Robert, Your response does not follow the thread. The linked article refers to a pole of climate scientists in SWEDEN! Judith Curry is a US based researcher. And, you link to a post on the ultra conservative blog, Redstate.com, written by a person who describes himself as: "Operations Manager for a small Gulf of Mexico oil & gas explorer & producer".
Aren't you just trolling for some sort of recognition of your unsupported denialist point of view? All your comments about chaos ignore the fact that if the climate is as unstable as you claim, there would be large swings year-to-year and any man made changes would easily set off major changes beyond what's been seen in the climate record of the Holocene. If the climate system is as unstable as you appear to believe, then it is major folly to perturb it by adding more greenhouse gases. That would provide an even more urgent reason for action to minimize emissions, if true. E. S. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Robert I Ellison wrote: > Judith Curry's bumps and changes in climate must be understood rather > than simply labelled as natural variability and neglected - as it has > been for too long and indeed by the IPCC. The IPCC is wrong at the > level of underlying assumptions about how climate works - ordered and > simple physics rather than as a complex and dynamic system. The > 'naive hubris' of the 'scientific consensus' is playing into the hands > of skeptics. It astonishes me because the climate models are > themselves chaotic - using as they do the same equations of fluid > motion that Edward Lorenz did in the 1960's when he discovered chaos > theory in a model of convection. But it just seems to go right over > their heads - or in one ear and out the other - for some reason I > don't care to speculate on other than the usual tragedy of the human > condition - brought on by the human tendency to self delusion and a > lack of scientific skepticism. Let's have a show of hands -how many > believe in simple climate physics? 97%?. You guys have really blown > it. > > http://www.redstate.com/vladimir/2010/03/15/antarctic-shrimp-global-warming-and-the-laffer-curve/ > > But chaos theory implies that climate is sensitive to small changes in > initial conditions - such that there is a risk of sudden and > catastrophic climate change at any time at all. > > On Apr 13, 12:04 am, Erik Svensson, Göteborg <[email protected]> wrote: > > http://uppsalainitiativet.blogspot.com/2010/04/overwhelming-majority-... > > > > At least in Sweden, is seems like the opinions among climate > > scientists have not changed due to the 'climategate'-thing. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of global environmental change. Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not gratuitously rude. 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/globalchange To unsubscribe, reply using "remove me" as the subject.
