Peter,
I'll concede your subject matter expertise here. I've returned to the
C-Palsy list after a hiatus of several years and have not seen your
"basics". I would be most appreciative if you could provide links to me
for the layman's overview. In simplest terms, what's the timeline we're
dealing with for substantive climate change--enough to cause major
societal upheaval? If the climate does change in the manner predicted,
is it all "doom and gloom" or are their potential positives?
-----Original Message-----
From: Cerebral Palsy List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
Of Peter Hunsberger
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 11:13 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: history an affront to science?
Kyle,
In this case we've got a lot of climate modelers running a lot of
different
climate models mostly all coming to the same conclusions. Some of the
data
being used goes back over 600,000 years and the model results match the
actual climate results. Climate modeling is no longer in it's infancy,
it's
pretty much come to be a mature science over the last 10 years. Going
through the research I'm now comfortable saying that it isn't up for
debate
any more, five years ago would have been a different question. If you
want
to dig into the actual research I can give you the pointers, though I've
posted the basics here in the past...
And yes, you're right about the flu models; I work for one of the
research
hospitals that helped produce them...
BTW, that's one of the reasons I follow climate modeling; the technology
of
using computer clusters as super computers to do do computer modeling
(in
general) was brought to maturity largely by the climate scientists.
On 11/6/07, Cleveland, Kyle E. <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Peter,
>
> Depends on who's doing the modeling: Who's writing the code? Who's
> creating the scenarios? Who's interpreting the extrapolated data?
> Who's deciding which data is input into the model? Modeling for
> long-term climactic study is still in its infancy. We don't really
know
> if "it works". How can we? Modeling is based on input of data that
has
> produced predictable, reliable results over time.
>
> Personally, I would look at the NIH/CDC models for pandemic flu if you
> want a good scare. Using the data from the 1918, 1956 and 1968
> pandemics, these models are terrifying in that they predict death
rates
> up to 20% in some cases. This, in a three-surge event over a period
of
> two years. I think this trumps concerns about climactic change, in my
> book, and I believe this is a clear and present danger that we need to
> be marshalling forces for NOW.
>
> Public Health officials are absolutely terrified of an influenza
> pandemic because they have absolutely no means of realistic
prophylaxis
> in the general population. All we have for direction at the moment is
> to be vigilant about hand washing and wear an N95 mask (dubious
> protection for something as small as a virus).
>
> I would that our Internet pioneer, Mr. Gore, had put his eggs into
this
> basket if he needed a "cause celebre". Talk about your Inconvenient
> Truths...
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Kyle C.
>
--
Peter Hunsberger
-----------------------
To change your mail settings or leave the C-PALSY list, go here:
http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?SUBED1=c-palsy
-----------------------
To change your mail settings or leave the C-PALSY list, go here:
http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?SUBED1=c-palsy
|
