At 11:50 PM 2/4/2007, Rich Blinne wrote:
>On Feb 4, 2007, at 2:21 PM, Janice Matchett wrote:
>
>>"I don't trust ANYBODY's predictions on sea
>>level. There are two many free variables most
>>specifically how much anthropogenic CO2 there
>>is going to be. The climate sensitivity numbers
>>from the 2001 report have been confirmed by
>>more recent research. We don't know how
>>successful or unsuccessful we will be at
>>controlling CO2 emissions or external factors
>>such as possibly running out oil might have. We
>>are discovering different negative (and
>>positive!) feedback mechanisms that also affect
>>the CO2 levels. Since 2001 we have better
>>models where given the right inputs we can
>>predict the effects but it is still GIGO
>>(garbage in garbage out) because we still do
>>not have accurate prediction of CO2 levels and
>>probably never will." ~ Rich Blinne Mon, 11 Dec 2006 11:49:39 -0700
>>
>>~ Janice :)
>
>"Since I have been quoted over and over and
>over, let's reset the context. This was a
>reaction to a Daily Telegraph story of the
>leaked AR4. Now I know that the prediction was
>based upon different scenarios of CO2 emissions.
>So, my point above is not valid since I was
>unaware that the predictions were
>scenario-based. Therefore, I publicly retract my
>comment. My retraction does give me a chance to
>"score" the original article for accuracy now
>that we can compare the leaks with the actual
>AR4 SPM. .. The IPCC report, seen by The Sunday
>Telegraph, has been handed to the Government for
>review before publication. So, there was no
>need to guess. They had the report yet they
>botched it greatly because they cannot do
>science reporting to save their lives. Sadly,
>this is the norm rather than the exception for
>the Telegraph. It's no wonder that Mark Steyn,
>Rush Limbaugh, and the Wall Street Journal
>Opinion Page lean on it so heavily." ~ Rich Blinne 11:50 PM Sunday, 2/4/2007
@@ My translation: "I'm getting my head on
straight and getting with the program if I know what's good for my career." :)
Lots of people got their head on straight after
merely viewing a polar bear picture and arriving
at the "assumption" that was duly expected of
them. I'll bet they, like the "sufficiently
hysterical" IPCC, are 90% sure their assumption
was right, too. To break that 90% bubble click
here:
http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2007/02/the_polar_bear_.html
I see your "retraction" as an attempt to fall
more in line with the pop-culture's "more
reliable reporting" of alarmist "eco-chondriacs"
like AP's faddish "science writer":
"... even before _latest_new IPCC doomsday
scenario was released, the Associated Press was
running stories like: "New Climate Report Too
Rosy, Experts Say." The AP's "science writer"
warns that even this "dire report" is the
"sugarcoated version." It's insufficiently
hysterical, in every sense." ~ Mark Steyn 2/4/07
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1778980/posts
Did any of your choices for best "science writer"
report this IPCC assumption, of which, like those
computer model assumptions they stand behind, they were also 90% sure?:
In evaluating industrial impact, the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IPCC
used GDP estimates based on exchange rates rather
than purchasing power: As a result, they assume
by the year 2100 that not only South Africans but
also North Koreans will have a higher per capita
income than Americans. That's why the
climate-change computer models look scary. That's
how "solid" the science is: It's predicated on
the North Korean economy overtaking the United
States. ~ Mark Steyn 2/4/07
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1778980/posts
I can easily understand why some would try and
marginalize the cooler heads who report on the
"overly pessimistic predictions" of the
hysterical eco-alarmists, but the emotionally
immature will have to grow up sooner or later and
the opportunists who take advantage of them need to be exposed.
Iceland fears bears that go with the floe
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/04/wbears04.xml
By Gethin Chamberlain, Sunday Telegraph GMT 04/02/2007
..Thick pack ice, the like of which has not been
seen for decades, stretched into the western
fjords as temperatures plummeted and a bitter wind blew in from -Greenland.
The ice has proved a headache for fishermen, who
have been unable to put to sea, but it is what
comes with pack ice that has caused most concern: polar bears.
People living around the fjord of Dyrafjördur,
which last week was almost filled with the ice,
were keeping an eye on the sea, conscious that
the bears live on the pack ice that covers much of the Arctic ocean.
When chunks break off, as appears to have
happened last week, the bears become stranded,
drifting wherever the ice takes them.
There have been numerous accounts of bears making
land on the shores of Iceland in the past. But it
is the bears who tend to come off worse in
encounters with the Icelanders, who take a
distinctly unsentimental approach to wildlife.
In 1993, the last time a bear is known to have
made it to Icelandic waters, it was caught by a
fishing crew and killed. It is believed to have
been stranded on a piece of pack ice that broke
off the main pack and melted, leaving the animal
swimming in the open ocean 70 miles from the main
ice sheet. Five years earlier, the last bear to
make it to shore was promptly shot when it turned
up near the town of Haganesvík in the north of the country.
Coastguard commander Asgrinur Asgrinsson
remembers a polar bear coming ashore on the
island of Grimsey, north of the mainland, when he
was a child. It was shot and stuffed and now has
pride of place in the museum in the town of Husavik.
There are thought to be about 25,000 polar bears
in the wild and environmentalists have warned
that they are in danger of becoming extinct as
their habitat shrinks. Climate change scientists
say that with temperatures rising, the pack ice
may have melted completely by 2040, leaving the
Arctic ocean navigable and the polar bears with nowhere to go.
Last week's return of the pack ice to Iceland
initially suggested that those predictions might have been overly pessimistic.
"I have lived here my whole life, but I have
never seen so much pack ice before," said Helgi
Árnason, a farmer in -Dyrafjördur.
"Forty years ago, large icebergs drifted on to
beaches but it was nothing compared with this.
"[Pack ice] used to be Iceland's ancient enemy,
but we stay calm so long as the situation doesn't
worsen. This is just to remind us where we live." .."
~ Janice
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Feb 5 11:10:41 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Feb 05 2007 - 11:10:41 EST