[FairfieldLife] Re: Nobody gives a damn about global warming
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcg...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante no_reply@ wrote: http://snipurl.com/ax9hv [www_thestandard_com] Great news! People aren't stupid. Mind you, this chap cares a lot: http://tinyurl.com/aawoj5
[FairfieldLife] Re: Nobody gives a damn about global warming
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard M compost...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante no_reply@ wrote: http://snipurl.com/ax9hv [www_thestandard_com] Great news! People aren't stupid. Mind you, this chap cares a lot: http://tinyurl.com/aawoj5 Thank you for posting the link to the excellent article, Richard M. However, it's so important that I felt compelled to reproduce it here: James Hansen's Former NASA Supervisor Declares Himself a Skeptic - Says Hansen `Embarrassed NASA', `Was Never Muzzled', Models `Useless' 27 01 2009 UPDATE 1/28: Full text of Dr. Theon's letter has been post on the Senate website and below. This is something I thought I'd never see. This press release today is from the Senate EPW blog of Jame Inhofe. The scientist making the claims in the headline, Dr. John S. Theon, formerly of the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, Arlington, Virginia, has a paper here in the AMS BAMS that you may also find interesting. Other papers are available here in Google Scholar. He also worked on the report of the Space Shuttle Challenger accident report and according to that document was a significant contributor to weather forecasting improvements: The Space Shuttle Weather Forecasting Advisory Panel, chaired by Dr. John Theon, was established by NASA Headquarters to review existing weather support capabilities and plans and to recommend a course of action to the NSTS Program. Included on the panel were representatives from NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Air Force, and the National Center for Atmospheric Research. For those just joining the climate discussion, Dr. James Hansen is the chief climate scientist at NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) and is the man who originally raised the alarm on global warming in 1988 in an appearance before congress. He is also the keeper of the most often cited climate data. EPW press release below - Anthony -- -- Washington DC, Jan 27th 2009: NASA warming scientist James Hansen, one of former Vice-President Al Gore's closest allies in the promotion of man-made global warming fears, is being publicly rebuked by his former supervisor at NASA. Retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist, Dr. John S. Theon, the former supervisor of James Hansen, NASA's vocal man-made global warming fear soothsayer, has now publicly declared himself a skeptic and declared that Hansen embarrassed NASA with his alarming climate claims and said Hansen was was never muzzled. Theon joins the rapidly growing ranks of international scientists abandoning the promotion of man-made global warming fears. I appreciate the opportunity to add my name to those who disagree that global warming is man made, Theon wrote to the Minority Office at the Environment and Public Works Committee on January 15, 2009. I was, in effect, Hansen's supervisor because I had to justify his funding, allocate his resources, and evaluate his results, Theon, the former Chief of the Climate Processes Research Program at NASA Headquarters and former Chief of the Atmospheric Dynamics Radiation Branch explained. Hansen was never muzzled even though he violated NASA's official agency position on climate forecasting (i.e., we did not know enough to forecast climate change or mankind's effect on it). Hansen thus embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claims of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before Congress, Theon wrote. [Note: NASA scientist James Hansen has created worldwide media frenzy with his dire climate warning, his call for trials against those who dissent against man-made global warming fear, and his claims that he was allegedly muzzled by the Bush administration despite doing 1,400 on- the-job media interviews! - See: Don't Panic Over Predictions of Climate Doom - Get the Facts on James Hansen - UK Register: Veteran climate scientist says 'lock up the oil men' - June 23, 2008 UK Guardian: NASA scientist calls for putting oil firm chiefs on trial for 'high crimes against humanity' for spreading doubt about man-made global warming - June 23, 2008 ] Theon declared climate models are useless. My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit, Theon explained. Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it. They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists. This is
[FairfieldLife] Re: Nobody gives a damn about global warming
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcg...@... wrote: James Hansen's Former NASA Supervisor Declares Himself a Skeptic - But it gets even better Shemp. Check out today's post from Anthony Watts' excellent blog: Today, a founder of the International Journal of Forecasting, Journal of Forecasting, International Institute of Forecasters, and International Symposium on Forecasting, and the author of Long-range Forecasting (1978, 1985), the Principles of Forecasting Handbook, and over 70 papers on forecasting, Dr J. Scott Armstrong, tabled a statement declaring that the forecasting process used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) lacks a scientific basis. http://tinyurl.com/b5uq8k (Don't tell do.reflex, he'll blow a gasket!) Poor old Obama. He's inherited such a terrible mess. And in the context of *climate change*, just at the point where the fictional consensus shows all the signs of unravelling, he is under the spotlight to make good on his promises.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Nobody gives a damn about global warming
