Global warming?

How come nobody is worked up over a real - and fixable - problem,
man-made particulates?

How come nobody is worked up over a real - and fixable - problem,
man-made particulates?

I don't know. There is such a partisan attitude in Washington that
lawmakers fight for things because the other side is opposed to it. Too
bad, all they seem to do is bicker and boast.

On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 09:05:32 -0800, "Bob Monsen" <rcmonsen_at_gmail.com
wrote:

Being an iconoclast is often useful and fun, but taking it to extremes
makes
you a crank.

You can say the same thing about being a conformist.

John

"Bob Monsen" <rcmonsen_at_gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1265681393.233038_at_sj-nntpcache-3.cisco.com...
How come nobody is worked up over a real - and fixable - problem,
man-made particulates?

I don't know. There is such a partisan attitude in Washington that
lawmakers fight for things because the other side is opposed to it. Too
bad, all they seem to do is bicker and boast.

Too bad? It's too bad they don't spend *all* their time bickering -- then
nothing would get done and government wouldn't keep getting bigger!

Tim

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin_at_highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:mch0n5phi3i1j8d3d097vu2i25r984oodn_at_4ax.com...
On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 09:05:32 -0800, "Bob Monsen" <rcmonsen_at_gmail.com
wrote:

Being an iconoclast is often useful and fun, but taking it to extremes
makes
you a crank.

You can say the same thing about being a conformist.

John


Actually, being a conformist almost never makes you a crank. Cranks are
folks who think they know better than scientists, when they don't even
understand the trivial things. They write long letters to famous scientists,
explaining their (usually wrong) solutions to problems that were solved 100
years ago. Conformists are boring, but are probably right more often than
they are wrong...

I know that I'm almost completely ignorant about the science behind global
warming, but then again I'm not claiming anything about it. I'm just asking
you to tell me why you believe that the scientists, newspapers, governments,
etc are all wrong.

Ravinghorde has indicated that he believes that the scientists are running
some kind of scam, falsifying data, suppressing contradictory results. That
explains his/her view.

Do you also believe that the 97% of publishing climate scientists that
believe in global warming are either stupid, duped, or scamming the public?
To my mind, that view doesn't pass occam's razor.

Do you also believe that the 97% of publishing climate scientists that
believe in global warming are either stupid, duped, or scamming the public?

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin_at_highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:m24vm59ui4eslkci609ehcj0t5vrshjodj_at_4ax.com...
On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 20:09:54 -0800, "Bob Monsen" <rcmonsen_at_gmail.com
wrote:
None of this is evidence against global warming. It is an attack on a
particular study. The attack may be valid, but it doesn't imply anything
about any of the hundreds of other studies that have been published to
date.

Having just read 'Peddling Prosperity' by Krugman, I'm currently
sensitized
to the problem of policy being driven by idiots (supply siders on the
right
and 'strategic traders' on the left). However, I don't think that is
happening here. There appears to be a broad consensus amongst climate
scientists. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_consensus,
which
mentions that 97% of a set of polled, publishing scientists in the field
believe that it is occurring, and that it is being caused by human
activity.
Could they all really be wrong?

Easily, if they are all referring to the same
faked/cherry-picked/adjusted data sets. Or if the climate models are
crap and whatever warming that might be going on is natural.

John


Agreed, but I don't think that is happening. Do you think that there is only
one study everybody is using? Do you think that study has been faked? Do you
think the basic idea, CO2 -> atmospheric warming, is false?

One of the reasons that scientists buy into something like this is because
it offers a simple explanation of some data. If you are going to deny this
explanation, you need to either prove that the data doesn't match the
explanation, or to explain the data some other way. Just saying "it's
natural!" doesn't explain anything. Everything is natural. We are natural,
so what we do is natural. That implies that you are agreeing with the global
warming folks!

Your point is probably that human C02 output isn't a significant factor
here. However, there is a correlation between CO2 levels and warming or
cooling as shown by the greenland ice cores. Correlation isn't causation,
but there is a good theoretical model that implies causation (the greenhouse
model). We know that CO2 levels have been rising far above historical
levels. So, the obvious answer is the one taken by most scientists.

