Nothing good about Ethanol

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...

"Matt Barrow" wrote:

But I am a layman with a business to run; at some point, I have to
decide: shall I return to university and become thoroughly educated on
climatology, or shall I judge by what the preponderance of peer-reviewed
science has concluded?

The "peer-reviewed" reports are supposedly running 100% in favor of HAGW.
Not even evolution gets that high of "consensus".

If that is true, (where'd you get that number?)

The IPCC report on Climate
The Road from Rio to Kyoto: How Climate Science was Distorted to Support
Ideological Objectives , Dr. Fred Singer


Statement Concerning Global Warming

Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology

Presented to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, July 10,
1997 (He refers to the same source).

Facts about CO2 , L. Van Zandt, Professor of Physics, Purdue University,
West Lafayette, Indiana

I have about 30 of these documents stored, should I send you a ZIP file so
you can read them at your leisure?

what does that mean to you?

Like I said in the original, such "consensus" is bogus.


I suggest you be a little more skeptical of your own "pre-ordained
conclusions".

You, of course, are utterly objective. I can only aspire to reach that
level of critical clarity some day.

I, too, have a business to run and I highly suspect it's a bit larger and
more diverse than yours,

Dear me--I'm in awe!



You have no prblem making up your mind on half-baked data, so your "awe" is
evidently aimed at the "authorities" that tell you what you want to hear.



but I manage to dig through both sides of the issue and one side is
psychopatically stunted.

I can't tell if you're talking about scientific papers or political
journals. It sounds like the latter.

You still don't get it that in todays world, the two have been *******ized.


Which side are most--and I mean a large majority--of scientists currently
on?

You still don't get it either that the (real) scientifc world doesn't work
that way.



Are they all deluded leftists doctoring the data to suppress the truth?

Well, when each and every report DOES use a lot of doctored data, made up
"facts", etc., what would YOU think?


Do you think real scientists actually get away with that sort of thing on
a large scale?

Yes.

I will remind you that that is exactly what the creationists claim about
biologists.

I notice, too, that creationists are pretty flakey (to say the least)
"data".

Okay, Dan, here's the clincher and it pertains to the original topic: ****
the claims, show me the data, and anyone with even high school
science/physics can make a proper assessment. I do have time to peruse
articles that persent DATA, but not time to give you lessons in epistomology
or critical thinking.



If you want to rely on press reports, have at it.

Again, get past the notion of claims, especially the ones using the logical
falacy of "Arguments from Authority".



oss the ideological spectrum. Or
are you claiming one side is free of such spin doctoring?

(Hint: see the latter method above)


What do you conclude about the issue of anthropogenic climate change?
Why?

In a nutshell: GW is real. It's CYCLICAL. Anthropogenic factors as down
at the level of "noise".

I notice, too, that all the studies that show the leftist/PC end of
things

Now there's a real scientific term for you.

conveniently cherry-pick around the data.

Are you seriously claiming that rightists aren't doing exactly the same?
And, again: are you speaking of scientific papers or political journals?

Main Point: In science, you NEVER cherry pick your data. The name for
that is FRAUD.

Indeed. But you have made the definite assertion that human influence on
climate is down at the level of "noise". What's peer reviewed studies
are you basing that on?


Aside from the fact that "peer review" is bogus on any issue that has been
taken over by politics .



Here's a good summary:

The climate change doomsayers are always quick to point out that the IPCC
climate change report was signed by more than 2,000 scientists. That's true,
as far as it goes, but, there are scientists, and then there are scientists.
In the case of the IPCC report, the vast majority of the scientists were, in
fact, political representatives of their countries, with degrees in social
sciences. While social sciences might be an important field of study, they
do not provide the holder of doctorates with any particular expertise about
global warming. And, of those representatives who signed the report, only 78
of them were even involved in the 1996 IPCC conference that produced the
report. As James Hogan relates in his book:

[T]he world was told there was a virtually unanimous scientific consensus on
the existence of a clear and present danger. On July 24, 1997, President
Clinton held a press conference at which he announced that the catastrophic
effects of man's use of fossil fuels was now an accepted scientific fact,
not a theory. To underline this, he produced a list stated as being of 2,500
scientists who had approved the 1996 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) report preparing the ground for Kyoto. That sounded
conclusive, and most of the world at large accepted it as such.