I'll say it again: who cares about Global Warming when by addressing the concept pollution will take care of any warming? Warming is but one bad aspect of a host of bads due to pollution. We may not know for sure if warming is happening, but there is absolutely no doubt about how our poor planet is peppered with toxic dumps, toxic smoke stacks, toxic exhaust pipes on cars, the island of garbage in the Pacific Ocean, the dying reefs, etc. I find it horribly distasteful for anyone to carp about the global warming efforts when the only possible way to address that problem (real or not) is to clean up the planet. The toxic sites are real, known, and lethal as Love Canal -- those who would naysay the Global Warmists are pro-pollution-sinners-by-omission, and that's a fact! Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard M compost...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: James Hansen's Former NASA Supervisor Declares Himself a Skeptic - But it gets even better Shemp. Check out today's post from Anthony Watts' excellent blog: Today, a founder of the International Journal of Forecasting, Journal of Forecasting, International Institute of Forecasters, and International Symposium on Forecasting, and the author of Long-range Forecasting (1978, 1985), the Principles of Forecasting Handbook, and over 70 papers on forecasting, Dr J. Scott Armstrong, tabled a statement declaring that the forecasting process used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) lacks a scientific basis. http://tinyurl.com/b5uq8k (Don't tell do.reflex, he'll blow a gasket!) Poor old Obama. He's inherited such a terrible mess. And in the context of *climate change*, just at the point where the fictional consensus shows all the signs of unravelling, he is under the spotlight to make good on his promises.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Nobody gives a damn about global warming
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_re...@... wrote: I'll say it again: who cares about Global Warming when by addressing the concept pollution will take care of any warming? Warming is but one bad aspect of a host of bads due to pollution. We may not know for sure if warming is happening, but there is absolutely no doubt about how our poor planet is peppered with toxic dumps, toxic smoke stacks, toxic exhaust pipes on cars, the island of garbage in the Pacific Ocean, the dying reefs, etc. I find it horribly distasteful for anyone to carp about the global warming efforts when the only possible way to address that problem (real or not) is to clean up the planet. The toxic sites are real, known, and lethal as Love Canal -- those who would naysay the Global Warmists are pro-pollution-sinners-by-omission, and that's a fact! But Edg - am with you all the way on garbage in the oceans, toxic dumps, nuclear waste, and all. But it's stretching it to say that CO2 is a pollutant. You don't need a fancy theory to say that we need to clean up our rivers, lakes, oceans and the air we breathe. But the Bad Boy CO2 conjecture DOES need a lot of contentious baggage to prop it up and give it some force. In fact as a conjecture it would be dead in the water (unfortunate metaphor!) without wheeling out supporting theories of positive feedbacks. That's because the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is actually tiny (even after recent increases). --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard M compost1uk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: James Hansen's Former NASA Supervisor Declares Himself a Skeptic - But it gets even better Shemp. Check out today's post from Anthony Watts' excellent blog: Today, a founder of the International Journal of Forecasting, Journal of Forecasting, International Institute of Forecasters, and International Symposium on Forecasting, and the author of Long-range Forecasting (1978, 1985), the Principles of Forecasting Handbook, and over 70 papers on forecasting, Dr J. Scott Armstrong, tabled a statement declaring that the forecasting process used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) lacks a scientific basis. http://tinyurl.com/b5uq8k (Don't tell do.reflex, he'll blow a gasket!) Poor old Obama. He's inherited such a terrible mess. And in the context of *climate change*, just at the point where the fictional consensus shows all the signs of unravelling, he is under the spotlight to make good on his promises.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Nobody gives a damn about global warming
