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 Historical content remains viewable.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

The green house effect - one of Thatcher's lies?

3 views
Skip to first unread message

Oh No

unread,
Mar 11, 2007, 7:05:08 AM3/11/07
to
Of course it is known that Thatcher was probably the most dishonest and
corrupt leader this country has ever had in modern times, up to and
including the present one. Now it is claimed that the "science" behind
global warming was a story she put about to damage the miners and
support nuclear power, while at the same time, no doubt, putting money
into Dennis's pocket through his commercial interests in the power
industry.

http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindl
e

One might think that this is just another bunch of lies from a different
commercial quarter. I had always thought there was some science behind
the greenhouse effect, but one has to question whether there actually is
any, or whether people are just making calculations on the basis of an
accepted wisdom with no fundamental scientific basis. As I know that
string theorists and CDM cosmologists do exactly that, I have to
question other areas of science too.


Regards

--
Charles Francis
moderator sci.physics.foundations.
substitute charles for NotI to email


Regards

--
Charles Francis
moderator sci.physics.foundations.
substitute charles for NotI to email

Ken S. Tucker

unread,
Mar 11, 2007, 2:41:30 PM3/11/07
to
On Mar 11, 3:05 am, Oh No <N...@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Of course it is known that Thatcher was probably the most dishonest and
> corrupt leader this country has ever had in modern times, up to and
> including the present one. Now it is claimed that the "science" behind
> global warming was a story she put about to damage the miners and
> support nuclear power, while at the same time, no doubt, putting money
> into Dennis's pocket through his commercial interests in the power
> industry.
>
> http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindl
> e
>
> One might think that this is just another bunch of lies from a different
> commercial quarter. I had always thought there was some science behind
> the greenhouse effect, but one has to question whether there actually is
> any, or whether people are just making calculations on the basis of an
> accepted wisdom with no fundamental scientific basis. As I know that
> string theorists and CDM cosmologists do exactly that, I have to
> question other areas of science too.
> Regards
> Charles Francis

Agreed! I worry that the Sun may be a variable
star, with unknown effects on Earth's temperature,
consider for example this,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum

At first one would think more sunspots would
cool the Earth, because the Sun might reduce
it's brightness but it seems to work oppositely.

Perhaps the mechanism is that sunspots
output particles which ultimately radiate the
poles with aurora. (I've noticed that on nights
when the aurora were bright it felt warmer,
that's very subjective, but it may relate to
a infared radiation component).

We can enter as a fact, shinking polar ice.

I've tried to get hard data on solar radiance,
but so far it's one measurement that's soft.

Of course it's well known human's have made
incremental shifts to the "albedo" even by
paving large areas, where cities are able to
generate their own microclimates.

Another troubling factor is using historical airport
temperatures. As airports add more runways
and asphault, and more and larger jets, that
alone will skewer those readings.

So to Charle's thesis, by following "accepted
wisdom", requires carefully analysing the data
base, otherwise we risk adopting the wrong
paradigm, with major economic consequences.
Cheers
Ken

Robert

unread,
Mar 11, 2007, 3:05:41 PM3/11/07
to
On Mar 11, 6:05 am, Oh No <N...@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote:

> One might think that this is just another bunch of lies from a different
> commercial quarter. I had always thought there was some science behind
> the greenhouse effect, but one has to question whether there actually is
> any, or whether people are just making calculations on the basis of an
> accepted wisdom with no fundamental scientific basis. As I know that
> string theorists and CDM cosmologists do exactly that, I have to
> question other areas of science too.


This post tests my new resolve to be more collegial, but I like
chalenges.

During the 1990s I maintained a reasonable degree of "prove it
scientifically" attitude with respect to the climate problem. Some
people, in order to get attention, certainly exaggerated some issues.

However, the scientific data are now in and have been analyzed by the
best Earth Scientists on the planet. They speak with nearly one voice
on the general topic of climate problems. The "excursions" in the COv2
levels, temperature and pollutant levels (which seriously hurt our
critical ozone layer are well beyond what one would expect for
"normal" fluctuations, given the records of the last 100,000 years or
more.

The conclusion is very robust: human activity has begun to have a
serious impact on the planetary climate, and a very deleterious one.
If we continue to ignore the twin monsters of over-population and
climate degradation, we may be in for some mighty unpleasant times
here on Earth. It is our children and their children who will suffer
the most.

Al Gore (one of the most insightful and science-friendly world leaders
I know of) has a good movie out on these issues. It is called "An
Inconvenient Truth". It is worth seeing. It puts things in proper
perspective. And the science is sound.

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to express these views.

Rob
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

Oh No

unread,
Mar 11, 2007, 4:03:44 PM3/11/07
to
Thus spake Ken S. Tucker <dyna...@vianet.on.ca>

The mechanism appears to be that sunspots recharge the Van Allen belt,
preventing so many charged particles entering the atmosphere. In turn
this reduces cloud formation. Fewer clouds means more of the heat of the
sun reaches the surface.


>We can enter as a fact, shinking polar ice.

Only the Arctic. Less mentioned is the antarctic, where the icecap is
said to be increasing. Apparently the icecap reflects heat more
effectively than clouds.


>
>I've tried to get hard data on solar radiance,
>but so far it's one measurement that's soft.

The heat from the sun varies by only a small amount. The effect of cloud
formation is substantial, however.


>
>Of course it's well known human's have made
>incremental shifts to the "albedo" even by
>paving large areas, where cities are able to
>generate their own microclimates.
>
>Another troubling factor is using historical airport
>temperatures. As airports add more runways
>and asphault, and more and larger jets, that
>alone will skewer those readings.
>
>So to Charle's thesis, by following "accepted
>wisdom", requires carefully analysing the data
>base, otherwise we risk adopting the wrong
>paradigm, with major economic consequences.

