Posted on 08/11/2007 12:40:50 AM PDT by neverdem
Who cares what nameless geeks think about others outside their speciality? For the second time, let's have the names of first-rank scientists who deny that human activity significantly influences climate change.
It'd be a refreshing change from swallowing Al Gores crap
Ah, ah, ah. No, no, no. Low Blow.
Al Gore is crap. But that hardly devalues all the things he supports.
“I’m just using the article. Are any of the researchers denying human influence in climate change? No. So where do you find such? In Bible-thumping 1? In paleo-capitalism 101?”
Dr. Reid Bryson for one. The article “The Faithful Heretic” has been posted on Freerepublic several times. I am surprised that you missed it. Dr. Bryson doesn’t deny that human activity can influence climate. He was one of the first to propose the possibility, back when it was not fashionable to do so. But, he is clear that the current crop of doom sayers are far, far from being close to reasonable. Read the article. It is not long, not very technical, but it is quite clear.
And, remember, this is a man who has everything to lose and nothing to gain by going against the “catastrophic climate change” Establishment”. He is a lifelong academic who can afford to speak “truth to power” because he has always done so.
“The other part is making educated - and very, very, clever - guesses. Both Copernicus and Einstein did that...and look where it’s got us.”
Yes, inspired hypothesis are what move us forward, particularly those that are willing to go against what is considered “consensus”.
The hypothesis of both Copernicus and Einstein were eminently testable. What is alarming about the “Catastrophic Climate Change Establishment” is that they demand that we spend trillions of dollars, alter our entire economy and lifestyle, and place most of our lives under near totalitarian political control long before their hyperbolistic hypothesis are tested.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. That is why UFOs are not considered established science. Those who push catastrophic climate change as fact are demanding that we believe them without any proof. If we demand proof, they say “but then it will be too late!”
But we never know what it will be “too late” for, but I suspect it means that it will be too late for them to seize political control.
How about the Secretariat of the World Meteorological Society for one.
Then there's Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Then there is Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists who says the entire thing is 'incoherent and invalid from a scientific point of view.'
There's three for you. And since I'm not around here to see to the education you should already have, hit a few of those links and shake the Socialist propoganda out of what's left of your logic circuits.
Anthropogenic 'climate change' is unscientific hokum. It's designed to frighten weak minded liberals and suck funds from stupid politicians.
Todays 'environmentalist movement' is the last refuge of unreformed communists.
L
“I’m just using the article.”
No. The word “responsible” is yours, I’m only explaining how you’re using it and I’m not surprised you avoid acknowledging your fundamental motives.
Actually, they weren't at the time they were proposed. I think it was more than a century before Copernicus was confirmed. As for the 1915 general theory of relativity, confirmation supposedly came in 1922...but subsequent work showed that was wrong.
I'm working on replies to the rest of the stuff...but slowly ( :) ). A great Katharine Hepburn-Cary Grant classic takes precedence.
Ice core data going back tens of millions of years shows that carbon dioxide increases follow (meaning they come after) temperature increases.
Global warming cannot be due to carbon emission.
I don’t think that graphic is accurate at all.
First of all, the models have predicted more warming than has ocurred (even the fudged observation temperature data.)
Second, the 1930s and 1940s were warmer than the Observation line shows.
Third, the Observation temperature line should peak in 1998 and decline up to today (rather than be smoothed up to 2000 and then cut-off.)
RE: Language “attack” etc.
The average “journalist” is as dumb as cardboard with respect to science, especially hard science. If some scientific theory supports their beliefs, they resent any questioning of that theory, which is how science works.
Looking only at the chart, what the modelers seem to be saying is that anthropogenic warming is preventing the next ice age.
the problem with their graph is the “observations” line. Just this week the “1998 was the warmest year on record” line was devastated by proof that their analysis was flawed. NASA and the GISS have had to correct their data for the US, the “most accurate, complete and important” of any of the data sets that is being used in these models. They had to admit that 1934 is back to being the warmest on record, with 5 of the top 10 being in the 30s. Their graph shows everything from about 1985 on to be much warmer than the peak in the 30s and we know that’s simply not true.
In descending order of believability there are lies, damned lies, statistics, presentation graphics and global warming science. (with apologies to Benjamin Disraeli and Mark Twain)
I don't mind you going through life terrified. Just leave the rest of us alone.
"Responsible" is an attempt to separate the wheat from the chaff, the knowledgeable from the ignorant. In practice it usually mean the credentialed from the unschooled, the working professional from the amateur dabbler.
It is not a precise term.
Young Einstein (before his Anno Mirabilus) criticized the work of Boltzmann and was even more harsh in his judgement of his professors. He was right....but that was Einstein.
I’m not surprised you avoid acknowledging your fundamental motives
My fundamental belief - not motive - is that our present systems - not system - are unsustainable. They depend on growth and development - of population and raw land - and that cannot continue endlessly in a finite world.
Your fundamental belief is that they can, and that your religious beliefs and imperatives can be sustained in the face of all contrary evidence.
I'll take mine anyday.
As for motives, mine are never entirely clear to me, nor are yours to you, are anyones for that matter. Your claim to be a mind-reader is ridiculous.
Further, when you present me as a doer of hidden evil (because I'm your political opponent) while presenting yourself as the flag-waving heroic defender of the true and the good, you reduce yourself to the utterly contemptible. Unworthy of reasoned discourse.
You live in a society, mr. clueless, and in a society all of us are forced to do lots of things we don't wish to do, and sometimes don't believe are right or wise.
In this society we're all free to express our opinions and to try to get others to adopt them. If we are successful the institutions of society are energized to enforce our will.
Exactly what is it that you don't like about the process? You don't get your way all the time? Poor baby. Are you a mama's boy? Used to getting your way all the time?
The problem with that belief is that it is not true, at least not in any reasonably human time frame. I am speaking of your belief that we live in a finite world.
It is a common belief, true, but that does not make it so. There are enormous resources available to us, that can sustain growth for many millennium, at the least. One need only look to the solar system for that, let alone the oceans and Antarctica.
I believe that we only need to sustain increasing productivity, not populations, and not raw land. In fact, less land is being cultivated with higher productivity in the United States, than was the case 50 years ago.
I suspect that the earth will eventually be made into a wilderness park that people have to wait in line to enjoy a few weeks at a time. But that is not likely for a couple of hundred years. We certainly are capable of limiting population sufficiently to achieve that level of growth.
I'm aware that it's just a belief, not a fact. I'm aware that many before me have predicted doom...and been wrong, often ridiculously, humiliating wrong (Ehrlich).
I believe that we only need to sustain increasing productivity, not populations, and not raw land. In fact, less land is being cultivated with higher productivity in the United States, than was the case 50 years ago.
I agree 100%. If we can do this we're home free.
But even though it seems we can, it's not clear we will. So it's my function to continually point out what will happen if we don't. To point out the dangers, the signs of resistance and back-sliding.
Of course, we could both be wrong and the world could be moving in directions unseen by either of us. How many times before has that happened....
Many more times than not... forecasting the future is very difficult. I think the most likely future will be something that neither one of us has imagined... but, I am optomistic about it.
The obvious point is that input of aerosols and CO2 are strongly correllated. It is virtually impossible to separate their countervailling effects.
In addition, the varinance of the parameters characterizing their contributions is HUGE, perhaps larger than the estimates themselves, which seems to the authors point.
You can’t average the models to lower the variance because the models are in no way independent, they rely on the same observations. The variance of the ensemble is no better than the variance of the individual members. All that varies is the authors estimates of the reliability (weights) of the various observations. (It might be “fair” to assign average variance to the “metamodel”.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.