Richard, I agree, but if Gore has truly gotten a grassroots activism going and it's flag is carried by such a large number of folks, then that activism can be used to evolve into a greater clarity about pollution in general and then, eventually, the group will aim more precisely at targets more easily hit than C02 emissions -- that is, come to a triage clarity. I'm being not-a-little bit sleazy here in that I'm hoping the activism is as if eventually commandeered and brought to bear upon toxicity in general, but the longing for clean in the global warmists is the baby in the bathwater that gets tossed out by all the anti-warmists. Attacking the warmists should not besmirch the desire for a clean environment. Yeah, I'm not able to present a case against C02 that'll stymie the anti-warmists much. C02 is a pollutant only when the Earth's ability to process it is overrun. As such, maybe it's better to think of C02 like we think of water in the human body -- too much is lethal -- not that water is intrinsically bad. I'm okay with the global warming push, cuz, just think, hee hee, do you think all the smokestack owners out there are going to standstill for some legislation that forces them to pay millions of bucks to put C02 filters on their stacks without, you know, paying their lobbyists to bang every elected official to get tough on the OTHER companies that are pouring stuff into our oceans? I say, beat on the smokers and watch them get politically active, pay for it, and put the other polluters' feet to the fire. Beat on one drum, get all drums beaten. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard M compost...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_reply@ wrote: I'll say it again: who cares about Global Warming when by addressing the concept pollution will take care of any warming? Warming is but one bad aspect of a host of bads due to pollution. We may not know for sure if warming is happening, but there is absolutely no doubt about how our poor planet is peppered with toxic dumps, toxic smoke stacks, toxic exhaust pipes on cars, the island of garbage in the Pacific Ocean, the dying reefs, etc. I find it horribly distasteful for anyone to carp about the global warming efforts when the only possible way to address that problem (real or not) is to clean up the planet. The toxic sites are real, known, and lethal as Love Canal -- those who would naysay the Global Warmists are pro-pollution-sinners-by-omission, and that's a fact! But Edg - am with you all the way on garbage in the oceans, toxic dumps, nuclear waste, and all. But it's stretching it to say that CO2 is a pollutant. You don't need a fancy theory to say that we need to clean up our rivers, lakes, oceans and the air we breathe. But the Bad Boy CO2 conjecture DOES need a lot of contentious baggage to prop it up and give it some force. In fact as a conjecture it would be dead in the water (unfortunate metaphor!) without wheeling out supporting theories of positive feedbacks. That's because the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is actually tiny (even after recent increases). --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard M compost1uk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: James Hansen's Former NASA Supervisor Declares Himself a Skeptic - But it gets even better Shemp. Check out today's post from Anthony Watts' excellent blog: Today, a founder of the International Journal of Forecasting, Journal of Forecasting, International Institute of Forecasters, and International Symposium on Forecasting, and the author of Long-range Forecasting (1978, 1985), the Principles of Forecasting Handbook, and over 70 papers on forecasting, Dr J. Scott Armstrong, tabled a statement declaring that the forecasting process used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) lacks a scientific basis. http://tinyurl.com/b5uq8k (Don't tell do.reflex, he'll blow a gasket!) Poor old Obama. He's inherited such a terrible mess. And in the context of *climate change*, just at the point where the fictional consensus shows all the signs of unravelling, he is under the spotlight to make good on his promises.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Nobody gives a damn about global warming
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_re...@... wrote: Richard, I agree, but if Gore has truly gotten a grassroots activism going and it's flag is carried by such a large number of folks, then that activism can be used to evolve into a greater clarity about pollution in general and then, eventually, the group will aim more precisely at targets more easily hit than C02 emissions -- that is, come to a triage clarity. I'm being not-a-little bit sleazy here in that I'm hoping the activism is as if eventually commandeered and brought to bear upon toxicity in general, but the longing for clean in the global warmists is the baby in the bathwater that gets tossed out by all the anti-warmists. Attacking the warmists should not besmirch the desire for a clean environment. Yeah, I'm not able to present a case against C02 that'll stymie the anti-warmists much. C02 is a pollutant only when the Earth's ability to process it is overrun. As such, maybe it's better to think of C02 like we think of water in the human body -- too much is lethal -- not that water is intrinsically bad. I'm okay with the global warming push, cuz, just think, hee hee, do you think all the smokestack owners out there are going to standstill for some legislation that forces them to pay millions of bucks to put C02 filters on their stacks without, you know, paying their lobbyists to bang every elected official to get tough on the OTHER companies that are pouring stuff into our oceans? I say, beat on the smokers and watch them get politically active, pay for it, and put the other polluters' feet to the fire. Beat on one drum, get all drums beaten. Edg A bit of the end justifies the means there of course. But your analogy with water is spot on. So Edg, are you in favour of nuclear power? And are you attracted to conspiracy theories? I say this because the nuclear power lobby is benefiting enormously from the demonization of CO2. Are the Greenies just pawns in a game being played by the Higher Powers to persuade the electorate to accept more nuclear power? (What are they called - the New World Order or something?) