Amazing! Simply amazing. Orlowski, of the Regester, doesn't seem to be bothered a whit that one the basic tools of climate change research has been found defective, and recognized as defective by all but the most devout Climate Change followers. His analogy of the Apolo and Saturn missions just dont make it. The failure of these enterprises would have cost a few billion for a nation that was fully prepared to spend severial times more on these missions alone. The failure of the science of Climate Change stands to cost infinatly more with the burden of cost going to an entire planets population. We are not contemplating a relatively simple trajectory alteration here but the alteration of the entire socio-economic condition of billions of human beings. A failure here, due to bad science and poor judgment, has considerably greater ramifications then an Apolo or Saturn mission scrub.
On Oct 5, 7:29 am, Veli Albert Kallio <[email protected]> wrote: > There is only November left separating us from Copenhagen. The sudden last > minute surge of errors in climate change studies on the advent of Copenhagen > is almost like opening a Christmas calendar and finding a new present hidden > behind each peel away door of IPCC. > > I could have bet a year ago that Kallio's hockey-stick of climate study > defects were soon to emerge as the climate change sceptics poured over and > over again with their magnification glasses over hundreds of studies and > methods to find defective papers on climate change. And God's mercy, there > they are in the tree rings to refute whole climate. > > Surely, with hundreds and thousands of IPCC papers one could go for something > that isn't as good as the rest of studies where facts may have been > overlooked like my philosophy teacher at the university on the umpteenth year > and on my third degree who fixed a wrong grade. > > Who said IPCC was an infallible entity guaranteeing error-free process as on > its entirety: when the Apollo and Saturn 5 launched to the Moon, it is said > that at any given moment at least 12 parts were found malfunctioning. Was the > mission then a failure? It wasn't. So it be with IPCC/UNEP processes. With > all practical probability, in a worl,d where even peer review or science > itself is not always perfect it is always possible to find a defect or > shortcut that does not meet the standard. Surely, more will be dug up by > Copenhagen. > > Isn't all this just citing those old scare-mongering bollocks who think > climate change is a great big conspiracy and sponge a half dozen largers in a > bar without worrying for the tomorrow: > > A scientific scandal is casting a shadow over a number of recent > peer-reviewed climate papers. The scandal has serious implications for public > trust in science. ..... This leads to the more general, and more serious > issue: what happens when peer-review fails - as it did here? > > --Andrew Orlowski, The Register, 29 September 2009 > > Over the next nine years, at least one paper per year appeared in prominent > journals using Briffa's Yamal composite to support a hockey stick-like > result. The IPCC relied on these studies to defend the Hockey Stick view, and > since it had appointed Briffa himself to be the IPCC Lead Author for this > topic, there was no chance it would question the Yamal data. Despite the fact > that these papers appeared in top journals like Nature and Science, none of > the journal reviewers or editors ever required Briffa to release his Yamal > data. Steve McIntyre's repeated requests for them to uphold their own data > disclosure rules were ignored. > --Ross McKitrick, Financial Post, 1 October 2009 > > The official United Nation's global warming agency, the Intergovernmental > Panel on Climate Change, is a four-legged stool that is fast losing its legs. > To carry the message of man-made global warming theory to the world, the > IPCC has depended on 1) computer models, 2) data collection, 3) long-range > temperature forecasting and 4) communication. None of these efforts are > sitting on firm ground. > > --Terence Corcoran, National Post, 1 October 2009 > > Media reaction to the Yamal story has been rather limited so far. I'm not > sure whether this is because people are trying to digest what it means or > whether it's "too hot to handle". None of the global warming supporters in > the mainstream media have gone near it. The reaction of the Guardian - to > delete any mention of the affair from their comment threads - has been > extraordinary. > --Bishop Hill, 1 October 2009 > > Britain will have to stop building airports, switch to electric cars and shut > down coal-fired power stations as part of a 'planned recession' to avoid > dangerous climate change. A new report from the Tyndall Centre for Climate > Change Research says the only way to avoid going beyond the dangerous tipping > point is to double the target to 70 per cent by 2020. This would mean > reducing the size of the economy through a "planned > recession". > --Louise Gray, The Daily Telegraph, 30 September 2009 > > Kr, Albert > > _________________________________________________________________ > Save time by using Hotmail to access your other email > accounts.http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/167688463/direct/01/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