However, upon further delving, things turn out to be not quite that simple.
For a start, by far the majority of the signers were not climate scientists
but political representatives from their respective countries, ranging all
the way from Albania to Zimbabwe, with degrees in the social sciences. Their
listing as "contributors" meant, for example, that they might have been
given a part of the report and asked to express an opinion, and even if the
opinion was a negative one they were still listed as "reviewers." 162 Only
seventy-eight of the attendees were involved in producing the document. Even
then, to give it even a hint of supporting the global warming position, the
executive summary, written by a small IPCC steering group, was purged of all
politically incorrect skepticism and modified-after the scientists had
signed it!-which caused an uproar of indignation from the qualified
atmospheric specialists who participated.

[Atmospheric scientist] Fred Singer later produced a paper entitled "The
Road from Rio to Kyoto: How Climatic Science was Distorted to Support
Ideological Objectives," which couldn't have put it much more clearly. 164
The IPCC report stated the twentieth century to have been the warmest in six
hundred years of climate history. Although correct, this avoided any mention
of the Little Ice Age that the twentieth century was a recovery from, while
going back just a little further would have brought in the "medieval
optimum," which was warmer than today. Another part of the report told that
increases in carbon dioxide in the geological past were "associated with"
increases in temperature. This is disingenuous in that it obviously aims at
giving the impression that the CO2 increases caused the temperature rises,
whereas, as we've seen, the temperature rises came first. If any causation
was involved, there are stronger reasons for supposing it to have been in
the opposite direction.

These are just two of twelve distortions that Singer's paper discusses, but
they give the general flavor. Two phrases edited out of the IPCC report
were, "None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can
attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases
in greenhouse gases" and "When will an anthropogenic effect on climate be
identified? . . . [T]he best answer is, 'we do not know.' "

Frederick Seitz, former head of the National Academy of Sciences and
Chairman of the George C. Marshall Institute, wrote (Wall Street Journal,
June 12, 1996), "But this report is not what it appears to be-it is not the
version that was approved by the contributing scientists listed on the title
page. . . . I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the
peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report." Yet a
year later it was being cited as proof of a consensus by the scientific
community.

So how did atmospheric physicists, climatic specialists, and others with
scientific credentials feel about the issue? To find out, Dr. Arthur
Robinson, president and research professor of the Oregon Institute of
Science and Medicine, also publisher of the newsletter Access to Energy, in
February 1998, conducted a survey of the professional field by circulating a
petition calling for the government to reject the Kyoto agreement of
December 1997, on the grounds that it would harm the environment, hinder
science, and damage human health and welfare; that there was no scientific
evidence that greenhouse gases were or were likely to cause disruption of
the climate; and on the contrary there was substantial evidence that such
release would in fact be beneficial. After six months the petition had
collected over seventeen thousand signatures.

At about the same time the German Meteorologisches Institut Universitat
Hamburg and Forschungszentium, in a survey of specialists from various
branches of the climate sciences, found that 67 percent of Canadian
scientists rejected the notion that any warming due to human activity is
occurring, while in Germany the figure was 87 percent, and in the US, 97
percent. Some consensus for Kyoto!

http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=2952



So, do you want the ZIP file? It has the links to the originals so you can
follow up?




--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO (MTJ)

"Matt Barrow" wrote:

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...

"Matt Barrow" wrote:

But I am a layman with a business to run; at some point, I have to
decide: shall I return to university and become thoroughly educated on
climatology, or shall I judge by what the preponderance of peer-reviewed
science has concluded?