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard M compost1uk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_reply@ wrote: I'll say it again: who cares about Global Warming when by addressing the concept pollution will take care of any warming? Warming is but one bad aspect of a host of bads due to pollution. We may not know for sure if warming is happening, but there is absolutely no doubt about how our poor planet is peppered with toxic dumps, toxic smoke stacks, toxic exhaust pipes on cars, the island of garbage in the Pacific Ocean, the dying reefs, etc. I find it horribly distasteful for anyone to carp about the global warming efforts when the only possible way to address that problem (real or not) is to clean up the planet. The toxic sites are real, known, and lethal as Love Canal -- those who would naysay the Global Warmists are pro-pollution-sinners-by-omission, and that's a fact! But Edg - am with you all the way on garbage in the oceans, toxic dumps, nuclear waste, and all. But it's stretching it to say that CO2 is a pollutant. You don't need a fancy theory to say that we need to clean up our rivers, lakes, oceans and the air we breathe. But the Bad Boy CO2 conjecture DOES need a lot of contentious baggage to prop it up and give it some force. In fact as a conjecture it would be dead in the water (unfortunate metaphor!) without wheeling out supporting theories of positive feedbacks. That's because the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is actually tiny (even after recent increases). --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard M compost1uk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: James Hansen's Former NASA Supervisor Declares Himself a Skeptic - But it gets even better Shemp. Check out today's post from Anthony Watts' excellent blog: Today, a founder of the International Journal of Forecasting, Journal of Forecasting, International Institute of Forecasters, and International Symposium on Forecasting, and the author of Long-range Forecasting (1978, 1985), the Principles of Forecasting Handbook, and over 70 papers on forecasting, Dr J. Scott Armstrong, tabled a statement declaring that the forecasting process used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) lacks a scientific basis. http://tinyurl.com/b5uq8k (Don't tell do.reflex, he'll blow a gasket!) Poor old Obama. He's inherited such a terrible mess. And in the context of *climate change*, just at the point where the fictional consensus shows all the signs of unravelling, he is under the spotlight to make good on his promises.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Nobody gives a damn about global warming
Richard M wrote: So Edg, are you in favour of nuclear power? And are you attracted to conspiracy theories? I say this because the nuclear power lobby is benefiting enormously from the demonization of CO2. Are the Greenies just pawns in a game being played by the Higher Powers to persuade the electorate to accept more nuclear power? (What are they called - the New World Order or something?) Richard, It is my understanding that the Queen of England and her bank are owners of virtually all the uranium of Canada, and that she's behind the anti-C02 movement. I'll give it a 9 out of 10 possibility of being true. That proved, then ya gots some sort of Illuminati thingie, eh? I'm against nuke-power until its pollution is zero -- not merely contained by storage systems that must eventually fail. The Greens probably are being used. Not sure if Gore is mindful or being used. I'm thinking Gore has a nice gig and thought for awhile it would serve to keep his hat in the presidential ring. Dunno fer shur. I'm most in favor of hydrogen, but getting the cost down will only happen if a cheap way to get it out of water is discovered. I'm not seeing it being around the corner, but there's lots of promising efforts out there that might go commercial any second. Other energy technologies are also emerging -- nano stuff could give us a singularity and then, wow, what a paradigm shift -- out goes every notion of all the big thinkers of the world about almost everything if nanotech gives us programable microscopic bots that can form clouds. Other singularities can do this too, so I'm just doing my pranyama until 2012heh heh, then, we'll see, eh? Edg
[FairfieldLife] Re: Nobody gives a damn about global warming
