|
| In real life engineering, what ever I come up with has to be actually doable. It's one thing to theorize and model an airbag, but if knocks the occupants head off his shoulders, the model is in error not reality. Even back in school we were always challenged with bringing our calculations under the scrutiny of 'does that really happen?' A poorly designed model which doesn't match what really happens is of no value in predictions - not that it's stopping anybody these days.
That said, this whole carbon deal is a wag the dog or 'chasing your tail' event with little based on what might actually happen. Carbon and Carbon Dioxide are not poisons and if CO2 concentration had huge consequences we would see responses after large forest fires or volcano eruptions (at least locally). This would be a starting point for a model - match up with something real, otherwise it's just guessing. However I don't think what really happens fits the current climate monger's agenda. Instead cherry picked data from the middle of nowhere and data from weather stations with 'issues' (and are from but a snap shot in geologic time) are held up as settled science and, randomly, CO2 is determined to the be bad guy. After that the printing presses roll as researchers look to get in on the cash cow.
Why anyone jumps on board with this is beyond me. Though, I had someone suggest to me that what Bill C did in the WH wasn't considered an affair (I'm not sure his wife would agree). Not going after the past, but it's the irony of what folks will decide to believe.
Btw, all this will be what we have to deal with in ag unless politics change.
Edited by Pat H 4/23/2014 08:51
| |
|
Bad "science" - biofuel post below.
