Al Gore said it best: "The science is in!"
The echo chamber has sounded:
The science is in!
The science is in!
If the science really is in, and additional research is redundant, why not repurpose and redirect all of the billions of dollars being spent on global warming science? Sure, spend a few bucks on researching better solar panels, but stop there. We don't need more computer models that tell us the same thing we have been told for years. We don't need to measure and remeasure the incremental warming of every corner of the planet. We don't need to pay to send scientists to lavish global warming conferences.
Scientists at the University of Utah are claiming that the current climate models are realistic:
University of Utah study results directly relate to this highly publicized report by showing that the models used for the IPCC paper have reached an unprecedented level of realism.
Another important aspect of the research is that climate models built in the U.S. are now some of the best models worldwide. Increased efforts in the U.S. over the past few years to build better climate models have paid off, and according to the authors' measure of reliability, one of the U.S. models is now one of the leading climate models worldwide.
Let's stop here. If the model is so realistic, and the science is in, we are wasting government money, our money, to refine the models any further.
Meanwhile Paul Chesser reminds us of the Denver Post editorial which got us to thinking about writing this essay.
...sounds the alarm over diminishing government resources for climate research that "will drop in real terms this year -- for the fourth year in a row." What "real terms" are, he does not explain. Nevertheless we are to be disturbed, because:
There is no substitute for computing power to understand and predict weather and climate. Larger and faster computers allow scientists to effectively combine diverse global observations into a meaningful whole, and to make predictions and warnings with increasing accuracy and detail. But many U.S. research and operational climate and weather centers now lag behind their international counterparts in the amount of computing power dedicated to weather and climate modeling.
In the interest of non-disclosure, Mr. (Dr.?) Anthes does not divulge whether he has received federal funds
On the one hand, the University of Utah is saying we have the best models in the world and on the other we are to be frightened by the Denver Post that "we now lag behind."
Which ever is the case, it shouldn't really matter if the science is in.
We propose a 20% cut in global warming government research funds each year over the next five years. That wouldn't mean a complete cut off of funds. At the end of five years, a 20% annual reduction would still leave the budget at 32% of its current level.
Anything over that level is, by definition, government waste, fraud, and abuse.
Comments