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_re...@... wrote: Richard M wrote: So Edg, are you in favour of nuclear power? And are you attracted to conspiracy theories? I say this because the nuclear power lobby is benefiting enormously from the demonization of CO2. Are the Greenies just pawns in a game being played by the Higher Powers to persuade the electorate to accept more nuclear power? (What are they called - the New World Order or something?) Richard, It is my understanding that the Queen of England and her bank are owners of virtually all the uranium of Canada, and that she's behind the anti-C02 movement. You mean Her Highness? http://www.stephenfry.com/ I'll give it a 9 out of 10 possibility of being true. That proved, then ya gots some sort of Illuminati thingie, eh? I'm against nuke-power until its pollution is zero -- not merely contained by storage systems that must eventually fail. The Greens probably are being used. Not sure if Gore is mindful or being used. I'm thinking Gore has a nice gig and thought for awhile it would serve to keep his hat in the presidential ring. Dunno fer shur. I'm most in favor of hydrogen, but getting the cost down will only happen if a cheap way to get it out of water is discovered. I'm not seeing it being around the corner, but there's lots of promising efforts out there that might go commercial any second. Other energy technologies are also emerging -- nano stuff could give us a singularity and then, wow, what a paradigm shift -- out goes every notion of all the big thinkers of the world about almost everything if nanotech gives us programable microscopic bots that can form clouds. Other singularities can do this too, so I'm just doing my pranyama until 2012heh heh, then, we'll see, eh? Edg We'll see!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Nobody gives a damn about global warming
But it gets even better Shemp. Check out today's post from Anthony Watts' excellent blog: Today, a founder of the International Journal of Forecasting, Journal of Forecasting, International Institute of Forecasters, and International Symposium on Forecasting, and the author of Long-range Forecasting (1978, 1985), the Principles of Forecasting Handbook, and over 70 papers on forecasting, Dr J. Scott Armstrong, tabled a statement declaring that the forecasting process used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) lacks a scientific basis. First, note that Armstrong has no experience whatsoever as a climate scientist. Got that? Second, some actual climate scientists dissect Greene and Armstrong's thesis (GA) using GA's own criteria: G+A's recent foray into climate science might therefore be a good case study for why their principles have not won wide acceptance. In the spirit of their technique, we'll use a scientific methodology - let's call it 'the principles of cross-disciplinary acceptance' (TM pending). For each principle, we assign a numerical score between -2 and 2, and the average will be our 'scientific' conclusion Principle 1: When moving into a new field, don't assume you know everything about it because you read a review and none of the primary literature. Score: -2 G+A appear to have only read one chapter of the IPCC report (Chap 8), and an un-peer reviewed hatchet job on the Stern report. Not a very good start Principle 2: Talk to people who are doing what you are concerned about. Score: -2 Of the roughly 20 climate modelling groups in the world, and hundreds of associated researchers, G+A appear to have talked to none of them. Strike 2. Principle 3: Be humble. If something initially doesn't make sense, it is more likely that you've mis-understood than the entire field is wrong. Score: -2 For instance, G+A appear to think that climate models are not tested on 'out of sample' data (they gave that a '-2#8242;). On the contrary, the models are used for many situations that they were not tuned for, paleo-climate changes (mid Holocene, last glacial maximum, 8.2 kyr event) being a good example. Similarly, model projections for the future have been matched with actual data - for instance, forecasting the effects of Pinatubo ahead of time, or Hansen's early projections. The amount of 'out of sample' testing is actually huge, but the confusion stems from G+A not being aware of what the 'sample' data actually consists of (mainly present day climatology). Another example is that G+A appear to think that GCMs use the history of temperature changes to make their projections since they suggest leaving some of it out as a validation. But this is just not so, as we discussed more thoroughly in a recent thread. Principle 4: Do not ally yourself with rejectionist rumps with clear political agendas if you want to be taken seriously by the rest of the field. Score: -2 The principle climatologist that G+A appear to have talked to is Bob 'global warming stopped in 1998#8242; Carter, who doesn't appear to think that the current CO2 rise is even anthropogenic. Not terribly representative Principle 5: Submit your paper to a reputable journal whose editors and peer reviewers will help improve your text and point out some of these subtle misconceptions. Score: -2 Energy and Environment. Need we say more? Principle 6: You can ignore all the above principles if you are only interested in gaining publicity for a book. Score: +2 Ah-ha! In summary, G+A get a rather disappointing (but scientific!) score of -1.66. This probably means that the prospects for a greater acceptance of forecasting principles within the climate community are not good. Kevin Trenberth feels the same way. Which raises the question of whether they are really serious or simply looking for a little public controversy. It may well be that there is something worth learning from the academic discipline of scientific forecasting (though they don't seem to have come across the concept of physically-based modelling), but this kind of amateur blundering does their cause nothing but harm. G+A's recent foray into climate science might therefore be a good case study for why their principles have not won wide acceptance. In the spirit of their technique, we'll use a scientific methodology - let's call it 'the principles of cross-disciplinary acceptance' (TM pending). For each principle, we assign a numerical score between -2 and 2, and the average will be our 'scientific' conclusion Principle 1: When moving into a new field, don't assume you know everything about it because you read a review and none of the primary literature. Score: -2 G+A appear to have only read one chapter of the IPCC report (Chap 8), and an un-peer reviewed hatchet job on the Stern report. Not a very good start Principle 2: Talk to people who are doing what you are concerned about. Score: -2 Of the roughly 20 climate modelling groups in the
