Study predicts imminent irreversible planetary collapse

Since government is creating massive problems already, such as the global debt crisis, I really don't think all encompassing planetary government is a good idea at all.

People seem to think nothing could ever go wrong with such a concept. But history tells another story about government. We've had some very bad totalitarian governments. I'd rather not trust any single organization that will never face any competition.

I'm not saying its a bad idea to coordinate with other countries on specific issues. That's what treaties are for. Even there, some pretty bad ideas can be agreed upon. At least countries can leave a treaty that proves to be a disaster.

I've read it. The purpose of a scientific paper is to state its assumptions and suppositions clearly. The fact that this one doesn't even manage that is a big knock against it, aside from the fact that the basic "theory" is fundamentally not falsifiable.

> V=IR is a mathematical model of a resistor

It's the basis for a model of a resistor, but it's an exact equation of resistance. There is a difference.

> they're testing the model, gathering new data to see how well the models hold up.

No, they are not testing the model, they are trying to improve the model by recording what it did in the past.

To test the model you make a prediction of what it will do in the future, then wait and see if it happens the way your model shows. It can't be done for climate though since it would take decades. They do try to test it by giving it old data and seeing if it predicts current conditions - which is great, but does not help in predicting the future since the input will be different this time.

> you're acting as if those poor scientists haven't realised this yet.

They most definitely do realize how poor the results are (just see how many weasel words they put in the paper linked to this topic), they just have no better options.

> try looking at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_model - what do you see? Ooh - equations.

Do you really not understand the difference between a model and a fundamental equation? A model does not have perfect input, and a model may not include all things that can affect the output.

An physical law (an equation usually), is exact. It might not apply to real physical objects (like the ideal gas law), but that doesn't make the equation a model - the equation is correct for where it's used, it just doesn't cover everything.

Excellent quote BTW, but don't take from that that everything is a model. The real world is not a model - if I test something and it does something in the real world, I have real information. In a model I only have the information I put in it, and it's simply impossible for me to put in everything.

I found a great example for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Bravo#Cause_of_high_yiel...

They made a model - but they missed something. Good thing they were able to test it, and see what they missed. But if you don't have the ability to test? (Like climate.) Then your model is useless.

A model is useful only if you can test it. The model will help you know what to test, the model will help you see if you understand the topic. But a model you can not test is useless.

(Just to repeat myself: I'm not arguing about models, I'm arguing about models that can't be tested.)

> I'd rather not trust any single organization that will never face any competition.

Neither would I. That would be silly.

Can you tell me what government is? In my experience, people who are afraid of governments becoming totalitarian cannot seem to grasp what the government itself is. Would you be an exception to this trend?

I'm a big fan of George Carlin, but that point was still irrelevant and largely self-defeating when he first popularized it.

For such an astute student of language, with an eye toward practicality over formality, I don't know how he could see a difference between his complaint that the colloquial 'save the planet' implied rather than explicitly expressed a human point of reference and his many rants against unnecessarily precise techno-jargon. (see: PTSD, pre-boarding, etc)

The only useful value in highlighting that 'save the planet' implies 'so we can still live here', is to draw attention to how the knee-jerk response to such slogans and policy suggestions [1] is the height of arrogance/ignorance.

But rather than exposing the absurdity of that knee-jerk response, his little rant has served as ammunition for that response, shifting the expectation of evidence of lasting harm to an intellectual game of pointless abstraction. [2]

As such it started, and continues, to bother me.

So, again, if you find any legitimate comfort in the idea of the planet continuing on without us (As Carlin may well have) there's no good reason to stop at that level of abstraction.

And if you just want to complain about colloquial language, generally speaking, that pursuit winds up on the receiving end of the bulk of Carlin's analysis of language.

[1] In short: dismissing any potential for a legitimate concern about defending life as we know it by casting conservationist policies as the work of extremists or dismissing any potential for damage by humans by suggesting that we're powerless to truly harm nature.

[2] E.g. "We may turn America's breadbasket into a dust bowl - but after we all starve to death, things will grow again!" As if that matters to the conservationist or their opponent, being as they would both have starved to death.