On 24 Oct 2006 at 11:05, Charlie Bell wrote: > > On 24/10/2006, at 10:32 AM, Andrew Crystall wrote: > > > On 23 Oct 2006 at 17:11, Dan Minette wrote: > > > >>> Meanwile, other - very well documented - research is showing that > >>> less light has been hitting the Earth. By a degree, on average, of > >>> some 22% in Israel - with comparative figures elsewhere. > >>> > >> > >> Let me offer a fairly good and balanced website's take on this: > >> > >> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=105 > > > > Heh. Try elsewhere for anything LIKE balanced. I'm NOT going to go > > into > > the entire flamewar about why. (Hint: PR flacks, not scientists) > > Well point us at it, because while you may disagree with their > conclusions, they are indeed scientists. It's possible to disagree > with an analysis without casting someone as a lackey of whatever > conspiracy you want, Especially without providing evidence.
Charlie, it's a long argument across newsgroups and blogs. RealClimate ITSELF is not the issue, it's an blog. The problem is with the bias of individual articles, and a lot of them are ghost- written by PR flacks. (Don't buy the "spare time" thing for 2 seconds). Collectively, they trash "junk science", which means anything the consensus of the authors doesn't like. Take something like http://www.climateaudit.org/, where you can get useful data, by comparison. If you're looking to debunk Crichton's pseudo-science, then sure, read RealClimate. But for the rest... (http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=realclimate+comment+censorship &meta=) > > Every single climate model developed without global dimming is, as > > things stand, a waste of processing time. There is good science to > > say that cleaning up our atmosphere might be nothing short of > > dangerous - the data on what would cause a runaway heat reaction is > > looking gloomier and gloomier as time goes on. > > But again, the levels and effects are still not fully understood. > Dismissing entirely a source just because a two year old article > disagrees with your current thinking doesn't seem rational. "Not understood" in this case means "there are fairly broad margins of confidence as to the magnitude of the effect", NOT "this is not significant". The data in most cases which is criticised was not considered especially significant for over 50 years, and was accepted. As soon as its significant, there are new ways dreamed up to attack it. (From people who formerly had no issues with it) AndrewC Dawn Falcon _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
