I have an opinion on global warming!

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
ups.com...
I've seen quite a few and they are better all the time. This winter the
weather folks twice predicted major winter storms more than 48 hours in
advance and were nearly dead-on both times. I was impressed.

Meteorologists (thanks to satellite technology) have become much
better at predicting storm tracks. This is quite different than
weather forecasting, as in the prediction of where and when a storm
will develop.

All of this isn't to say that methods and results haven't improved --
they have. But we're talking about an improvement from "laughable" to
only "bad" -- which is NOT something I'd hang my hat on in any
discussion of "global climate change."

I think we have to be very careful about the facts in this
discussion. The data (or "Back-casting", as we used to call it) shows
that temperatures worldwide have climbed incrementally in the last
hundred years. The data does NOT show why this is happening, and
everyone is misconstruing "educated guesses" as "facts".

With respect, I tend to go with people who have been studying this for years
and overall there are more scientists supporting the global warming
prognosis.

What has changed is the availability of even more powerful computers
available to model various scenarios.

Global warming is not about what happens on a day by day basis but over long
periods of time.

Let the scientists do their job, and you do yours.

You would be well ****ed if they started telling you how to be an inn
keeper.

Borat writes:

With respect, I tend to go with people who have been studying this for years
and overall there are more scientists supporting the global warming
prognosis.

Nothing makes people who have been studying something for years honest or
objective (even with themselves).

Scientists have to eat, and they soon learn that one good way to eat is to do
studies that reach acceptable and desirable conclusions. Doing studies that
reach unpopular conclusions leads to ridicule and a loss of income.

Right now, global warming is where the money and glory are. So scientists
study global warming, and they make sure that they reach the right
conclusions.

What has changed is the availability of even more powerful computers
available to model various scenarios.

Computer power is not the problem. Accurate models are the problem. Nobody
knows how to create an accurate model of global climate. Nobody even has a
clue, in fact. There are too many variables and the climate is too complex.
Nobody knows which factors are important; indeed, nobody knows all the factors
to begin with. There is no way today to predict the climate 100 years from
now, or even a year from now, no matter how powerful the computers.

Scientists can't even predict local weather 24 hours from now.

Global warming is not about what happens on a day by day basis but over long
periods of time.

And that's why we really know nothing about it. We can only watch and
observe.

You would be well ****ed if they started telling you how to be an inn
keeper.

Most people get upset whenever anyone questions their competence. That
doesn't mean that competence should not be questioned.

Thirty years ago, scientists were predicting a new ice age. Where's the ice?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Borat writes:

With respect, I tend to go with people who have been studying this
for years and overall there are more scientists supporting the global
warming prognosis.

Nothing makes people who have been studying something for years honest
or objective (even with themselves).

Scientists have to eat, and they soon learn that one good way to eat
is to do studies that reach acceptable and desirable conclusions.
Doing studies that reach unpopular conclusions leads to ridicule and a
loss of income.

Right now, global warming is where the money and glory are. So
scientists study global warming, and they make sure that they reach
the right conclusions.

What has changed is the availability of even more powerful computers
available to model various scenarios.

Computer power is not the problem. Accurate models are the problem.
Nobody knows how to create an accurate model of global climate.
Nobody even has a clue, in fact. There are too many variables and the
climate is too complex. Nobody knows which factors are important;
indeed, nobody knows all the factors to begin with. There is no way
today to predict the climate 100 years from now, or even a year from
now, no matter how powerful the computers.

Scientists can't even predict local weather 24 hours from now.

Global warming is not about what happens on a day by day basis but
over long periods of time.

And that's why we really know nothing about it. We can only watch and
observe.

You would be well ****ed if they started telling you how to be an inn
keeper.

Most people get upset whenever anyone questions their competence.
That doesn't mean that competence should not be questioned.

Thirty years ago, scientists were predicting a new ice age. Where's
the ice?


In your brain and nuts?

Bertie

On Sat, 7 Apr 2007 18:28:47 +0100, "Borat" wrote:

I think we have to be very careful about the facts in this
discussion. The data (or "Back-casting", as we used to call it) shows
that temperatures worldwide have climbed incrementally in the last
hundred years. The data does NOT show why this is happening, and
everyone is misconstruing "educated guesses" as "facts".

With respect, I tend to go with people who have been studying this for years
and overall there are more scientists supporting the global warming
prognosis.

But how would you know?

The IPCC Summary for Policymakers was written by bureaucrats with
political motives. It is supposed to be a summary of the Technical
Summary of Working Group 1 on the Scientific Basis of Climate Change.
The Technical Summary has not been released yet as it is being
rewritten TO CONFORM TO THE SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS. I'm not making
that up, the science will be rewritten to conform to the political
document before being released in May.

Fortunately, the final draft of the Technical Summary was leaked by
some of the participants who were upset by the politicization of the
study. It is available at www.junkscience.com among other places.

