Admin wrote:rfarren wrote:One of the argument against much of climate science is that it is based almost entirely on computer models.
As far as I'm concerned there's no point in building public policy based upon this house of cards until such theories can be confirmed or refuted.
Computer modeling has gotten pretty good at predicting hurricane storm tracks but it took decades of tuning to get the model right. Computer models to predict climate change have no history or repetitions to correct the model as new data comes in. They're little better than a Ouija board. Belief in global warming is little different from the belief that the messiah is coming.
That said, there's nothing wrong with playing it safe since we have no idea whether CO2 emissions have much impact on climate. I have no idea whether the impact of man ends up warming the climate or cooling it. I kind-a like things the way they are so I'd like to minimize whatever impact we are having. If you want to minimize CO2, you have to stop burning fossil fuels. The mix is 1/3 electricity generation, 1/3 transportation, 1/3 residental heating + commercial + industrial. The only viable alternative is nuclear power supplemented with a blend of things like solar hot water panels, geothermal heat pumps, tidal, wind, and hydrogen. The lesson from Japan is that you need to put the reactors in geologically stable places far from major population centers.
So the Federal government needs to adopt a 20 year program to phase out fossil fuel eletricity generation. That immediately gets rid of 1/3 of the CO2 emissions. The next step is to get us into electric cars that have a way to quickly recharge them during long trips.... either swapping the battery pack at a 'gas station' or some kind of fast charge battery technology that doesn't exist today. Move long distance commercial transportation from trucks and airplanes to electric rail.
This ain't gonna happen since everybody is afraid of nukes so we're going to continue to spew CO2 at the same rate.