The "peer-reviewed" reports are supposedly running 100% in favor of HAGW.
Not even evolution gets that high of "consensus".

If that is true, (where'd you get that number?)

The IPCC report on Climate
The Road from Rio to Kyoto: How Climate Science was Distorted to Support
Ideological Objectives , Dr. Fred Singer


Statement Concerning Global Warming

Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology

Presented to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, July 10,
1997 (He refers to the same source).

Facts about CO2 , L. Van Zandt, Professor of Physics, Purdue University,
West Lafayette, Indiana

I have about 30 of these documents stored, should I send you a ZIP file so
you can read them at your leisure?

what does that mean to you?

Like I said in the original, such "consensus" is bogus.


I suggest you be a little more skeptical of your own "pre-ordained
conclusions".

You, of course, are utterly objective. I can only aspire to reach that
level of critical clarity some day.

I, too, have a business to run and I highly suspect it's a bit larger and
more diverse than yours,

Dear me--I'm in awe!



You have no prblem making up your mind on half-baked data, so your "awe" is
evidently aimed at the "authorities" that tell you what you want to hear.



but I manage to dig through both sides of the issue and one side is
psychopatically stunted.

I can't tell if you're talking about scientific papers or political
journals. It sounds like the latter.

You still don't get it that in todays world, the two have been *******ized.


Which side are most--and I mean a large majority--of scientists currently
on?

You still don't get it either that the (real) scientifc world doesn't work
that way.



Are they all deluded leftists doctoring the data to suppress the truth?

Well, when each and every report DOES use a lot of doctored data, made up
"facts", etc., what would YOU think?

You have read each and every study that concludes their is human influence on
climate? Man, you *are* efficient!

Do you think real scientists actually get away with that sort of thing on
a large scale?

Yes.

That is quite a remarkable claim. It seems you are accusing climate
scientists world wide of mendacity in the service of a left wing agenda, and
that the normal peer review checks on such things aren't working--is that
right?

I will remind you that that is exactly what the creationists claim about
biologists.

I notice, too, that creationists are pretty flakey (to say the least)
"data".

Okay, Dan, here's the clincher and it pertains to the original topic: ****
the claims, show me the data, and anyone with even high school
science/physics can make a proper assessment. I do have time to peruse
articles that persent DATA, but not time to give you lessons in
epistomology or critical thinking.

You persist in this patronizing tone. Why?

If you want to rely on press reports, have at it.

Again, get past the notion of claims, especially the ones using the logical
falacy of "Arguments from Authority".

oss the ideological spectrum. Or
are you claiming one side is free of such spin doctoring?

(Hint: see the latter method above)


What do you conclude about the issue of anthropogenic climate change?
Why?

In a nutshell: GW is real. It's CYCLICAL. Anthropogenic factors as down
at the level of "noise".

I notice, too, that all the studies that show the leftist/PC end of
things

Now there's a real scientific term for you.

conveniently cherry-pick around the data.

Are you seriously claiming that rightists aren't doing exactly the same?
And, again: are you speaking of scientific papers or political journals?

Main Point: In science, you NEVER cherry pick your data. The name for
that is FRAUD.

Indeed. But you have made the definite assertion that human influence on
climate is down at the level of "noise". What's peer reviewed studies
are you basing that on?


Aside from the fact that "peer review" is bogus on any issue that has been
taken over by politics .

Does that mean you don't have any?

And that is a truly astonishing claim: that the very foundation of scientific
error correction has been rendered void!