Read it and you will see the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) does not
reflect the Technical Summary (TS) in many places, particularly sea
level rise. The worst case sea level rise by 2100 in the TS is 17
inches, not 23 inches as in the SPM, much less the 20 to 200 ft thrown
around by Gore and the Associated Press.

The TS states that without melting the Greenland Ice Sheet and the
Antarctic Ice Sheets, the forever maximum rise is about a meter. The
SPM does not mention that limit and hints that the Greenland and
Antarctic Ice Sheets could melt though the TS flatly rejects that
possibility.

Many of the scientists in working group one resigned over the
politicization of the study, but the IPCC is still listing them as
authors. You can see them interviewed in the BBC Channel 4
documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle" which is available in
Google Videos and YouTube.

In short, what you seem to think scientists agree on is very different
from what they actually believe. You have to go past the popular media
and political statements from the UN and activists to learn what is
real and what is hype.

Don


Virginia - the only State with a flag rated
"R" for partial nudity and graphic violence.

"Don Tabor" wrote:

Many of the scientists in working group one resigned over the
politicization of the study, but the IPCC is still listing them as
authors. You can see them interviewed in the BBC Channel 4
documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle"

"The Great Global Warming Swindle" is known load of bs which some of those
same scientists have called "pure propaganda," complaining that their comments
were taken out of context and deliberately distorted. The producer, Martin
Durkin, has been caught pulling this trick before, and the tabloid UK Channel
4 (not BBC, which would have nothing to do with this bozo) has had to
apologize for the other program of his that it aired.

http://www.medialens.org/alerts/07/0...aganda_the.php

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

On Sat, 7 Apr 2007 21:59:30 -0500, "Dan Luke"
wrote:

"The Great Global Warming Swindle" is known load of bs which some of those
same scientists have called "pure propaganda," complaining that their comments
were taken out of context and deliberately distorted. T

I would not claim TGGWS is totally unbiased, but keep in mind I
suggested it as a balance to Gore's film. However, the MediaLens
refutation is the real load of BS. They concentrate on one scientist
who said he was misled on the films purpose, but even he does not say
that what he said on the film was inaccurate. Then they dismiss about
half a dozen other scientists who would not refute their parts in the
film in a single sentence claiming they are all influenced by right
wing think tanks. Guilt by association. One even is an NRA member,
horrors.

Read the About Us tab for MediaLens and you will see they are exactly
the anti-capitalist environmental nut cases who are pushing the whole
man caused global warming as end of the world foolishness.

Again, go to the IPCC working group one Technical Summary and read it.
TGGWS is a lot closer to the science than Inconvenient Truth is.

Don



Virginia - the only State with a flag rated
"R" for partial nudity and graphic violence.

"Don Tabor" wrote:

I would not claim TGGWS is totally unbiased,

LOL

but keep in mind I suggested it as a balance to Gore's film.

So in your mind, two piles of bull**** add up to one pile of truth?

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

"Don Tabor" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 7 Apr 2007 21:59:30 -0500, "Dan Luke"
wrote:

"The Great Global Warming Swindle" is known load of bs which some of
those
same scientists have called "pure propaganda," complaining that their
comments
were taken out of context and deliberately distorted. T

I would not claim TGGWS is totally unbiased, but keep in mind I
suggested it as a balance to Gore's film.

Biased how?

BTW, the "scientist" (singlular) that claimed his remarks were taken out of
context was shown to be lying. He was, most likely, afraid of losing his
cushy federal grants like two of his collegues who refused to toe the state
agenda.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../ngreen218.xml

"Dan Luke" wrote in message news:
...

"The Great Global Warming Swindle" is known load of bs which some of those
same scientists have called "pure propaganda," complaining that their comments
were taken out of context and deliberately distorted. The producer, Martin
Durkin, has been caught pulling this trick before, and the tabloid UK Channel
4 (not BBC, which would have nothing to do with this bozo) has had to
apologize for the other program of his that it aired.

http://www.medialens.org/alerts/07/0...aganda_the.php

The "hatchet job" tone of your note & the reference you site
is *exactly* the problem that many of us have with the entire
"Global Warming" pseudo-debate -- people like you politicize
the whole mess to discredit people who disagree with your
religious orthodoxy.

Durkin is a "bozo" and Channel 4 is "tabloid". "Many
scientists", you say, have called it "pure propaganda",
as if we're supposed to agree that "truth" can somehow
be decided by majority vote.

The "expose" you quote goes on to say that eight of the scientists
interviewed "are linked to American neo-conservative and
right-wing think-tanks, many of which have received tens of
millions of dollars from Exxon", as if that tenuous connection
(if even true) right there makes them irrelevant.

I took the trouble to view TGGWS on Google to see if what
your link says about the program is true.Their critique is quite
simply a nonsense.

1) Their fundamental claim is that Durkin says increasing CO2
is itself the result of increasing temperature. This claim was
never made.

2) They claim Durkin is "deeply deceptive" by portraying
a decline in temperature between 1940 and 1975, where
their supposedly-countering graph shows almost the same
drop (where GW orthodoxy predicts a rise).

