.nature.com/news/climate-models-fail-to-predict-us-droughts-1.12810](http://www.nature.com/news/climate-models-fail-to-predict-us-droughts-1.12810) This is a state of the art climate model, and here are comments from a scientist: "The problem may lie in the models’ inability to reproduce the cycling between the ENSO’s El Niño and La Niña phases, especially given that many scientists think that La Niña is the major driver of drought in the southwest. The ENSO “behaves much messier in the real world than in climate models”, says Jessica Tierney, a climate scientist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts who has investigated the role of the ENSO in East African rainfall variability2. “We’re not sure how it has varied in the past, and we don’t know how it might change in response to climate change. This is really one of the big uncertainties we’re facing.” ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2013, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/59 "2013-05-11T18:32:30Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > I doubt there are any models that are really very accurate. Do you have examples with data showing level of accuracy? > Here is one example of a problem: > [Climate models fail to ‘predict’ US droughts | Nature](http://www.nature.com/news/climate-models-fail-to-predict-us-droughts-1.12810) > This is a state of the art climate model, and here are comments from a scientist: > "The problem may lie in the models’ inability to reproduce the cycling between the ENSO’s El Niño and La Niña phases, especially given that many scientists think that La Niña is the major driver of drought in the southwest. The ENSO “behaves much messier in the real world than in climate models”, says Jessica Tierney, a climate scientist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts who has investigated the role of the ENSO in East African rainfall variability2. “We’re not sure how it has varied in the past, and we don’t know how it might change in response to climate change. This is really one of the big uncertainties we’re facing.” What you are talking here is more weather than climate. > [@](#): > > Simulations identify past megadroughts, but at wrong times. Once again, it is climate that they do better, the point that is missed is that the models do what they are supposed to do, the the climate of the past can be simulated on average, but not as precise as planners would want to, however it is silly to then dump the whole thing, because as one important point is missed: the simulations can and do work at replicating the number of droughts and intensities, there is still a problem on looking for more definition, but this complaint sounds like the creationists one and the intermediary fossils, it does not matter that we identified many intermediate fossils, “evolution is false if we can not find now the intermediate of the intermediate forms”. The uncertainty by the way goes to another point: why do then we should not do anything and gamble on our future? What I see here is that the scientists are correct when they report that on average the climate will change, and how often the extremes will come, not exactly when, but the issue is well understood that being uncertain of when, is not an excuse to not do something now. It would be like telling a smoker to ignore the dr. advice on quitting now since the date one will die of smoking is uncertain. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2013, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/60 "2013-05-11T18:40:10Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > I doubt there are any models that are really very accurate. Do you have examples with data showing level of accuracy? BTW most of the examples and cited science are in the link offered early, coming with that reply leads one to conclude that no cite is being checked. > **[How reliable are climate models?](https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm)** > > \While there are uncertainties with climate models, they successfully reproduce the past and have made predictions that have been subsequently confirmed by observations.\ [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982.md?page=4)