Most of the current economic consequences appear to be related to
raising taxes, at least in the UK.

Phil Scadden

unread,
Mar 11, 2007, 5:37:45 PM3/11/07
to
> One might think that this is just another bunch of lies from a different
> commercial quarter. I had always thought there was some science behind
> the greenhouse effect, but one has to question whether there actually is
> any, or whether people are just making calculations on the basis of an
> accepted wisdom with no fundamental scientific basis. As I know that
> string theorists and CDM cosmologists do exactly that, I have to
> question other areas of science too.

Before rushing to conclusions, look at a response at
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=414

The advantage of this particular reposite is good referencing. You can
check the research
and make up your own mind.

Oh No

unread,
Mar 11, 2007, 5:30:31 PM3/11/07
to
Thus spake Robert <rlold...@amherst.edu>

>On Mar 11, 6:05 am, Oh No <N...@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> One might think that this is just another bunch of lies from a different
>> commercial quarter. I had always thought there was some science behind
>> the greenhouse effect, but one has to question whether there actually is
>> any, or whether people are just making calculations on the basis of an
>> accepted wisdom with no fundamental scientific basis. As I know that
>> string theorists and CDM cosmologists do exactly that, I have to
>> question other areas of science too.
>
>
>This post tests my new resolve to be more collegial, but I like
>chalenges.
>
>During the 1990s I maintained a reasonable degree of "prove it
>scientifically" attitude with respect to the climate problem. Some
>people, in order to get attention, certainly exaggerated some issues.
>
>However, the scientific data are now in and have been analyzed by the
>best Earth Scientists on the planet.

Until today, that is what I had thought also. Now I have done some
digging which calls that analysis seriously into question.

>They speak with nearly one voice
>on the general topic of climate problems.

This may turn out to be because the bulk of them have one paymaster.
They are employed at the Hadley centre, an institution set up by
Margaret Thatcher specifically to support the hobby horse which she had
originally used to gain credibility in world politics. This was the only
area in which she expanded scientific research while she was cutting
budgets and putting researchers out of work in all others. It is
impossible now for me to see the apparent pronouncements of scientists
on the link between CO2 and the green house effect as anything more than
those of a political spin machine dressed up to look like science.

>The "excursions" in the COv2
>levels, temperature and pollutant levels (which seriously hurt our
>critical ozone layer are well beyond what one would expect for
>"normal" fluctuations, given the records of the last 100,000 years or
>more.

Apparently not. It seems CO2 rises as a product of nature consequent on
global warming. The pattern of CO2 levels follows warming, it does not
precede it. On the other hand the alternative mechanism, that sunspot
activity has an ultimate effect on cloud formation does seem to follow
good science.


>
>The conclusion is very robust: human activity has begun to have a
>serious impact on the planetary climate, and a very deleterious one.
>If we continue to ignore the twin monsters of over-population and
>climate degradation, we may be in for some mighty unpleasant times
>here on Earth. It is our children and their children who will suffer
>the most.

Certainly overpopulation has always resulted in collapse, generally
through disease, as with the black death and the plague, part of a cycle
which goes back to time immemorial.


>
>Al Gore (one of the most insightful and science-friendly world leaders
>I know of) has a good movie out on these issues. It is called "An
>Inconvenient Truth". It is worth seeing. It puts things in proper
>perspective. And the science is sound.
>

Al Gore may just have been a politician getting on a bandwagon. That is
want politicians do. Having ascertained that the source of the science
is Margaret Thatcher, all one can say is that it is corrupt.

Two sites which may cast some light on the quality of the science:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece
http://www.john-daly.com/history.htm

Note that the green house effect is in a fairly straight conflict with
temperature measurements in the upper atmosphere, as well as the
increase in the antarctic icecap.

FrediFizzx

unread,
Mar 12, 2007, 4:28:52 AM3/12/07
to
"Oh No" <No...@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:y61MEpG1...@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk...

> Of course it is known that Thatcher was probably the most dishonest
> and
> corrupt leader this country has ever had in modern times, up to and
> including the present one. Now it is claimed that the "science" behind
> global warming was a story she put about to damage the miners and
> support nuclear power, while at the same time, no doubt, putting money
> into Dennis's pocket through his commercial interests in the power
> industry.
>
> http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindl
> e
>
> One might think that this is just another bunch of lies from a
> different
> commercial quarter. I had always thought there was some science behind
> the greenhouse effect, but one has to question whether there actually
> is
> any, or whether people are just making calculations on the basis of an
> accepted wisdom with no fundamental scientific basis. As I know that
> string theorists and CDM cosmologists do exactly that, I have to
> question other areas of science too.

I think I am going to have to agree with you on this after reviewing
some of the material. I always suspected that humans could not out do
what mother nature can do. However, it doesn't hurt to try to be more
efficient in our energy usage. If reducing CO2 emissions co-incides
with reducing smog, I am all for it. Cough, cough. ;-) From sunny and
smoggy and hot LA.

Best,

Fred Diether

Oh No

unread,
Mar 12, 2007, 6:24:43 AM3/12/07
to
Thus spake FrediFizzx <fredi...@hotmail.com>

>"Oh No" <No...@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:y61ME
>pG1r7...@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk...

Yes, I am all for energy efficiency and keeping down pollution, and I am
all for more investment in renewables, tidal and wave systems in
particular. The planet has limitted resources and we should not waste
them, nor should we spoil it for future generations. This thread has
been more about the exposure of a political spin machine masquerading as
science. That is something we should all deplore.