3) They claim recent global warming related to CO2 is true
simply by reference to authority (the IPCC report), which
ought to be a red flag to anyone. Even to you.

4) Their explanation of the 800 year CO2 lag is nothing new.
That's completely consistent with what the program claimed.

5) They confuse solar energy output with sunspot activity. Durkin
made no claim that solar energy output was changing or affecting
"global warming", so setting this up as a straw man to be viciously
dissected means, quite simply, squat..

The review then degenerates into carefully documenting the
supposed sinister links between the scientists interviewed and
the oil companies. It then quotes various "Scientainers" who bloody
well ought to know better for being outraged that their ill-considered
musings are being called into question.

No doubt you'll counter by helpfully pointing out that one of the
scientific challengers to this new secular religion was once hauled
up before his university authorities for sexual harassment.

Or do you have something more relevant and substantial to offer?

"Tony Cox" wrote:

"The Great Global Warming Swindle" is known load of bs which some of those
same scientists have called "pure propaganda," complaining that their
comments
were taken out of context and deliberately distorted. The producer, Martin
Durkin, has been caught pulling this trick before, and the tabloid UK
Channel
4 (not BBC, which would have nothing to do with this bozo) has had to
apologize for the other program of his that it aired.

http://www.medialens.org/alerts/07/0...aganda_the.php

The "hatchet job" tone of your note & the reference you site
is *exactly* the problem that many of us have with the entire
"Global Warming" pseudo-debate -- people like you politicize
the whole mess to discredit people who disagree with your
religious orthodoxy.

Religious orthodoxy? You sound very much like a creationist attacking the
theory of evolution. What are your views on Intelligent Design, BTW?

I have not made up my mind, but the more I see of this kind of crap from the
deniers, the more I am moved towards the other side.

Durkin is a "bozo" and Channel 4 is "tabloid". "Many
scientists", you say, have called it "pure propaganda",
as if we're supposed to agree that "truth" can somehow
be decided by majority vote.

Durkin *is* a bozo. He has been caught lying and quote-mining before, and
Channel 4 has had to apologize publicly for running a program he produced,
remember? Of course, being Channel 4, they certainly didn't let that little
episode stop them from running another piece of sensationalized Durkin
codswollop to get some ratings buzz.


The "expose" you quote goes on to say that eight of the scientists
interviewed "are linked to American neo-conservative and
right-wing think-tanks, many of which have received tens of
millions of dollars from Exxon", as if that tenuous connection
(if even true) right there makes them irrelevant.

It makes them subject to obvious conflict of interest. Remember the tobacco
company "scientists?"

I took the trouble to view TGGWS on Google to see if what
your link says about the program is true.Their critique is quite
simply a nonsense.

1) Their fundamental claim is that Durkin says increasing CO2
is itself the result of increasing temperature. This claim was
never made.

2) They claim Durkin is "deeply deceptive" by portraying
a decline in temperature between 1940 and 1975, where
their supposedly-countering graph shows almost the same
drop (where GW orthodoxy predicts a rise).

3) They claim recent global warming related to CO2 is true
simply by reference to authority (the IPCC report), which
ought to be a red flag to anyone. Even to you.

Why is it a red flag to you? Do you buy the talk radio line that politicians
control the science behind the IPCC report? Or are you one of the conspiracy
theorists who claim that almost all the world's climatologists are in on a big
scam?

Deniers are fond of attacking the IPCC report because it is a political
document, ignoring the fact that their are two stages to the report: the
initial scientific findings and then the final report that is "tweaked" by
politicians.

In fact, it is the politicians who are attempting to *tone down* the language
of the latest scientific findings. The scientific authors are angry that the
politicians have tried to dilute the seriousness of their results by altering
the language:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...ereport08.html


4) Their explanation of the 800 year CO2 lag is nothing new.
That's completely consistent with what the program claimed.

5) They confuse solar energy output with sunspot activity. Durkin
made no claim that solar energy output was changing or affecting
"global warming", so setting this up as a straw man to be viciously
dissected means, quite simply, squat..

The review then degenerates into carefully documenting the
supposed sinister links between the scientists interviewed and
the oil companies. It then quotes various "Scientainers" who bloody
well ought to know better for being outraged that their ill-considered
musings are being called into question.

No doubt you'll counter by helpfully pointing out that one of the
scientific challengers to this new secular religion was once hauled
up before his university authorities for sexual harassment.

"Hauled up?" Is that equivalent to "proven guilty?" How about a cite?

Or do you have something more relevant and substantial to offer?

I offer the suggestion that serious thinkers should avoid twaddle like "An
Inconvenient Truth" and "The Great Global Warming Swindle." Balanced,
rational sources are out there if that's what you're really looking for,
instead of something to stroke your prejudices.

http://news.independent.co.uk/enviro...cle2326210.ece

--
Dan

"The opposite of science is not religion; the opposite of science is wishful
thinking."
-John Derbyshire