The Mobile Press Register had a good article on how the environment has improved over the last few decades. It correctly points out that the improvements come through a combination of government regulation and capitalism inspired efficiency improvements. We are truly better off. I could not find a link however. Too bad as it serves as a good counter to technophobes. Much of the damage previously done by technology has been undone by better technology after science discovered the dangers. The bottom line is that life expectancy and standard of living are rising. So much for the science and technology are bad stance.

On the other hand there seem to be a fair number of the persuasion that capitalism,science and technology are all good. This is false. I work at a former superfund site. While the company's former activities were legal, I find it hard to believe that they were sure landfilling insecticide byproducts and residues would not contaminate groundwater or have any impact on humans. The DDT manufactured at my site wiped out a huge number of birds. The dire environmental warnings posted in past Scientific Americans did not come to pass because they were false, they failed to materialize in part because the warnings were headed and regulations put in place. Banning DDT is one example. Other warnings failed to materialize due to failure to take into acount human ingenuity in finding new sources or replacements for materials in limited supply. In both cases human science and ingenuity lead to solutions.

While my site stopped making DDT under a government ban long ago many other environmental improvements were made during my tenure as a result of government regulations or pressure. Along the way we and other companies discovered that waste reduction was often profitable as well as environmentally friendly. This has lead to many private initiatives to reduce waste. However you can be sure these private efforts are prioritized to reduce costs or avoid litigation. Relatively little effort is made to look for potential problems in existing processes. There is a much higher conciousness of the need to make new processes environmentally friendly. My last unit startup was one such effort, but the company has still built units since then based on old technology in third world countries despite the success of the US and German solvent free plants. In short industry gets a mixed scorecard and still needs government oversight. There is a risk of government overkill as well, but I'm sure I don't need to argue that point here.

Following up on Phil's models comments, I have to say I am surprised that a software guy would say that. I would expect that Phil would know more about software than me, but based on my gradschool efforts in computer modeling I hold it in much higher respect than Phil. Models are like any other scientific hypothesis. They are built on the data in hand. It is no surprise that initial planetary formation models predicted stable planetary systems. To predict otherwise might even have been considered a fault based on the data known. While it is easy to call this bias in hindsight it is in reality making use of Occum's razor. Occum's razor now dictates that we come up with one model that can predict both types of outcome.

Models are tested by making predictions with other starting conditions and boundary conditions. This is why the accuracy of the basic model in predicting diverse conditions on Mars and Venus is so important in evaluating the fundamental soundness of the climate modeling approach and the real potential for CO2 induced global warming. Earth obviously has other systems which must be added to the model. Some may be even more important than the basic relationships of CO2 concentration and distance from the sun. It is up to each researcher to choose what he thinks is most important to add to the model. Computing power has limited how many systems any model can handle cocurrently. This off course leaves room for accusations of bias. The thing is the scientific method will reveal which guesses were right and which were simply bias. The thing to keep in mind is that a vast variety of models predict global warming to some degree. Many independent "biases" are leading to the same conclusion so the threat of global warming can not be laid on any one individual's bias. It is flat out unscientific to use the variation in model predictions as a basis for dismissing the entire potential threat as I have heard many space fans do.

Complex computer models are a fact of life in engineering and science. You don't hear about most of them because they are being used to make money and don't threaten anyone's bottom line. I'd guess the ASPEN programs used in by the oil and chemical industry are more complicated in total in terms of number of equations than any climate model. They're modular approach however requires much less computer power to run. Data to check them is also far easier to obtain.

Global warming has much in common with the threat of impact. Chances are we won't have to pay for neglecting the issue in our lifetime. This makes it easy to choose not to pay to do anything. The problem is by the time we know the risk is real it may be too late to do anything. Money should be spent now on understanding the potential hazard and potential methods of dealing with it. It is insurance for our descendents. I have every confidence we can overcome both problems as we have overcome past threats to our environment and economy with new technology if we face the issues square on and don't stick our heads in the sand. I don't condone draconian measures to reduce global warming, but unfortunately our government seems divided between those that do and those that want to deny a potential problem exists. Gee I wonder if campaign contributions have anything to do with this lack of a middle ground?

Regards,
Mark