Robert

unread,
Mar 12, 2007, 2:09:42 PM3/12/07
to
On Mar 12, 5:24 am, Oh No <N...@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote:

> them, nor should we spoil it for future generations. This thread has
> been more about the exposure of a political spin machine masquerading as
> science. That is something we should all deplore.

Since this newsgroup is concerned with "the foundations of physics",
maybe we should relegate "the exposure of political spin machine"-type
posts to a more appropriate forum.

More generally, I am a firm believer in critical thinking, but I think
one should avoid the mindset of: "If everybody's for it, I'm a'gin
it!". Know what I mean?

Rob
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

Rob

Cl.Massé

unread,
Mar 12, 2007, 2:09:09 PM3/12/07
to
"Oh No" <No...@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk> a écrit dans le message de
news: y61MEpG1...@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk

> Of course it is known that Thatcher was probably the most dishonest and
> corrupt leader this country has ever had in modern times, up to and
> including the present one. Now it is claimed that the "science" behind
> global warming was a story she put about to damage the miners and
> support nuclear power, while at the same time, no doubt, putting money
> into Dennis's pocket through his commercial interests in the power
> industry.
>
> http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindl
> e
>
> One might think that this is just another bunch of lies from a different
> commercial quarter. I had always thought there was some science behind
> the greenhouse effect, but one has to question whether there actually is
> any, or whether people are just making calculations on the basis of an
> accepted wisdom with no fundamental scientific basis. As I know that
> string theorists and CDM cosmologists do exactly that, I have to
> question other areas of science too.

Political and economical considerations aside, even if the green house
effect exists, the only reliable data we have is a correlation between
global temperature and concentration of carbon dioxide. But what was first?
The egg or the hen? Carbon dioxide is recycled mainly by the large northern
forests, for the primary forest yield as much as they recycle because of
bacteria living off dead wood. An increase of temperature means a
development of those bacteria, and more dioxide in the atmosphere.

Anyway, if we are to believe the calculations, the ocean surface should
already have soared several meters.

