http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjeIpjhAqsM

The photography of James Balog is irrefutable. Balog began his project doubting man’s contribution to climate change. After documenting the extreme ice melt in all corners of the globe for the past several years, he has witnessed first hand the havoc carbon pollution has wrought.

I hardly think that you have stumbled upon some earth-shattering discovery with this revelation that the BBC now backs off their former stance. Further, our ability to have a rational discussion has never hinged on such a basis. It just takes two or more rational people with a desire to truly discuss/debate an issue with no underlying motives beyond the search for knowledge and understanding. Once you toss something such as politics or profit into the mix, as usual, all bets are off. With that said, first and foremost, a model is a model and it will always have its limitations based on numerous constraints. Over time, we tend to make advancements that allow us to improve our models and these improvements do tend to alter calculations. Further, the better the model, the more confidence we will have in that model’s ability to ‘predict’ the future. However, one must always be aware that it is just a prediction — it is not a statement of fact and it likely never will be simply because there is too much uncertainty regarding possible future events to ever allow us to create the ultimate magic 8-ball. Scientists know this and they always have, even if some of them do, from time to time, let their human traits mask that fact. So, if it is rational debate you want on this issue, seek out scientists instead of politicians and reporters. Of course, once you do that and acquire some new level of knowledge, the question remains — what will you do with it?

Finally, regarding the data that breaks out of the past strong correlation between CO2 concentration and global temperature, there is certainly plenty of activity out there in the scientific community that is geared toward learning more from that information. Personally, I would just be thrilled to see more government funding going toward these areas rather than into bigger and better bunker busters, for example. Of course, that’s just me — a maker of love, not war.

One final thought before I leave on the topic of models and consensus, are you one of those that promotes the need for pre-emptive measures against countries that you perceive as a future threat and if so, what model do you prescribe to and is there a consensus regarding its use.

There is a big difference between “Might” and “will”.. most reputable business publications are saying LOSS. The Chrysler ,GM money is gone, 1/2 of the AIG is lost and the money that has been recovered will be put into loosing projects like Johnny’s $15,000.00 gift to homebuyers.

“Is TARP Profitable?
The huge government bailout could have cost taxpayers $700 billion. Now it looks like it might break even.”

The Snark always checks his facts. Here is a more recent analysis from
Daniel Gross:

http://www.slate.com/id/2226517/

Saxby will be after your head for telling the truth about Ethanol as most of know he is Senator Ethanol.

We are so far under water we can’t see the bottom, check the facts.. Or did the NYT forget to post the profit from AIG & GM. Thank you Saxby and Johnny for throwing our (borrowed from China) money away.

http://projects.nytimes.com/creditcrisis/recipients/table