Europe Regulators Rant On Weather Models But Love Global Warming

Yesterday the venerable Financial Times editorialized about the failure of the International Civil Aviation Organization to use sound science and stronger computer models before banning the flying of airplanes in Europe due to ash from the Iceland volcano.  The editorial stated, "The blanket ban must be replaced urgently by more measured precautions, based on scientific knowledge of how much ash is actually in the atmosphere..."  It went on to say, "The wide-scale computer modelling used so far, based on satellite images, is not up to the job."

Isn't this hypocracy when short term meteorological measures and computer models are chastized for being weak and lacking in scientific information, yet global climate model predicting temperatures and weather impacts 75-100 years from now are accepted as gospel?  Maybe the defining line is the immediate economic impact of the no fly decision - upwards of $200 million a day to the airline industry and significant travel chaos - versus unknown and unfelt estimates of economic calamity beyond our live spans. 

We doubt the editors will ever look at their inconsistency of their position because that would go against their agenda.