--
~~~~ clmasse on free F-country
Liberty, Equality, Profitability.

Server 13

unread,
Mar 12, 2007, 5:01:45 PM3/12/07
to

"Oh No" <No...@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Oc8jdzqU...@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk...

Then you should probably stop concentrating on the Hadley Center, or
whatever, and tune into the scientists of the rest of the planet - they are
pretty much sure of what's going on at this point.

Oh No

unread,
Mar 12, 2007, 5:35:06 PM3/12/07
to
Thus spake Server 13 <i...@casual.com>

>> This may turn out to be because the bulk of them have one paymaster.
>> They are employed at the Hadley centre, an institution set up by
>> Margaret Thatcher specifically to support the hobby horse which she had
>> originally used to gain credibility in world politics. This was the only
>> area in which she expanded scientific research while she was cutting
>> budgets and putting researchers out of work in all others. It is
>> impossible now for me to see the apparent pronouncements of scientists
>> on the link between CO2 and the green house effect as anything more than
>> those of a political spin machine dressed up to look like science.
>
> Then you should probably stop concentrating on the Hadley Center, or
>whatever, and tune into the scientists of the rest of the planet - they
>are pretty much sure of what's going on at this point.
>
That is what I have been doing. The scientific answer is that the prime
cause of global warming is solar activity, which effects cloud
formation, that rising CO2 levels are a product of global warming not
the other way about, and that man's impact on CO2 levels is tiny
compared with natures.

Phil Scadden

unread,
Mar 12, 2007, 5:35:22 PM3/12/07
to
While this isnt an appropriate forum for this discussion, I can urge you to
continue this on
places where answers can be given.

Also, note a protest letter about misrepresentation of his views by the
programme from Carl Wunsch at
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/#comment-27434

and a further response from him at
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=417

Server 13

unread,
Mar 12, 2007, 6:08:55 PM3/12/07
to

"Oh No" <No...@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cAixOhqx...@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk...

No, I'm afraid not.

Robert

unread,
Mar 13, 2007, 1:34:12 AM3/13/07
to
On Mar 12, 1:09 pm, "Cl\.Massé" <ret...@contactprospect.com> wrote:
> The egg or the hen? Carbon dioxide is recycled mainly by the large northern
> forests, for the primary forest yield as much as they recycle because of
> bacteria living off dead wood. An increase of temperature means a
> development of those bacteria, and more dioxide in the atmosphere.


Right! Brilliant! And no doubt the increased temperatures cause all
the cows to pass more gas too.

I am in disbelief. What's next - a concerted effort to show that
dousing is really on firm scientific grounds? Alien abductions?

There are people who have devoted their adult lives to studying these
questions. They are not armchair, amateur scientists, but the best
scientists in this field. The overwhelming majority are in general
agreement about the climate situation and the relation between human
activities and climate change.

The erroneous comment on expected rises in sea level says it all.

Robert L. Oldershaw
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

Oh No

unread,
Mar 13, 2007, 11:12:48 AM3/13/07
to
Thus spake Phil Scadden <p.scadden@^Spamtrap-remove^gns.cri.nz>

>While this isnt an appropriate forum for this discussion, I can urge you to
>continue this on
>places where answers can be given.

The philosophy of science is on topic for this newsgroup. That includes
discussion of scientific methodology.


>
>Also, note a protest letter about misrepresentation of his views by the
>programme from Carl Wunsch at
>http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/#comment-27434
>
>and a further response from him at
>http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=417
>

I would urge everyone, in instances of scientific dispute, to ignore
whatever happens in the media and to ignore what people say out of
concern for factors like career. Carl Wunsch himself had a small part in
the program and in his denials falls far short of giving evidence or
support for the green house effect, citing the damage to his reputation
and career from appearing to take a controversial stance. None of that
is relevant. The things to which one should refer are the scientific
papers, and to the laws of physics.

* The role of clouds in reflecting the sun's heat away from the earth's
surface is obvious from basic principles.

* The role of cosmic rays in initiating cloud formation is now
empirically established in experiments published by the Royal Society.

* Observations of variations of low cloud cover have been observed to
correlate with cosmic-ray variations;

* The action of sunspot activity on the Van Allen belt which blocks
cosmic rays is also understood.

* Correlations over thousands of years match climate variations with
radionuclide production

* The Antarctic climate anomaly is in flat contradiction with global
warming by the greenhouse effect and is supported by active forcing of
climate by clouds due to the high reflectivity of the ice.

* Calculations remove an apparent difficulty associated with geomagnetic
field variations.

* Measurements in the upper atmosphere have not shown rising temperature
in flat contradiction with the green house effect. Proponents of the
green house effect have responded with what I can only describe as
spurious unscientific garbage.

* The greenhouse effect itself is a hypothesis which has never been
given an empirical or scientific basis. No amount of climatic modelling
on supercomputers by people paid to do so by government constitutes a
scientific argument that the hypotheses on which those models are based
are sound. Nor does any number of papers reporting on the predictions of
those models.

It is essential to good scientific methodology that work is accepted on
scientific merit, not on whether it is what the paymasters, in this case
politicians, require. If we wish to keep politics out of science then we
also have to expose it when we find politics masquerading as science.
The issue is of fundamental importance to life on this planet, as well
as being important to the credibility of science and scientists in
general. I regard this as highly topical for the group.

If you don't like it you can always ignore the thread, but if you would
do a bit of investigation, as I did when the story hit, you would find
that the scientific evidence is weighted heavily in favour of the green
house effect being either a fiction, or at most a minor effect, climate
change depending primarily on solar activity. Meanwhile the real
science, being done by other climatologists and by astrophysicists and
others is being largely ignored.

Ken S. Tucker

unread,
Mar 13, 2007, 3:07:49 PM3/13/07
to
On Mar 12, 9:34 pm, "Robert" <rlolders...@amherst.edu> wrote:
> On Mar 12, 1:09 pm, "Cl\.Massé" <ret...@contactprospect.com> wrote:
>
> > The egg or the hen? Carbon dioxide is recycled mainly by the large northern
> > forests, for the primary forest yield as much as they recycle because of
> > bacteria living off dead wood. An increase of temperature means a
> > development of those bacteria, and more dioxide in the atmosphere.
>
> Right! Brilliant! And no doubt the increased temperatures cause all
> the cows to pass more gas too.
>
> I am in disbelief. What's next - a concerted effort to show that
> dousing is really on firm scientific grounds? Alien abductions?

Robert I think you might be being sarcastic.
Mr. Masse's remarks point to a potential co-efficient