I don't really know one from the other. However, making bald assertions that
global warming is NOT caused by human activity is, at this point a bit
silly. Yours is the assertion that must be justified.

Regards,
Bob Monsen

On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 09:05:32 -0800, "Bob Monsen" <rcmonsen_at_gmail.com
wrote:

"Raveninghorde" <raveninghorde_at_invalid> wrote in message
news:a2d0n5pi39e3tb4pm0smtq8i7hehgeg1u7_at_4ax.com...
But from the CRU leaked emails we know that every effort was made to
block publication of non alarmist views. Since the alarmists
controlled publication then a poll of publihing scientists is
unrelaible to say the least.


Ah, so it is a conspiracy theory. Interesting. I thought it was based on
something more substantive.

I haven't suggested a conspiracy theory.

I have pointed out that a key group of alarmists have interfered with
the peer review process and the publication of articles even to the
extent of having a journal editor removed.

Since this alarmist group control one of the surface temperature
records, HADCRUT and their US mates control GISS it is fair to say
there is some doubt over the accuracy of these records. Particularly
as they are tied in with Mann and his hockey stick.

This bunch also, to use their own words, "hid the decline". This
reflects on the historical temperature reconstruction based on tree
rings. To summarize they had to fudge the post 1960 tree ring record
which showed a temperature decline because this did not agree with
their instrumental record. Despite post 1960 tree ring data being
useless we are meant to believe the pre 1960 reconstruction is valid.

On top of that the IPCC 2007 report is looking pretty dodgy at the
moment. There is plenty about that in the British papers.

If you feel this amounts to a conspiracy then that's your theory not
mine. I'm just pointing out some of the facts.

Larken mentioned that they could all be using the same fudged data set. I
guess that could be true, but how likely is it? I'll agree that it is more
likely that somebody will get funding if they are not a crank. However,
tenured professors like to be iconoclasts, and harbor grudges. Seems like
they could use that to expose a conspiracy of this scale. So, why isn't that
happening on a much larger scale?

There is plenty of evidence of fudged data in the 2 main surface
temperature records. I only trust the satellite records which
unfortunately only goes back to 1979.

On 8 Feb 2010 17:43:25 +0, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde_at_invalid> wrote:

Larken mentioned that they could all be using the same fudged data
set. I guess that could be true, but how likely is it? I'll agree that
it is more likely that somebody will get funding if they are not a
crank. However, tenured professors like to be iconoclasts, and harbor
grudges. Seems like they could use that to expose a conspiracy of this
scale. So, why isn't that happening on a much larger scale?

There is plenty of evidence of fudged data in the 2 main surface
temperature records. I only trust the satellite records which
unfortunately only goes back to 1979.

Unfortunately i dare not trust even them since Hanson started
"adjusting" them.

After I typed the paragraph above, my wife just walked in and said
"It's raining. The weather forecasts are useless." Really.

John

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin_at_highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:s2i1n59m2netf9i7at1v6decv1mkn3mndp_at_4ax.com...
After I typed the paragraph above, my wife just walked in and said
"It's raining. The weather forecasts are useless." Really.

John


Actually, I've heard that the best, most reliable way to predict the weather
is to ask what it was like yesterday. Assuming that today will be like
yesterday is true more often than the sophisticated models...

Regards,
Bob Monsen

Galileo has been blamed by historians of science for overstating his case,
belittling his competition, etc. This sort of behavior isn't anything new to
science. However, if you throw out all the data here due to a few uncensored
emails, you are you are throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

When you say IPCC 2007 is looking 'dodgy', you mean there are some errors.
The report is FOUR VOLUMES... it was written by literally hundreds of
scientists, and reviewed by hundreds more. However, errors are inevitable,
and are eagerly pounced on by such denizens as the politically motivated
Global Climate Coalition and the Information Council on the Environment.