[FairfieldLife] Re: Nobody gives a damn about global warming
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_re...@... wrote: Richard M wrote: So Edg, are you in favour of nuclear power? And are you attracted to conspiracy theories? I say this because the nuclear power lobby is benefiting enormously from the demonization of CO2. Are the Greenies just pawns in a game being played by the Higher Powers to persuade the electorate to accept more nuclear power? (What are they called - the New World Order or something?) Richard, It is my understanding that the Queen of England and her bank are owners of virtually all the uranium of Canada, and that she's behind the anti-C02 movement. I'll give it a 9 out of 10 possibility of being true. That proved, then ya gots some sort of Illuminati thingie, eh? That proved? What's proved? It is easy to see who owns the big publicly owned uranium mines in canada and it's not the queen of england. Her bank? What bank would that be? Do you think the queen owns the bank of england maybe? There's no mov't, there's the climate scientists of the world investigating the effects of greenhouse gases, such as co2, on the env't and politicians finally catching up and starting to talk about it. Actually they're doing more than talk about it in the artic circle where Russia, Canada and the US have all sent naval fleets to secure drilling rights due to the massive melting of the ice sheet there. Of course I've heard that the queen is probably using large scale hair dryers to melt the ice. I'm against nuke-power until its pollution is zero -- not merely contained by storage systems that must eventually fail. The Greens probably are being used. Not sure if Gore is mindful or being used. I'm thinking Gore has a nice gig and thought for awhile it would serve to keep his hat in the presidential ring. Dunno fer shur. I'm most in favor of hydrogen, but getting the cost down will only happen if a cheap way to get it out of water is discovered. I'm not seeing it being around the corner, but there's lots of promising efforts out there that might go commercial any second. Other energy technologies are also emerging -- nano stuff could give us a singularity and then, wow, what a paradigm shift -- out goes every notion of all the big thinkers of the world about almost everything if nanotech gives us programable microscopic bots that can form clouds. Other singularities can do this too, so I'm just doing my pranyama until 2012heh heh, then, we'll see, eh? Edg
[FairfieldLife] Re: Nobody gives a damn about global warming
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, boo_lives boo_li...@... wrote: But it gets even better Shemp. Check out today's post from Anthony Watts' excellent blog: Today, a founder of the International Journal of Forecasting, Journal of Forecasting, International Institute of Forecasters, and International Symposium on Forecasting, and the author of Long-range Forecasting (1978, 1985), the Principles of Forecasting Handbook, and over 70 papers on forecasting, Dr J. Scott Armstrong, tabled a statement declaring that the forecasting process used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) lacks a scientific basis. First, note that Armstrong has no experience whatsoever as a climate scientist. Got that? Score -100 for being patronising. I think you miss the point of my post. It is not that Armstrong is necessarily right (though he may just as well be right as realclimate.org may be wrong. After all the latter only represent climate science by self-certification. Realclimate.org is driven primarily by Hansen's sidekick Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann - he of the Great Hockey Stick Controversy). The question is whether there is a consensus. Realclimate.org are desperately trying to hold the line - but they are having to work harder and harder to do so. Second, some actual climate scientists dissect Greene and Armstrong's thesis (GA) using GA's own criteria: G+A's recent foray into climate science might therefore be a good case study for why their principles have not won wide acceptance. In the spirit of their technique, we'll use a scientific methodology - let's call it 'the principles of cross-disciplinary acceptance' (TM pending). For each principle, we assign a numerical score between -2 and 2, and the average will be our 'scientific' conclusion Principle 1: When moving into a new field, don't assume you know everything about it because you read a review and none of the primary literature. Score: -2 G+A appear to have only read one chapter of the IPCC report (Chap 8), and an un-peer reviewed hatchet job on the Stern report. Not a very good start Principle 2: Talk to people who are doing what you are concerned