"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)