Re: [asa] IPCC

At 05:31 PM 2/12/2007, Rich Blinne wrote:
>Note to Janice with respect to scientific
>methodology. This does not prove that CO2 is
>causing global warming. Rather, some other
>non-falsified mechanism other than solar and/or
>GCR forcing must explain the increase in global
>average temperatures over the last half century. ~ Rich B.

@ Exactly. “Some cite the fact that the climate
is currently warming and the level of carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing. This is
true, but correlation is never proof of
causation. In Europe, the birth rate is
decreasing and so is the number of storks. Does
this correlation prove that storks bring babies?
Besides, the climate cooled for much of the 20th
century, between 1940 and 1975, even while carbon
dioxide was increasing rapidly.”
~ Dr. S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of
environmental sciences at the University of
Virginia. His latest (co-authored with Dennis T.
Avery) book: Unstoppable Global Warming-Every
1500 Years
http://www.amazon.com/Unstoppable-Global-Warming-Every-Years/dp/0742551172

>GHG forcing has not been similarly falsified and
>that is why it is the current consensus. It may
>be wrong but to date no other alternative
>hypothesis explains the data better. ~ Rich B.

@ Shattered Consensus: The True State of Global
Warming by
<http://www.amazon.com/Shattered-Consensus-State-Global-Warming/dp/0742549232/ref=pd_sim_b_1//exec/obidos/search-handle-url/105-6368525-1526059?%5Fencoding=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=books&field-author=Patrick%20J.%20Michaels>Patrick
J. Michaels
http://www.amazon.com/Shattered-Consensus-State-Global-Warming/dp/0742549232/ref=pd_sim_b_1/105-6368525-1526059

Excellent scientific foundation. The issue is far
more uncertain than the Media states., August 7, 2006
Reviewer: Gaetan Lion
Patrick J. Michaels is the most famous global
warming skeptic, but he is not alone. The book
consists of ten chapters written by ten different
scientists who focus on specific aspects of
global warming including: temperature and
precipitation forecasts, volatility of weather
patterns, the impact of El Nino, impact of rising
temperature on human health, impact of CO2
concentration on rising temperature.

The second chapter outlines how a scientist
manipulated the underlying variables to create
the "hockey stick" suggesting temperature levels
are highest for the past millennium. The
scientist who created this hockey stick pattern
refused to share the data and explain his
methodology when he was asked. This scientist
purposely overweighed a variable to create the
hockey stick effect. The author of the chapter
uncovers how the scientific peer review process
is bankrupt. A scientist is free to manipulate
the data so as to create a fictitious hockey
stick that is at the foundation of the global
warming paradigm. In the business world, such
behavior (manipulation of financial record) would
get a CFO in jail. The author makes the case that
due diligence requirements (audits) should apply
to the scientific world as well.

The third chapter on the poor quality of global
temperature record is also excellent. Global
temperatures have risen by 0.7 degree Celsius
over the past century. But, nearly half of this
increase may be due to several upward biases that
have caused temperatures to be underestimated
during the first half of the 20th century. These
biases include the change in thermometer
technology and their physical casing that
captured ambient heat differently and the urban heat island effect.

The fourth chapter explaining how the cooling of
the stratosphere is totally inconsistent with the
CO2 global warming hypothesis is fascinating.
Chapter 10 expands on the inconsistency of the
relationship between CO2 concentration and rise
in temperature. In Earth's recent history, we
have had periods with much warmer temperatures (6
degree Celsius higher than now) yet with CO2
concentration 20% below current levels. We also
have had global cooling with rising CO2 levels.
So, at this stage we have no scientific reason to
believe there is a reliable relationship between CO2 levels and temperature.

Elsewhere in the book, the scientists explain how
the climatic system is extremely sensitive so as
to be impossible to model with current knowledge.

An error in precipitation of only 0.1 inch
equates to an error of 1.77 degree Fahrenheit.
Yet, our models are all over the place on precipitation predictions.

Similarly, just a 4% increase in stratus clouds
formation would counteract any effect from a
doubling in CO2 concentration. Yet, we can't
model cloud formation so far. Thus, global
circulation models (GCM) are incredibly unreliable.

Surprisingly, you don't read any of the above in
the press. The science is nuanced and uncertain.

The press conveys just the opposite.

They suggest our fate is certain and sealed in a
toaster unless we change our civilization as we
know it. But, that's politics. You got to study
the science to counter the daily media
obfuscating noise. ...I also strongly recommend
Patrick J. Michaels "Meltdown." ~ Book reviewer Gaetan Lion

>It is not some grand conspiracy or giant CYA.
>Thus, when you say such things you are falsely
>accusing people and you unintentionally debase
>the cause of Christ as a result. This is because
>non-Christian climate scientists (and others who
>are well informed on the topic) will wrongly
>assume that falsely accusing people must be the
>modus operandi of Christians. ~ Rich Blinne

@ Once again you misrepresent my position. So what is that?

I have _never said_, nor do I believe, that there
is any "conspiracy" or "CYA", nor have I said
that I believe there is any "grand conspiracy or
giant CYA" among scientists. It is a fact,
though, that individual scientists and individual
governments have a _political_ agenda. If you
deny that, you deny reality and are living in a
parallel universe of your own (or someone else's)
"feel-good" imagination. Those who think a
person must believe in "conspiracies" just
because they don't fall into line with the latest
"group think" (on any subject), are laughable
and demonstrate easily led they are.

In addition - outside the parallel universe in
which some appear to live - never have I ever
said that I don't believe there is "global warming".