that make good sense to me.

> There are people who have devoted their adult lives to studying these
> questions. They are not armchair, amateur scientists, but the best
> scientists in this field. The overwhelming majority are in general
> agreement about the climate situation and the relation between human
> activities and climate change.

"overwhelming majority" who did that poll?
That's what Charle's thesis is all about, politics
in science. I think the thread is on target for
this forum, because it encourages a decency.
If we're sold the wrong paradigm, the regulation
consequences are enormous. I've read people
wanting to ban incandescent lighting and so on.

> The erroneous comment on expected rises in sea level says it all.

Two things, water expands as it warms up,
2nd, dissolved CO2 is liberated as a liquid
is warmed. How those interact is more complex
than I care to describe, but Mr. Masse makes
a suggestion that's potentially very scientific.

> Robert L. Oldershawwww.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

I'd like to hear from anyone constructively
either way.
Regards
Ken

Server 13

unread,
Mar 13, 2007, 6:18:46 PM3/13/07
to

"Oh No" <No...@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:vRDUhqVJ...@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk...

Still a lie.


http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently
assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an
argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA
administrator Christine Whitman argued, "As [the report] went through
review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate
change" (1). Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by
controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties
in the science (2). Such statements suggest that there might be substantive
disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic
climate change. This is not the case....

...The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities
for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would
diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless,
they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was
tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals
between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords
"climate change" (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the
consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods,
paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the
papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or
implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or
paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change.
Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position....

Server 13

unread,
Mar 13, 2007, 6:17:52 PM3/13/07
to

"Ken S. Tucker" <dyna...@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
news:1173807614.9...@64g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...

> On Mar 12, 9:34 pm, "Robert" <rlolders...@amherst.edu> wrote:
>> On Mar 12, 1:09 pm, "Cl\.Massé" <ret...@contactprospect.com> wrote:
>>
>> > The egg or the hen? Carbon dioxide is recycled mainly by the large
>> > northern
>> > forests, for the primary forest yield as much as they recycle because
>> > of
>> > bacteria living off dead wood. An increase of temperature means a
>> > development of those bacteria, and more dioxide in the atmosphere.
>>
>> Right! Brilliant! And no doubt the increased temperatures cause all
>> the cows to pass more gas too.
>>
>> I am in disbelief. What's next - a concerted effort to show that
>> dousing is really on firm scientific grounds? Alien abductions?
>
> Robert I think you might be being sarcastic.
> Mr. Masse's remarks point to a potential co-efficient
> that make good sense to me.
>
>> There are people who have devoted their adult lives to studying these
>> questions. They are not armchair, amateur scientists, but the best
>> scientists in this field. The overwhelming majority are in general
>> agreement about the climate situation and the relation between human
>> activities and climate change.
>
> "overwhelming majority" who did that poll?

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

Phil Scadden

unread,
Mar 13, 2007, 6:16:45 PM3/13/07
to
> The things to which one should refer are the scientific
> papers, and to the laws of physics.

Couldnt agree more but wonder what papers you are reading??

> * The role of clouds in reflecting the sun's heat away from the earth's
> surface is obvious from basic principles.

But not that simple either.

> * The role of cosmic rays in initiating cloud formation is now
> empirically established in experiments published by the Royal Society.

> * Observations of variations of low cloud cover have been observed to
> correlate with cosmic-ray variations;

References would be nice. What I know of have significant problems.

> * Correlations over thousands of years match climate variations with
> radionuclide production

Again, reference would be nice.

> * Measurements in the upper atmosphere have not shown rising temperature
> in flat contradiction with the green house effect. Proponents of the
> green house effect have responded with what I can only describe as
> spurious unscientific garbage.

What??? A major prediction of GGW would be lower atmosphere warming and
stratosphere cooling. I do not know of conclusive data on stratosphere
cooling but
what papers I do know of support this.

> * The greenhouse effect itself is a hypothesis which has never been
> given an empirical or scientific basis. No amount of climatic modelling
> on supercomputers by people paid to do so by government constitutes a
> scientific argument that the hypotheses on which those models are based
> are sound. Nor does any number of papers reporting on the predictions of
> those models.

Well modelling is what science does in my opinion. The rules for climate
modelling is
build something that obeys laws of physics and and correctly predicts past
climate. While there are numerous problems with models, lets see you do
better without AGW. T

> It is essential to good scientific methodology that work is accepted on
> scientific merit, not on whether it is what the paymasters, in this case
> politicians, require. If we wish to keep politics out of science then we
> also have to expose it when we find politics masquerading as science.
> The issue is of fundamental importance to life on this planet, as well
> as being important to the credibility of science and scientists in
> general. I regard this as highly topical for the group.

Couldnt possibly disagree with this.

> If you don't like it you can always ignore the thread, but if you would
> do a bit of investigation, as I did when the story hit, you would find
> that the scientific evidence is weighted heavily in favour of the green
> house effect being either a fiction, or at most a minor effect, climate
> change depending primarily on solar activity.

Sorry, but I cant infer this into the papers I have read. RealClimate
discusses the solar forcing ad nauseam with the advantage of referencing
papers on both sides. I havent seen a paper yet which convinces me that you
explain current climate change by solar forcing. Please post your best
references.

Oh No

unread,
Mar 13, 2007, 6:55:32 PM3/13/07
to
Thus spake Phil Scadden <p.scadden@^Spamtrap-remove^gns.cri.nz>

>


>References would be nice. What I know of have significant problems.

The key paper seems to be.


>
>> * Correlations over thousands of years match climate variations with
>> radionuclide production
>
>Again, reference would be nice.

Henrik Svensmark, Jens Olaf P. Pedersen, Nigel D. Marsh. Proc Roy Soc A
Volume 463, Number 2078 / February 08, 2007

>
>
>> * The greenhouse effect itself is a hypothesis which has never been