The real question is how do you know what _you_ hear is the truth? See
http://www.newsweek.com/id/32482/page/1 for more information on the politics
behind this. There has been a program by the various affected industries to
'spin' this in such ways as to slow down any action. Their motive has been
to try to show that there is a divisive dispute in the scientific community
where none exists. I'm not surprised that scientists who have been working
tirelessly on this issue, because they believe it is a huge looming danger,
think they have a moral imperative to fight 'fire with fire'. That was
clearly a mistake, both ethically and politically, but one can sympathize
with them. When you fight with liars and cheaters, taking the high road
isn't always easy. The real irony is that the stupid, misguided political
effort to derail any action and to dupe the public has actually induced the
scientific community to ignore data instead of considering any anomalies as
new data to explain.

Regards,
Bob Monsen

On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 19:08:44 -0800, "Bob Monsen" <rcmonsen_at_gmail.com
wrote:



Galileo has been blamed by historians of science for overstating his case,
belittling his competition, etc. This sort of behavior isn't anything new
to
science. However, if you throw out all the data here due to a few
uncensored
emails, you are you are throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

When you say IPCC 2007 is looking 'dodgy', you mean there are some errors.
The report is FOUR VOLUMES... it was written by literally hundreds of
scientists, and reviewed by hundreds more. However, errors are inevitable,
and are eagerly pounced on by such denizens as the politically motivated
Global Climate Coalition and the Information Council on the Environment.

The real question is how do you know what _you_ hear is the truth? See
http://www.newsweek.com/id/32482/page/1 for more information on the
politics
behind this. There has been a program by the various affected industries
to
'spin' this in such ways as to slow down any action. Their motive has been
to try to show that there is a divisive dispute in the scientific
community
where none exists. I'm not surprised that scientists who have been working
tirelessly on this issue, because they believe it is a huge looming
danger,
think they have a moral imperative to fight 'fire with fire'. That was
clearly a mistake, both ethically and politically, but one can sympathize
with them. When you fight with liars and cheaters, taking the high road
isn't always easy. The real irony is that the stupid, misguided political
effort to derail any action and to dupe the public has actually induced
the
scientific community to ignore data instead of considering any anomalies
as
new data to explain.

Regards,
Bob Monsen


http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/2/9/hansens-colleague-eviscerates-ar4-chapter-9.html

/quote

While perusing some of the review comments to the IPCC's Fourth
Assessment Report, I came across the contributions of Andrew Lacis, a
colleague of James Hansen's at GISS. Lacis's is not a name I've come
across before but some of what he has to say about Chapter 9 of the
IPCC's report is simply breathtaking.

Chapter 9 is possibly the most important one in the whole IPCC report
- it's the one where they decide that global warming is manmade. This
is the one where the headlines are made.

Remember, this guy is mainstream, not a sceptic, and you may need to
remind yourself of that fact several times as you read through his
comment on the executive summary of the chapter:

There is no scientific merit to be found in the Executive Summary.
The presentation sounds like something put together by Greenpeace
activists and their legal department. The points being made are made
arbitrarily with legal sounding caveats without having established any
foundation or basis in fact. The Executive Summary seems to be a
political statement that is only designed to annoy greenhouse
skeptics. Wasn't the IPCC Assessment Report intended to be a
scientific document that would merit solid backing from the climate
science community - instead of forcing many climate scientists into
having to agree with greenhouse skeptic criticisms that this is indeed
a report with a clear and obvious political agenda. Attribution can
not happen until understanding has been clearly demonstrated. Once the
facts of climate change have been established and understood,
attribution will become self-evident to all. The Executive Summary as
it stands is beyond redemption and should simply be deleted.

I'm speechless. The chapter authors, however weren't. This was their
reply (all of it):

Rejected. [Executive Summary] summarizes Ch 9, which is based on
the peer reviewed literature.

Simply astonishing. This is a consensus?

/end quote

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net> wrote in

   There's one born every minute: A gullible fool who believes whatever
the media tells them.  They never catch on to a scam, till it's way too
late. Then they scream about being hoodwinked. What really gets me are
the supposedly intelligent people on the science newsgroups, who fell
for AGW. :(

Ah, it is good that iconoclasts like you are around to help us poor saps
out!

So, what is your evidence that global warming doesn't exist?

Do you done any
research to back this up?

If you have evidence, it would be great to pass it
along to the rest of the world so they don't start interpreting those
melting glaciers and polar caps as the start of a worldwide catastrophe.