about. Score: -2 Of the roughly 20 climate modelling groups in the world, and hundreds of associated researchers, G+A appear to have talked to none of them. Strike 2. Principle 3: Be humble. If something initially doesn't make sense, it is more likely that you've mis-understood than the entire field is wrong. Score: -2 For instance, G+A appear to think that climate models are not tested on 'out of sample' data (they gave that a '-2#8242;). On the contrary, the models are used for many situations that they were not tuned for, paleo-climate changes (mid Holocene, last glacial maximum, 8.2 kyr event) being a good example. Similarly, model projections for the future have been matched with actual data - for instance, forecasting the effects of Pinatubo ahead of time, or Hansen's early projections. The amount of 'out of sample' testing is actually huge, but the confusion stems from G+A not being aware of what the 'sample' data actually consists of (mainly present day climatology). Another example is that G+A appear to think that GCMs use the history of temperature changes to make their projections since they suggest leaving some of it out as a validation. But this is just not so, as we discussed more thoroughly in a recent thread. Principle 4: Do not ally yourself with rejectionist rumps with clear political agendas if you want to be taken seriously by the rest of the field. Score: -2 The principle climatologist that G+A appear to have talked to is Bob 'global warming stopped in 1998#8242; Carter, who doesn't appear to think that the current CO2 rise is even anthropogenic. Not terribly representative Principle 5: Submit your paper to a reputable journal whose editors and peer reviewers will help improve your text and point out some of these subtle misconceptions. Score: -2 Energy and Environment. Need we say more? Principle 6: You can ignore all the above principles if you are only interested in gaining publicity for a book. Score: +2 Ah-ha! In summary, G+A get a rather disappointing (but scientific!) score of -1.66. This probably means that the prospects for a greater acceptance of forecasting principles within the climate community are not good. Kevin Trenberth feels the same way. Which raises the question of whether they are really serious or simply looking for a little public controversy. It may well be that there is something worth learning from the academic discipline of scientific forecasting (though they don't seem to have come across the concept of physically-based modelling), but this kind of amateur blundering does their cause nothing but harm. G+A's recent foray into climate science might therefore be a good case study for why their principles have not won
[FairfieldLife] Re: Nobody gives a damn about global warming
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard M compost...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: James Hansen's Former NASA Supervisor Declares Himself a Skeptic - But it gets even better Shemp. Check out today's post from Anthony Watts' excellent blog: Today, a founder of the International Journal of Forecasting, Journal of Forecasting, International Institute of Forecasters, and International Symposium on Forecasting, and the author of Long-range Forecasting (1978, 1985), the Principles of Forecasting Handbook, and over 70 papers on forecasting, Dr J. Scott Armstrong, tabled a statement declaring that the forecasting process used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) lacks a scientific basis. http://tinyurl.com/b5uq8k (Don't tell do.reflex, he'll blow a gasket!) Poor old Obama. He's inherited such a terrible mess. And in the context of *climate change*, just at the point where the fictional consensus shows all the signs of unravelling, he is under the spotlight to make good on his promises. Wow. Thanks for posting the link. This is truly Age of Enlightenment stuff. We may actually be turning a corner on all this fear-mongering and ignorance. And, of course, it's more than fear-mongering and ignorance; it is stuff that is actually killing innocents and poor people of the Third World...and the more the global warming people influence public policy the more damage will be done to the weakest elements of society.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Nobody gives a damn about global warming
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 3:01 PM, shempmcgurk shempmcg...@netscape.netwrote: Poor old Obama. He's inherited such a terrible mess. And in the context of *climate change*, just at the point where the fictional consensus shows all the signs of unravelling, he is under the spotlight to make good on his promises. Wow. Thanks for posting the link. This is truly Age of Enlightenment stuff. We may actually be turning a corner on all this fear-mongering and ignorance. And, of course, it's more than fear-mongering and ignorance; it is stuff that is actually killing innocents and poor people of the Third World...and the more the global warming people influence public policy the more damage will be done to the weakest elements of society. I'm a bit lost in the embedded postings here. I apologize if I attribute wrongly. Heed well the words of Richard M. Obama is stuck with having campaigned to fix a problem that is become clear we don't have. Yes, it's true that we have to do something about our energy independence, and that's a good thing for Obama to work on, though I still can't see having companies switch to solar cell production is going to bring back the well paid and well benefitted manufacturing class. But I don't recall Obama campaigned so much on energy independence as the CO2 non-problem. So now he's got this immense alleged mandate and we're not sure he still has the problem. Ouch!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Nobody gives a damn about global warming