>> given an empirical or scientific basis. No amount of climatic modelling
>> on supercomputers by people paid to do so by government constitutes a
>> scientific argument that the hypotheses on which those models are based
>> are sound. Nor does any number of papers reporting on the predictions of
>> those models.
>
>Well modelling is what science does in my opinion. The rules for climate
>modelling is
>build something that obeys laws of physics and and correctly predicts past
>climate. While there are numerous problems with models, lets see you do
>better without AGW. T

If the models are based on sound physics, then fine. But here we have
models based on hypotheses. There have been too many examples of science
going down the wrong track with such things. First one has to establish
that the hypotheses are correct. I don't see how that can be done with
the green house effect. I do see that it can be done based on cloud
formation studies, and it is very obvious that clouds will have much
more impact on global warming than the supposed greenhouse effect.


>
>> It is essential to good scientific methodology that work is accepted on
>> scientific merit, not on whether it is what the paymasters, in this case
>> politicians, require. If we wish to keep politics out of science then we
>> also have to expose it when we find politics masquerading as science.
>> The issue is of fundamental importance to life on this planet, as well
>> as being important to the credibility of science and scientists in
>> general. I regard this as highly topical for the group.
>
>Couldnt possibly disagree with this.
>
>> If you don't like it you can always ignore the thread, but if you would
>> do a bit of investigation, as I did when the story hit, you would find
>> that the scientific evidence is weighted heavily in favour of the green
>> house effect being either a fiction, or at most a minor effect, climate
>> change depending primarily on solar activity.
>
>Sorry, but I cant infer this into the papers I have read. RealClimate
>discusses the solar forcing ad nauseam with the advantage of referencing
>papers on both sides. I havent seen a paper yet which convinces me that you
>explain current climate change by solar forcing. Please post your best
>references.
>

Do a search for Henrik Svensmark under google scholar

Oh No

unread,
Mar 13, 2007, 7:03:17 PM3/13/07
to
Thus spake Server 13 <i...@casual.com>
>
>The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the
>consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods,
>paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the
>papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or
>implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or
>paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change.
>Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position....
>

If you had some experience of how journals work you may get some insight
into why. In this case the consensus comes from the work of one
establishment, set up by Thatcher who had been engaged in a long running
campaign. It is relatively straightforward to get published for
something which fits in with the consensus. Much harder to get published
for something which doesn't. People's careers go with their publication
count, so what kind of work are they likely to publish? Remember,
Thatcher also put thousands of researcher's out of work.

Phil Scadden

unread,
Mar 13, 2007, 8:44:24 PM3/13/07
to
> Henrik Svensmark, Jens Olaf P. Pedersen, Nigel D. Marsh. Proc Roy Soc A
> Volume 463, Number 2078 / February 08, 2007

Thanks. Suspected that would be Svensmark. You have looked at the comments
on this hypothesis?

> If the models are based on sound physics, then fine. But here we have
> models based on hypotheses.

Its hard to discuss this with getting into the details of particular models
but which bit
do you regard as unsound in the models? I for one find it hard to rule that
clouds are
"obvious" and GHGs not without doing the sums.

> Do a search for Henrik Svensmark under google scholar

Then why the lack of correlation between climate and the measurements of GCR
since
1952? You might like to raise your objections on the realclimate blog to get
more
informed opinion then mine.

Neil Bates

unread,
Mar 14, 2007, 12:13:56 AM3/14/07
to

"Oh No" <No...@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:y61MEpG1...@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk...
How do you think that global warming "accepted wisdom" got to be accepted in
the first place? The scientific basis for global warming, absorption of IR
by CO2, was known in the 19th Century (they had spectroscopy, understood
radiation and heat, etc.) The first major modern paper on the subject
(which already had references to even earlier work) was by later Nobel Prize
winner (Chemistry 1903) Svante Arrhenius (1859-1927):
"On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the
Ground"
Philosophical Magazine 41, 237-276 (1896)

Ironically, Arrhenius thought that GW would be a good thing! I don't think
he was a Luddite out to cause trouble for civilization, eh?
We might argue over just how *much* of the warming is due to CO2, but Ms.
Thatcher surely did not invent it. This was accepted for exmaple in the
1960s as well - I have a 1965 Time-Life books "Weather" which describes the
global warming threat in modern Gore-esque terms:
"Man's chimneys and combustion engines are sending about 12 billion tons of
carbon dioxide a year into the earth's atmosphere. In the next 50 years,
this rate may quadruple. Such an increase, by trapping more heat, may raise
the earth's average temperature by 1° or 2° F. - and that, in turn, might
over an extended period of time melt the Greenland ice cap and the vast
Antarctic ice fields, raise the level of the oceans by 170 feet, swamp every
port and seacoast in the world and push the shores of the Gulf of Mexico
north to Memphis, Tennessee." (p. 178) Note the author's implied
realization that melting of floating ice would not change sea level, hence
the references only to Greenland and Antarctic ice over land. The Time-Life
science writers were honorable and top notch - no conspiracy or flim-flam
there. Also note that now, many scientists project more than only about 2° F
increase over the next century or so.
The 70s ice-age scare was an offbeat diversion not firmly held by many real
scientists.
Please, know your science history. Anyway, isn't it ironic for someone to
claim that Thatcher, an icon of the Right, was behind the Global Warming
"hoax"? Maybe she had a time machine and ghost-authored the Arrhenius paper?

Oh No

unread,
Mar 14, 2007, 7:44:58 AM3/14/07
to
Thus spake Neil Bates <neil_...@caloricmail.com>

>
>>
>How do you think that global warming "accepted wisdom" got to be accepted in
>the first place?

It got to be accepted because in the early days of her rule Mrs Thatcher
used it as a platform at world conferences to gain credibility with an
audience who had no science background and later put huge sums of money
into creating the institutions which have given it scientific
respectability.

>The scientific basis for global warming, absorption of IR
>by CO2, was known in the 19th Century (they had spectroscopy, understood
>radiation and heat, etc.) The first major modern paper on the subject
>(which already had references to even earlier work) was by later Nobel Prize
>winner (Chemistry 1903) Svante Arrhenius (1859-1927):
>"On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the
>Ground"
>Philosophical Magazine 41, 237-276 (1896)
>

It was still a little regarded hypothesis until such point as money was
put in to support it.

>Please, know your science history.

I have already done that in this thread.

> Anyway, isn't it ironic for someone to
