Julia. You seem to be assuming that my post was in favour of an ETS. It had nothing whatsoever to do with what policies to adopt. I was responding to the notion that as we cannot accurately predict the weather 3 days ahead, that we shouldn't bother to try and predict global weather patterns and their causes, even though they may effect our very existence as a species. As I indicated, the purpose of the modelling is not to show whether Christmas day will be a nice day in Cairns in 2020, but whether the trends in climate could lead to situations that could be catastrophic to us as a species and if so, is there any action that we can take to prevent such changes.
I agree. And don't those scientists also use their own models to come to their conclusions? Or perhaps use the same models as the mainstream scientists, but come to different conclusions.
And I wouldn't make the assumptions that all the scientists that think differently to the mainstream are excluded from peer review. From what I have read, many have been peer reviewed and found wanting.
I'm not sure why you think it is not relevant? I was simply indicating that economic modelling is trying to predict long term trends in the economy and based on those trends we make decisions on whether we should invest in shares or property or whatever. It is not trying to predict the price of BHP in 2020. Equally climate modelling, as stated above, is trying to predict long terms trends in climate change, not whether it is going to be a nice day in Cairns on Christmas Day, 2020. It was an an analogy to illustrate the purpose of climate modelling, not to suggest that the climate and the economy exhibit the same trends. It was a throwback to the "not being able to predict the weather in 3 days time" idea means we shouldn't bother modelling at all. We equally cannot predict accurately the value of indices or particular stocks in 3 days time, but that doesn't mean we should not try to model economic trends.
I have no argument there.
Certainly a lot more than the rantings of Rush Limbaugh and the Fox network. Somebody posted a video clip, either on this or the other "climate" threads a day or two ago, that seemed to give a fairly good counter-explanation of the "smoking gun" emails to that promoted by the mainstream media. We are being told what interpretation to give on the use of certain words in those emails and if we accept those interpretations then they appear suspect. But even if those few emails are truly indicating fraudulent activity, that doesn't make the whole of the science suspect. And as I said, the counter-explanations are plausible alternative interpretations IMO. I find the very same issues when dealing with the 9/11 conspiracy theorists. They present facts but then try to tell you how you are to interpret those facts. There are often alternative interpretations that are far more plausible than what the CTs suggest. If you can find that video, it is worth taking a look. All is not what it seems.
Were those that didn't do any economic modelling more accurate? The models didn't forecast the GFC. Pity. You and I and a lot of others would not have lost a lot of money (at least on paper) if they had. But though the models didn't forecast sudden aberrations in the long term trend of a gradually increasing stock market, many of us who stayed invested are slowly recuperating our losses and if past experiences are anything to go by, in 10 years or so it may seem as if it never happened.
I wouldn't concede that at all, Julie. You have either construed me to have said something I didn't say, or if you actually do disagree with what I said, you are of the opinion that climate science is all bogus. I cannot understand how you would hold the latter opinion, as you do hold some climate scientists in high esteem.
For the record......
I believe climate modelling is not a waste of time and if it makes predictions that suggest that we, as a species, could be in danger, then we should not ignore those predictions, even if we know the model to be far from perfect. That is all that my original post stated. It was a statement in support of science as opposed to not bothering with studying anything because we can't even predict the weather in 3 days time.
I did not state what action we should take. I just stated that we should not ignore the predictions. The actions may be to invest more in researching climate change to improve the model, or to cut down on those actions that the model might be indicating is the cause of the potential problem as a precaution until we know more or even to go all out and assume the model is right and ban outright any activity that the model suggest is a potential cause, even if it means destroying our economies (a better to be poor than dead scenario).
Personally I believe in a combination of the first two of these. One should always strive to improve the science, but I also believe if there is a belief that CO2 could lead to catastrophic global warming, then we should take actions to cut down on the emissions of CO2. Such as encouraging nations like Brazil and Indonesia not to destroy their rain forests. Such as using renewable energy in place of fossil fuels. These actions will come at some cost, but if they give us some extra breathing space until we get the science right, then it will be money worth spent.
Finally. I do not support the ETS in any way and never have. It has merits, but only if it is universally implemented and compliance is guaranteed. It cannot be implemented by just a few countries, without destroying the economies of those countries due to the disadvantage they would be placed under compared to their competitors.