Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

Dismiss

Has this been posted?

0 views

Skip to first unread message

birdog

unread,

Feb 6, 2007, 12:49:32 PM2/6/07

REVIEW & OUTLOOK

Climate of Opinion
The latest U.N. report shows the "warming" debate is far from settled.

Monday, February 5, 2007 12:01 a.m.

Last week's headlines about the United Nations' latest report on global
warming were typically breathless, predicting doom and human damnation like
the most fervent religious evangelical. Yet the real news in the fourth
assessment from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) may be
how far it is backpedaling on some key issues. Beware claims that the
science of global warming is settled.
The document that caused such a stir was only a short policy report, a
summary of the full scientific report due in May. Written mainly by
policymakers (not scientists) who have a stake in the issue, the summary was
long on dire predictions. The press reported the bullet points, noting that
this latest summary pronounced with more than "90% confidence" that humans
have been the main drivers of warming since the 1950s, and that higher
temperatures and rising sea levels would result.

More pertinent is the underlying scientific report. And according to people
who have seen that draft, it contains startling revisions of previous U.N.
predictions. For example, the Center for Science and Public Policy has just
released an illuminating analysis written by Lord Christopher Monckton, a
one-time adviser to Margaret Thatcher who has become a voice of sanity on
global warming.
Take rising sea levels. In its 2001 report, the U.N.'s best high-end
estimate of the rise in sea levels by 2100 was three feet. Lord Monckton
notes that the upcoming report's high-end best estimate is 17 inches, or
half the previous prediction. Similarly, the new report shows that the 2001
assessment had overestimated the human influence on climate change since the
Industrial Revolution by at least one-third.

Such reversals (and there are more) are remarkable, given that the IPCC's
previous reports, in 1990, 1995 and 2001, have been steadily more urgent in
their scientific claims and political tone. It's worth noting that many of
the policymakers who tinker with the IPCC reports work for governments that
have promoted climate fears as a way of justifying carbon-restriction
policies. More skeptical scientists are routinely vetoed from contributing
to the panel's work. The Pasteur Institute's Paul Reiter, a malaria expert
who thinks global warming would have little impact on the spread of that
disease, is one example.

U.N. scientists have relied heavily on computer models to predict future
climate change, and these crystal balls are notoriously inaccurate.
According to the models, for instance, global temperatures were supposed to
have risen in recent years. Yet according to the U.S. National Climate Data
Center, the world in 2006 was only 0.03 degrees Celsius warmer than it was
in 2001--in the range of measurement error and thus not statistically
significant.

The models also predicted that sea levels would rise much faster than they
actually have. The models didn't predict the significant cooling the oceans
have undergone since 2003--which is the opposite of what you'd expect with
global warming. Cooler oceans have also put a damper on claims that global
warming is the cause of more frequent or intense hurricanes. The models also
failed to predict falling concentrations of methane in the atmosphere,
another surprise.

Meanwhile, new scientific evidence keeps challenging previous assumptions.
The latest report, for instance, takes greater note of the role of pollutant
particles, which are thought to reflect sunlight back to space, supplying a
cooling effect. More scientists are also studying the effect of solar
activity on climate, and some believe it alone is responsible for recent
warming.

All this appears to be resulting in a more cautious scientific approach,
which is largely good news. We're told that the upcoming report is also
missing any reference to the infamous "hockey stick," a study by Michael
Mann that purported to show 900 years of minor fluctuations in temperature,
followed by a dramatic spike over the past century. The IPCC featured the
graph in 2001, but it has since been widely rebutted.
While everyone concedes that the Earth is about a degree Celsius warmer than
it was a century ago, the debate continues over the cause and consequences.
We don't deny that carbon emissions may play a role, but we don't believe
that the case is sufficiently proven to justify a revolution in global
energy use. The economic dislocations of such an abrupt policy change could
be far more severe than warming itself, especially if it reduces the growth
and innovation that would help the world cope with, say, rising sea levels.
There are also other problems--AIDS, malaria and clean drinking water, for
example--whose claims on scarce resources are at least as urgent as climate
change.

The IPCC report should be understood as one more contribution to the warming
debate, not some definitive last word that justifies radical policy change.
It can be hard to keep one's head when everyone else is predicting the
Apocalypse, but that's all the more reason to keep cool and focus on the
actual science.

PRINT WINDOW CLOSE WINDOW

storyend_dingbat.gif

kdt...@yahoo.com

unread,

Feb 6, 2007, 2:05:39 PM2/6/07

On Feb 6, 11:49 am, "birdog" <bir...@aol.com> wrote:
> REVIEW & OUTLOOK

Any theory of science, is continully reviewed if it is taught as an
academic subject. The elements of the theory must be eluciadated for
the students. If the students are not allowed to pose questions to the
theory, which can then be properly answered by their instructor, it is
not a very valid teaching process and is an indoctrination of rote
repetition of dogmatic rhetoric.