>claim that Thatcher, an icon of the Right, was behind the Global Warming
>"hoax"?

It is indeed.

Oh No

unread,
Mar 14, 2007, 7:45:00 AM3/14/07
to
Thus spake Phil Scadden <p.scadden@^Spamtrap-remove^gns.cri.nz>
>> Henrik Svensmark, Jens Olaf P. Pedersen, Nigel D. Marsh. Proc Roy Soc A
>> Volume 463, Number 2078 / February 08, 2007
>
>Thanks. Suspected that would be Svensmark. You have looked at the comments
>on this hypothesis?
>
>> If the models are based on sound physics, then fine. But here we have
>> models based on hypotheses.
>
>Its hard to discuss this with getting into the details of particular models
>but which bit
>do you regard as unsound in the models? I for one find it hard to rule that
>clouds are
>"obvious" and GHGs not without doing the sums.

You don't need to do many sums to know that it is cooler on a cloudy
day.

Robert

unread,
Mar 14, 2007, 3:56:15 PM3/14/07
to
On Mar 14, 6:44 am, Oh No <N...@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > Anyway, isn't it ironic for someone to
> >claim that Thatcher, an icon of the Right, was behind the Global Warming
> >"hoax"?
>
> It is indeed.


In the New York Times of 3/13/07, the Science Times section carried an
article specifically discussing the relevant climate issues and
whether claims have been exaggerated by overheated participants in the
debate.

The discussion is reasonably balanced, and , if anything, makes a
special effort to represent the positions of critics of global
warming.

Overall, it makes interesting reading. Moreover the personal and
psychological reaction of some people to Al Gore reminds me very much
of the reactions of some scientists to Carl Sagan's popularity in the
80s. Some people just cannot stand to see someone else getting a lot
of attention (simple jealousy?). Carl was a wise and creditable
spokesman for science and humanity. I think Al is too.

I don't think the whole global warming and climate degradation issue
can be attributed to a conspiracy on the part of Ms. Thacher.

Robert L. Oldershaw

Server 13

unread,
Mar 14, 2007, 4:00:43 PM3/14/07
to

"Oh No" <No...@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:y61MEpG1...@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk...
> Of course it is known that Thatcher was probably the most dishonest and
> corrupt leader this country has ever had in modern times, up to and
> including the present one. Now it is claimed that the "science" behind
> global warming was a story she put about to damage the miners and
> support nuclear power, while at the same time, no doubt, putting money
> into Dennis's pocket through his commercial interests in the power
> industry.
>
> http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindl
> e
>
> One might think that this is just another bunch of lies from a different
> commercial quarter. I had always thought there was some science behind
> the greenhouse effect, but one has to question whether there actually is
> any, or whether people are just making calculations on the basis of an
> accepted wisdom with no fundamental scientific basis. As I know that
> string theorists and CDM cosmologists do exactly that, I have to
> question other areas of science too.

Your other contributions to this thread indicate that far from
'questioning', you're quite certain.

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2355956.ece

The real global warming swindle

A Channel 4 documentary claimed that climate change was a conspiratorial
lie. But an analysis of the evidence it used shows the film was riddled with
distortions and errors

By Steve Connor
Published: 14 March 2007

A Channel 4 documentary that claimed global warming is a swindle was itself
flawed with major errors which seriously undermine the programme's
credibility, according to an investigation by The Independent.

The Great Global Warming Swindle, was based on graphs that were distorted,
mislabelled or just plain wrong. The graphs were nevertheless used to attack
the credibility and honesty of climate scientists.

A graph central to the programme's thesis, purporting to show variations in
global temperatures over the past century, claimed to show that global
warming was not linked with industrial emissions of carbon dioxide. Yet the
graph was not what it seemed.

Other graphs used out-of-date information or data that was shown some years
ago to be wrong. Yet the programme makers claimed the graphs demonstrated
that orthodox climate science was a conspiratorial "lie" foisted on the
public.

Channel 4 yesterday distanced itself from the programme, referring this
newspaper's inquiries to a public relations consultant working on behalf of
Wag TV, the production company behind the documentary.....

(Plenty of blatantly ginned-up fake data exposed at link)

Also see

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/#more-414

Updates:

http://www.realclimate.org/

http://inthegreen.typepad.com/blog/2007/03/deconstructing_.html

http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/03/the_use_of_damon_and_laut.php

http://reasic.wordpress.com/2007/03/10/the-great-global-warming-swindle-questi
ons-answered/

Oh No

unread,
Mar 14, 2007, 4:24:33 PM3/14/07
to
Thus spake Robert <rlold...@amherst.edu>

It is, however, a matter of historical record that she picked up on the
issue when the greenhouse effect was disregarded or ill considered by
mainstream scientists, brought it to the fore for political reasons, and
put huge amounts of money into research to support it when she had been
cutting all other areas of research.

Oh No

unread,
Mar 14, 2007, 4:41:37 PM3/14/07
to
Thus spake Server 13 <i...@casual.com>
>
>"Oh No" <No...@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:y61MEpG1...@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk...
>> Of course it is known that Thatcher was probably the most dishonest and
>> corrupt leader this country has ever had in modern times, up to and
>> including the present one. Now it is claimed that the "science" behind
>> global warming was a story she put about to damage the miners and
>> support nuclear power, while at the same time, no doubt, putting money
>> into Dennis's pocket through his commercial interests in the power
>> industry.
>>
>> http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindl
>> e
>>
>> One might think that this is just another bunch of lies from a different
>> commercial quarter. I had always thought there was some science behind
>> the greenhouse effect, but one has to question whether there actually is
>> any, or whether people are just making calculations on the basis of an
>> accepted wisdom with no fundamental scientific basis. As I know that
>> string theorists and CDM cosmologists do exactly that, I have to
>> question other areas of science too.
>
> Your other contributions to this thread indicate that far from
>'questioning', you're quite certain.

I am now quite certain that there is scientific truth in the theory of
cloud formation. I am not certain whether there is any truth in the
theory of green house gases, or if there is how much. As for the rest, I
don't regard either the independent or channel 4 as much of a source of
information.

Server 13

unread,
Mar 14, 2007, 7:38:34 PM3/14/07
to

"Oh No" <No...@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:IG5+OKWM...@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk...

> Thus spake Server 13 <i...@casual.com>
>>
>>"Oh No" <No...@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:y61MEpG1...@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk...
>>> Of course it is known that Thatcher was probably the most dishonest and
>>> corrupt leader this country has ever had in modern times, up to and
>>> including the present one. Now it is claimed that the "science" behind
>>> global warming was a story she put about to damage the miners and