Here's a good summary:

The climate change doomsayers are always quick to point out that the IPCC
climate change report was signed by more than 2,000 scientists. That's
true, as far as it goes, but, there are scientists, and then there are
scientists. In the case of the IPCC report, the vast majority of the
scientists were, in fact, political representatives of their countries,
with degrees in social sciences. While social sciences might be an
important field of study, they do not provide the holder of doctorates with
any particular expertise about global warming. And, of those
representatives who signed the report, only 78 of them were even involved
in the 1996 IPCC conference that produced the report. As James Hogan
relates in his book:

[T]he world was told there was a virtually unanimous scientific consensus
on the existence of a clear and present danger. On July 24, 1997, President
Clinton held a press conference at which he announced that the catastrophic
effects of man's use of fossil fuels was now an accepted scientific fact,
not a theory. To underline this, he produced a list stated as being of
2,500 scientists who had approved the 1996 Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) report preparing the ground for Kyoto. That sounded
conclusive, and most of the world at large accepted it as such.

However, upon further delving, things turn out to be not quite that simple.
For a start, by far the majority of the signers were not climate scientists
but political representatives from their respective countries, ranging all
the way from Albania to Zimbabwe, with degrees in the social sciences.
Their listing as "contributors" meant, for example, that they might have
been given a part of the report and asked to express an opinion, and even
if the opinion was a negative one they were still listed as "reviewers."
162 Only seventy-eight of the attendees were involved in producing the
document. Even then, to give it even a hint of supporting the global
warming position, the executive summary, written by a small IPCC steering
group, was purged of all politically incorrect skepticism and
modified-after the scientists had signed it!-which caused an uproar of
indignation from the qualified atmospheric specialists who participated.

[Atmospheric scientist] Fred Singer later produced a paper entitled "The
Road from Rio to Kyoto: How Climatic Science was Distorted to Support
Ideological Objectives," which couldn't have put it much more clearly. 164
The IPCC report stated the twentieth century to have been the warmest in
six hundred years of climate history. Although correct, this avoided any
mention of the Little Ice Age that the twentieth century was a recovery
from, while going back just a little further would have brought in the
"medieval optimum," which was warmer than today. Another part of the report
told that increases in carbon dioxide in the geological past were
"associated with" increases in temperature. This is disingenuous in that it
obviously aims at giving the impression that the CO2 increases caused the
temperature rises, whereas, as we've seen, the temperature rises came
first. If any causation was involved, there are stronger reasons for
supposing it to have been in the opposite direction.

These are just two of twelve distortions that Singer's paper discusses, but
they give the general flavor. Two phrases edited out of the IPCC report
were, "None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can
attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases
in greenhouse gases" and "When will an anthropogenic effect on climate be
identified? . . . [T]he best answer is, 'we do not know.' "

Frederick Seitz, former head of the National Academy of Sciences and
Chairman of the George C. Marshall Institute, wrote (Wall Street Journal,
June 12, 1996), "But this report is not what it appears to be-it is not the
version that was approved by the contributing scientists listed on the
title page. . . . I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of
the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report." Yet
a year later it was being cited as proof of a consensus by the scientific
community.

So how did atmospheric physicists, climatic specialists, and others with
scientific credentials feel about the issue? To find out, Dr. Arthur
Robinson, president and research professor of the Oregon Institute of
Science and Medicine, also publisher of the newsletter Access to Energy, in
February 1998, conducted a survey of the professional field by circulating
a petition calling for the government to reject the Kyoto agreement of
December 1997, on the grounds that it would harm the environment, hinder
science, and damage human health and welfare; that there was no scientific
evidence that greenhouse gases were or were likely to cause disruption of
the climate; and on the contrary there was substantial evidence that such
release would in fact be beneficial. After six months the petition had
collected over seventeen thousand signatures.

At about the same time the German Meteorologisches Institut Universitat
Hamburg and Forschungszentium, in a survey of specialists from various
branches of the climate sciences, found that 67 percent of Canadian
scientists rejected the notion that any warming due to human activity is
occurring, while in Germany the figure was 87 percent, and in the US, 97
percent. Some consensus for Kyoto!

http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=2952

Some of the "refutations" of the IPCC findings have initially sneaked past
peer review, only to be caught later:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...t-do-not-post/

--

Dan

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...