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard M compost...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, boo_lives boo_lives@ wrote: But it gets even better Shemp. Check out today's post from Anthony Watts' excellent blog: Today, a founder of the International Journal of Forecasting, Journal of Forecasting, International Institute of Forecasters, and International Symposium on Forecasting, and the author of Long-range Forecasting (1978, 1985), the Principles of Forecasting Handbook, and over 70 papers on forecasting, Dr J. Scott Armstrong, tabled a statement declaring that the forecasting process used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) lacks a scientific basis. First, note that Armstrong has no experience whatsoever as a climate scientist. Got that? Score -100 for being patronising. I do not mean to be patronizing, I am simply responding to your paragraph above which seems to imply that saying the word forecasting 7 times in one sentence means that Armstrong has some experience and credibility in the field of climate science which he does not. I think you miss the point of my post. It is not that Armstrong is necessarily right (though he may just as well be right as realclimate.org may be wrong. After all the latter only represent climate science by self-certification. Realclimate.org is driven primarily by Hansen's sidekick Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann - he of the Great Hockey Stick Controversy). Sorry but people with advanced degrees in climate science who are actively researching and publishing papers in the field of climate science and regularly take part in the most important climate change symposiums around the world are not self-certified. I get the idea about consensus. That's what the IPCC is all about, that's where legitimate climate scientists have been researching and arguing about climate change for over 20 yrs now from a host of angles and that is where consensus is being developed. realclimate.org and the IPCC don't claim to be right either, they claim to represent the legitimate attempt to find the best consensus. People like yourself who think an unqualified guy like Armstrong trumps the work of the IPCC don't get the idea of consensus. The question is whether there is a consensus. Realclimate.org are desperately trying to hold the line - but they are having to work harder and harder to do so. And I'm sure if you keep reading your right wing political sites it may seem that way, but the trend of the science is clearly the other way. Even Exxon has pulled their funding of fake research trying to cloud the issue because they know now it's a waste of time. I spent a few yrs back in late 80s being paid to follow the climate change research for int'l cos (afraid of what may be coming) and am well aware of the difference between a scientist looking for truth and a corporate funded hack doing PR in the guise of science. Are there still many unknowns and confusions in the current IPCC report to clear up? Sure, and that work in ongoing but as realclimate.org makes clear, Armstrong did not begin to make a serious attempt at adding to the consensus debate over climate change. Second, some actual climate scientists dissect Greene and Armstrong's thesis (GA) using GA's own criteria: G+A's recent foray into climate science might therefore be a good case study for why their principles have not won wide acceptance. In the spirit of their technique, we'll use a scientific methodology - let's call it 'the principles of cross-disciplinary acceptance' (TM pending). For each principle, we assign a numerical score between -2 and 2, and the average will be our 'scientific' conclusion Principle 1: When moving into a new field, don't assume you know everything about it because you read a review and none of the primary literature. Score: -2 G+A appear to have only read one chapter of the IPCC report (Chap 8), and an un-peer reviewed hatchet job on the Stern report. Not a very good start Principle 2: Talk to people who are doing what you are concerned about. Score: -2 Of the roughly 20 climate modelling groups in the world, and hundreds of associated researchers, G+A appear to have talked to none of them. Strike 2. Principle 3: Be humble. If something initially doesn't make sense, it is more likely that you've mis-understood than the entire field is wrong. Score: -2 For instance, G+A appear to think that climate models are not tested on 'out of sample' data (they gave that a '-2#8242;). On the contrary, the models are used for many situations that they were not tuned for, paleo-climate changes (mid Holocene, last glacial maximum, 8.2 kyr event) being a good example. Similarly, model projections for the future have been matched with actual data - for instance, forecasting the effects of Pinatubo ahead of time, or Hansen's early
[FairfieldLife] Re: Nobody gives a damn about global warming
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante no_re...@... wrote: http://snipurl.com/ax9hv [www_thestandard_com] Great news! People aren't stupid.