AGW wishes to sidestep that minor part of their promotion which is the
physics, chemistry, thermodynamics, mathematics and simple application
of valid science. When this issue arrises they simply say " the debate
is over".

The burden of proof is upon those that wish to impose such laws as the
restriction of CO2, or under the assumption of grenhouse gases and any
effect humans may have on the temperature fuctuations of the earth.

Therefore, this scientific debate is not over. It will never be over
as long as it is in any way believed or taught.

Since this is being brought before the US congress this year, the
investigation is just beginning into every tenet, point or conclusion
or presumption of this theory of human caused global warming.

This investigation into the validity of this theory and science will
never be over, unless these proponents abdicate their obsession with
controlling the economy by way of controlling our use of energy.

Deatherage
CO2Phobia is a dangerous and fatal disease like rabies

> `
> end

john fernbach

unread,

Feb 6, 2007, 2:09:13 PM2/6/07

Another oily opinion from the Wall Street Journal editorial page.

Hot news: Dog bites man; WSJ editors defend the short-term interests
of Big Industry.

They like the war in Iraq a lot, too.

And if it's of any interest, the WSJ editorial page objected mightily
when leaded gasoline was phased out.

The reasoning was that even if exposure to lead was killing some
people and driving down the average IQ of children, the economic
benefits of lead production and "free market" policies would make
leaded gasoline worthwhile.

> begin 666 storyend_dingbat.gif
> M1TE&.#=A6 `&`*(``/____[^_OGY^>/CXYJ:FH" @&5E93\_/RP`````6 `&
> M```#:"@!#/$MRDGE"N*(?47]8/1 `/<H8_B-;#<8KZ*4F&JWHT(81^__P*!P
> MV'L-#KL=<<D<$@:"`6YAHTPA+\+A"!@P/-3J:NH5"PB%M'K-;JL'!:-[3G\Z
> 4&"2QM48-VV0#<($H>BUE%RH)`#L`
> `
> end

kdt...@yahoo.com

unread,

Feb 6, 2007, 2:45:04 PM2/6/07

On Feb 6, 1:09 pm, "john fernbach" <fernbach1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Another oily opinion from the Wall Street Journal editorial page.
>
> Hot news: Dog bites man; WSJ editors defend the short-term interests
> of Big Industry.
>
> They like the war in Iraq a lot, too.
>
> And if it's of any interest, the WSJ editorial page objected mightily
> when leaded gasoline was phased out.
>
> The reasoning was that even if exposure to lead was killing some
> people and driving down the average IQ of children, the economic
> benefits of lead production and "free market" policies would make
> leaded gasoline worthwhile.
>

So let's get back to the scientific debate so you can substatiate your
claim of intential disinformation to cloud the science.

PUT UP OR SHUT UP
Semantics is for semantics. Fernbach
Burden of Proof is upon AGW in US court.
The AGWBunnies,,,,they keep going,,,,,and going,,,,and going,,,,

Deatherage

Science Fraud Buster

unread,

Feb 7, 2007, 1:50:18 AM2/7/07

.... it's about wealth-shifting: Exxon shifts YOUR Wealth to Exxon,
Yes, we got it!

http://ScienceCop.info/wiki/tiki-index.php?page=TheSunBetrayed
http://sciencecop.info/wiki/tiki-index.php?page=TheCarbonWar
http://sciencecop.info/wiki/tiki-index.php?page=Cartel+Solar+Patents

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html
Scientists' Report Documents ExxonMobil's Tobacco-like Disinformation
Campaign on Global Warming Science -- Oil Company Spent Nearly $16
Million to Fund Skeptic Groups, Create Confusion

> Dr. S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences,
> University of Virginia; former director, U.S. Weather Satellite Service

> Dr. Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicist and climate researcher, Boston,
> Mass.

> Dr. Hugh W. Ellsaesser, physicist/meteorologist, previously with the
> Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Calif.; atmospheric consultant.

http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Hazeltine-Singer.html
http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Corrupt_CFACT.html
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=176 Singer Circle
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=31
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=25
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=82

Exxon Creams on Death-Rag

unread,

Feb 26, 2007, 1:43:08 AM2/26/07

On Feb 6, 11:05 am, kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:

> Any theory of science, is continully reviewed if it is taught as an
> academic subject. The elements of the theory must be eluciadated for

> of valid science. When this issue arrises they simply say " the debate

> restriction of CO2, or under the assumption of grenhouse gases and any

> effect humans may have on the temperature fuctuations of the earth.

> Deatherage

Death-Rag said: continully eluciadated arrises grenhouse fuctuations.

0 new messages