"Matt Barrow" wrote:

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...

http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=2952

Some of the "refutations" of the IPCC findings have initially sneaked past
peer review, only to be caught later:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...t-do-not-post/


Michael Mann? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....

What else can you pull out of your ass.

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...

"Matt Barrow" wrote:

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...

http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=2952

Some of the "refutations" of the IPCC findings have initially sneaked
past peer review, only to be caught later:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...t-do-not-post/


"Thus, while un-peer-reviewed claims should not be given much credence, just
because a particular paper has passed through peer review does not
absolutely insure that the conclusions are correct or scientifically valid.
The "leaks" in the system outlined above unfortunately allow some
less-than-ideal work to be published in peer-reviewed journals. This should
therefore be a concern when the results of any one particular study are
promoted over the conclusions of a larger body of past published work
(especially if it is a new study that has not been fully absorbed or
assessed by the community).

Indeed, this is why scientific assessments such as the Arctic Climate
Impact Assessment (ACIA), or the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) reports, and the independent reports by the National Academy of
Sciences, are so important in giving a balanced overview of the state of
knowledge in the scientific research community."

Guess you didn't read the Q&O article, huh?

"Matt Barrow" wrote:

Guess you didn't read the Q&O article, huh?


Guess you didn't read the rest of the article, did you?

Still waiting for you to back up your assertion that anthropogenic factors
are nothing but noise in global climate change.

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...

"Matt Barrow" wrote:

Guess you didn't read the Q&O article, huh?

Did you read the Q&O article?


Guess you didn't read the rest of the article, did you?

After three pages of schizophrenia, I gave up.

Still waiting for you to back up your assertion that anthropogenic factors
are nothing but noise in global climate change.

I'm still waiting for you to read the article and respond to the sixteen
points I already made.

Until then, I'm not going to waste any more time with your typical evasion.

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...

"Matt Barrow" wrote:

Guess you didn't read the Q&O article, huh?


Guess you didn't read the rest of the article, did you?

Still waiting for you to back up your assertion that anthropogenic factors
are nothing but noise in global climate change.

Who are you going to refer to after nutjob Michael Mann?, Michael Moore? Are
you going to tell me his movie was viewed by 18 million people?

Peer review by a bunch of bought lackies?

Hey, using your other analogy, all the creationist **** was "peer reviewed".

Matt Barrow wrote:

Michael Mann? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....

What else can you pull out of your ass.

Another impeccably unimpeachable piece of scientific logic. Curses!
Foiled again!

"z" wrote in message
oups.com...

Matt Barrow wrote:

Michael Mann? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....

What else can you pull out of your ass.

Another impeccably unimpeachable piece of scientific logic. Curses!
Foiled again!

What's next, how sheep's bladders can be used to prevent earthquakes?
Here's your Michael Mann and his Hockey Stick:

www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm

The Hockey Stick has got to be the joke of the 90's environuts.

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

The Hockey Stick has got to be the joke of the 90's environuts.

The infamous "Hockey Stick" graph was featured prominently in the IPCC TAR
Summary for Policymakers. It was important in that it overturned the concept
of a global Medieval Warm Period warmer than the 20th century and a
pronounced Little Ice Age, both long time (cautiously) accepted features of
the last 1000 years of climate history.

This caused quite an uproar in the sceptic community, not least because of
its visual efficacy. Two Canadians, an economist and a petroleum geologist,
took it apon themselves to verify this proxy reconstruction by getting the
data and examining the methodology used for themselves. They found that
there were errors in the description of data used as published in Nature.
Mann et al., the Hockey Stick's creators, published a correction in Nature,
noting where the description of the study did not match what was actually
done. The Canadians, McIntyre and McKitrick, then proceeded to publish a
paper that purported to uncover serious methodological flaws and problems
with data sets used.

Everything from this point on is hotly disputed and highly technical.