In actual fact, I have stated the exact opposite
many times, one of which was exactly one year
ago, here: Tue, 14 Feb 2006
10:59:34
http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200602/0198.html
and another just a couple of months ago, here:
Mon Dec 04 2006 - 13:54:05
EST http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200612/0019.html

I agree with Dr. Lindzen:

  “.....the best science students generally moved
into physics, math, and computer science -- not
climate science. “Thus, speaking of ‘thousands’
of the world's leading climate scientists is not
especially meaningful. Even within climate
science, most of the top researchers (at least in the US) avoid
the IPCC because it is extremely time consuming
and non-productive.” ~ Dr. Richard Lindzen (former IPCC member)

"Appearing with Lindzen on the [Larry King] show
was Bill Nye (aka TV’s “The Science Guy”), who
had suggested that thaw-induced fresh water might
shut down the Gulf Stream. When Lindzen informed
the Union of Concerned Scientists shill that such
an action would require either stopping the
Earth’s rotation or shutting down the wind, it
was Nye’s ridiculous postulate that was shut down." Excerpted from:

IPCC Should Leave Science to Scientists February
13, 2007 Marc
Sheppard http://www.newmediajournal.us/staff/m_sheppard/02132007.htm

I also agree with this man:

President of Czech Republic Calls Man-Made Global
Warming a 'Myth' - Questions Gore's Sanity
Mon Feb 12 2007 09:10:09 ET

Czech president Vaclav Klaus has criticized the
UN panel on global warming, claiming that it was
a political authority without any scientific basis.

In an interview with "Hospodárské noviny", a
Czech economics daily, Klaus answered a few questions:

Q: IPCC has released its report and you say that
the global warming is a false myth. How did you get this idea, Mr President?•

A: It's not my idea. Global warming is a false
myth and every serious person and scientist says
so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel.
IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a
political body, a sort of non-government
organization of green flavor. It's neither a
forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group
of scientists. These people are politicized
scientists who arrive there with a one-sided
opinion and a one-sided assignment. Also, it's an
undignified slapstick that people don't wait for
the full report in May 2007 but instead respond,
in such a serious way, to the summary for
policymakers where all the "but's" are scratched,
removed, and replaced by oversimplified theses.•
This is clearly such an incredible failure of so
many people, from journalists to politicians. If
the European Commission is instantly going to buy
such a trick, we have another very good reason to
think that the countries themselves, not the
Commission, should be deciding about similar issues.•

Q: How do you explain that there is no other
comparably senior statesman in Europe who would
advocate this viewpoint? No one else has such strong opinions...•

A: My opinions about this issue simply are
strong. Other top-level politicians do not
express their global warming doubts because a
whip of political correctness strangles their voice.

• Q: But you're not a climate scientist. Do you
have a sufficient knowledge and enough information?•

A: Environmentalism as a metaphysical ideology
and as a worldview has absolutely nothing to do
with natural sciences or with the climate. Sadly,
it has nothing to do with social sciences either.
Still, it is becoming fashionable and this fact
scares me. The second part of the sentence should
be: we also have lots of reports, studies, and
books of climatologists whose conclusions are
diametrally opposite.• Indeed, I never measure
the thickness of ice in Antarctica. I really
don't know how to do it and don't plan to learn
it. However, as a scientifically oriented person,
I know how to read science reports about these
questions, for example about ice in Antarctica. I
don't have to be a climate scientist myself to
read them. And inside the papers I have read, the
conclusions we may see in the media simply don't
appear. But let me promise you something: this
topic troubles me which is why I started to write
an article about it last Christmas. The article
expanded and became a book. In a couple of
months, it will be published. One chapter out of
seven will organize my opinions about the climate
change.• Environmentalism and green ideology is
something very different from climate science.
Various findings and screams of scientists are abused by this ideology.•

Q: How do you explain that conservative media are
skeptical while the left-wing media view the global warming as a done deal?•

A: It is not quite exactly divided to the
left-wingers and right-wingers. Nevertheless it's
obvious that environmentalism is a new incarnation of modern leftism.•

Q: If you look at all these things, even if you were right ...•

A: ...I am right...•

Q: Isn't there enough empirical evidence and
facts we can see with our eyes that imply that
Man is demolishing the planet and himself?•

A: It's such a nonsense that I have probably not heard a bigger nonsense yet.•

Q: Don't you believe that we're ruining our planet?•

A: I will pretend that I haven't heard you.
Perhaps only Mr AlGore may be saying something
along these lines: a sane person can't. I don't
see any ruining of the planet, I have never seen
it, and I don't think that a reasonable and
serious person could say such a thing. Look: you
represent the economic media so I expect a
certain economical erudition from you. My book
will answer these questions. For example, we know
that there exists a huge correlation between the
care we give to the environment on one side and
the wealth and technological prowess on the other
side. It's clear that the poorer the society is,
the more brutally it behaves with respect to
Nature, and vice versa.• It's also true that
there exist social systems that are damaging
Nature - by eliminating private ownership and
similar things - much more than the freer
societies. These tendencies become important in
the long run. They unambiguously imply that
today, on February 8th, 2007, Nature is protected
uncomparably more than on February 8th ten years
ago or fifty years ago or one hundred years ago.•
That's why I ask: how can you pronounce the
sentence you said? Perhaps if you're unconscious?
Or did you mean it as a provocation only? And
maybe I am just too naive and I allowed you to
provoke me to give you all these answers, am I
not? It is more likely that you actually believe what you say.

[English translation from Harvard Professor Lubos
Motl] Developing... http://www.drudgereport.com/flash.htm

~ Janice .... Speaking of parallel universes:
"...Will science be wrong again? Possibly but
less and less likely. .." ~ Pim -11:58 PM Monday
2/5/2007 http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Feb 13 10:31:32 2007