All the claims made by M&M have been rebutted in detail by many other
climatologists and they insist that these folks are completely in error.
This of course fits nicely with the expectations of both sides of the Global
Warming issue, the conspiracy theorists as well as the champions of peer
review. All the rebuttals have been objected to and the objections denied
and the denials rejected. The issues are highly technical and require
considerable time and energy to truly investigate. Steve McIntyre has a
website devoted to his continued probe of this study and Michael Mann is a
contributor to Real Climate which devotes considerable web space to refuting
the attacks. In short, M&M raise many specific and technical objections and
the climate scientists seem pretty unified in denying the charges. To my
knowledge, the worst indictment from the climate science community came from
a study led by Hans Von Storch that concluded M&M was right about a
particular criticism of methodology but correcting it did not change the
study results.

If you want to try to evaluate this issue fairly you must read the copious
material at the sites mentioned above. You must also be prepared to get into
dendrochonolgy and statistical analysis.

Where does that leave the rest of us?

For myself, I will confess immediately that the technical issues are over my
head, I don't know PCA from R^2 from a hole in the ground. But I think the
most critical point to remember, if you are researching this in the context
of determining the validity of AGW theory, is that this row is about a
single study that was published 8 years ago. This is starting to be ancient
history. If you feel it is tainted (as I prefer to just assume, because as I
said I do not want to put the required effort into unraveling it all for
myself) then simply discard it.

The fact is there are dozens of other reconstructions. These other
reconstructions do tend to show some more variability than MBH98, ie the
handle of the hockey stick is not as straight, but they *all* support the
general conclusions that the IPCC TAR came to in 2001: the late 20th century
warming is anamolous in the last one or two thousand years and the 1990's
are very likely warmer than any other time in the last one or two thousand
years.

Here is a nice superimposition of numerous global, hemispheric and regional
reconstructions for the last 2000 years and the last 12000 years together
with an average. References are all presented at the bottom of the pages.
Regional variations are of course greater than global, so don't be surprised
by how wavy some of the lines in there are. Does the 20th century stand out?

(Disclosu one of the reconstructions used in those pages is by the same
team that did the infamous hockey stick, but it is not the same study. To
the best of my knowledge, M&M have claimed no problems with that one, though
they have expressed some concerns that span the entire field of
dendrochronology).

I have read as much about this controversy as I ever will, and I have come
to the firm conviction that I do not have the technical background and/or
time required to make a scientific judgment on this issue one way or
another. That is the best objective opinion I can offer you. I suspect 95%
of the people you will come across arguing about this have chosen their
position ideologically.

And while MBH, in my mind, are in no way guilty of fraud or incompetence
until solidly proven to be so (many of the accusations do go this far), the
judgement of their research must be approached in reverse: given a reason to
doubt, I will not accept it until it is proven to me that the criticisms are
invalid. Neither case can I decided for myself until I devote the required
time to both the statistical background and the technical details of M&M vs
MBH98.

So where does that leave me? With the dozens of other proxy reconstructions,
some by the same team or involving members, some by completely different
people, some using tree rings, some using corals, some using stalagtites,
some using borehole measurements, all of which support the general
conclusions. And it is that general conclusion which is important to me, not
whether or not one Bristlecone pine was or was not included correctly in a
single 8 year old study.

The general conclusion is:


"Although each of the temperature reconstructions are different (due to
differing calibration methods and data used), they all show some similar
patterns of temperature change over the last several centuries. Most
striking is the fact that each record reveals that the 20th century is the
warmest of the entire record, and that warming was most dramatic after
1920."
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globa...paleolast.html

I also urge anyone worried about this study and what its conclusion means
for the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming to remember this: the study
of the past can be very informative, but it is not explanatory of the
present or predictive of the future.

The scientific basis for the dangers we face and their cause is about much
more than a few tree-rings and the temperature during the Medieval Warm
Period.

--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")