>>> support nuclear power, while at the same time, no doubt, putting money
>>> into Dennis's pocket through his commercial interests in the power
>>> industry.
>>>
>>> http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindl
>>> e
>>>
>>> One might think that this is just another bunch of lies from a different
>>> commercial quarter. I had always thought there was some science behind
>>> the greenhouse effect, but one has to question whether there actually is
>>> any, or whether people are just making calculations on the basis of an
>>> accepted wisdom with no fundamental scientific basis. As I know that
>>> string theorists and CDM cosmologists do exactly that, I have to
>>> question other areas of science too.
>>
>> Your other contributions to this thread indicate that far from
>>'questioning', you're quite certain.
>
> I am now quite certain that there is scientific truth in the theory of
> cloud formation. I am not certain whether there is any truth in the
> theory of green house gases, or if there is how much.

Why not simply find out? There's plenty of peer reviewed literature.

As for the rest, I
> don't regard either the independent or channel 4 as much of a source of
> information.

Where did they get their information? Channel 4 got it from frauds.

Four more sources, not discussed:

Phil Scadden

unread,
Mar 14, 2007, 7:35:37 PM3/14/07
to
> You don't need to do many sums to know that it is cooler on a cloudy
> day.

Low clouds cool the surface, but high cloud trap heat. But net temperature
forcing? I dont think there is conclusive scientific data to establish the
effect of clouds. If the only papers
you read are Svenmarks then you arent getting a balanced picture. If
Svenmark is right
then why arent temperatures correlated with GCR? I dont want to take away
the importance
of research on aerosols but things arent that simple. Do some maths and see
what
an icebox we would live in without the GHGs too. You cant substract them
from any realistic physical model.

Oh No

unread,
Mar 14, 2007, 8:52:41 PM3/14/07
to
Thus spake Server 13 <i...@casual.com>

>> I am now quite certain that there is scientific truth in the theory of


>> cloud formation. I am not certain whether there is any truth in the
>> theory of green house gases, or if there is how much.
>
> Why not simply find out? There's plenty of peer reviewed literature.

Far too much. Do you ever do literature searches? Do you know how time
consuming. The literature is not about testing the underlying
assumptions anyway. If that was done and exists it was pre-internet.
There should be proper explanations. Where are they? None of the sources
you cite looks even remotely promising either.

Oh No

unread,
Mar 14, 2007, 8:53:40 PM3/14/07
to
Thus spake Phil Scadden <p.scadden@^Spamtrap-remove^gns.cri.nz>
>> You don't need to do many sums to know that it is cooler on a cloudy
>> day.
>
>Low clouds cool the surface, but high cloud trap heat.

How so? What are the physical processes which trap heat more than they
reflect back the heat of the sun.

> But net temperature
>forcing? I dont think there is conclusive scientific data to establish the
>effect of clouds.

If there is not conclusive scientific data for that, then I don't think
there is conclusive scientific data for any of it.

>If the only papers
>you read are Svenmarks then you arent getting a balanced picture. If
>Svenmark is right
>then why arent temperatures correlated with GCR?

GCR?

> I dont want to take away
>the importance
>of research on aerosols but things arent that simple. Do some maths and see
>what
>an icebox we would live in without the GHGs too. You cant substract them
>from any realistic physical model.
>

Where is the maths? I only ever find handwavy explanations which I find
unconvincing, or stuff based upon the assumption that it is true.

Cl.Massé

unread,
Mar 15, 2007, 2:19:09 PM3/15/07
to
>>>> Carbon dioxide is recycled mainly by the large northern
>>>> forests, for the primary forest yield as much as they recycle because
>>>> of bacteria living off dead wood. An increase of temperature means a
>>>> development of those bacteria, and more dioxide in the atmosphere.

On Mar 12, 9:34 pm, "Robert" <rlolders...@amherst.edu> wrote:

>>> Right! Brilliant! And no doubt the increased temperatures cause all
>>> the cows to pass more gas too.
>>>
>>> I am in disbelief. What's next - a concerted effort to show that
>>> dousing is really on firm scientific grounds? Alien abductions?

No, that's empirical fact. Namely the (independent) experiment Biosphere
II, that was discontinued because of carbon dioxide build up. It was aimed
at trying a complete autarchic life, in order to make colonies on another
planets. Actually, the cold area of earth have an important role as
refrigerator and dioxide recycling. The balance of the primary forests is
virtually zero.

Cl.Massé

unread,
Mar 15, 2007, 2:50:55 PM3/15/07
to
"Oh No" <No...@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk> a écrit dans le message de
news: vRDUhqVJ...@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk

> * The greenhouse effect itself is a hypothesis which has never been
> given an empirical or scientific basis. No amount of climatic modelling
> on supercomputers by people paid to do so by government constitutes a
> scientific argument that the hypotheses on which those models are based
> are sound. Nor does any number of papers reporting on the predictions of
> those models.

The weather can't predicted farther than 10 days, with the same computers.
Even if the hypotheses are sound, it isn't certain that the global warming
can be predicted. Even if it is, the models aren't based only on physics,
but also on chemistry and biology. And biology isn't that easy to tackle,
with 3 millions different species, 2 millions of which being insects. For
those who forgot, most of the carbon cycle is through the biomass. Even the
oceans aren't excluded since they absorb much carbon dioxide, recycled by
the phytoplankton.

It's easy to tell when science go awry, it is when it claims some certainty.
No controversy in the scientific community is like a dictator elected with
95% of the ballots.

Phil Scadden

unread,
Mar 15, 2007, 6:09:02 PM3/15/07
to
> How so? What are the physical processes which trap heat more than they
> reflect back the heat of the sun.

Absorption of heat in the clouds themselves, trapping of heat re-radiated
from earth.

You might like to look at
JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 111, D02208, doi:10.1029/2005JD005903,
2006

Clouds and 7Be: Perusing connections between cosmic rays and climate


> If there is not conclusive scientific data for that, then I don't think
> there is conclusive scientific data for any of it.

"Conclusive" is difficult word. Try looking at it as a risk analysis.

> GCR?

Galactic Cosmic Rays. Svenmarks hobby horse.

> Where is the maths? I only ever find handwavy explanations which I find
> unconvincing, or stuff based upon the assumption that it is true.

Try difference between sunlight absorbed by the Earth and energy radiated
the warm Earth.
Obviously you have to make assumption on absorption, temperature of earth is
pretty well
tied down. Can you get a temperature above zero with any assumption you are
comfortable with?

Oh No

unread,
Mar 15, 2007, 9:09:46 PM3/15/07
to
>> If there is not conclusive scientific data for that, then I don't think
>> there is conclusive scientific data for any of it.
>
>"Conclusive" is difficult word. Try looking at it as a risk analysis.
>
>> GCR?
>
>Galactic Cosmic Rays.

Then I don't see why you say there is no correlation. The fact that
there are correlations, both in short term observations and in the
radionuclide levels is cited as part of the evidence for the theory.

>> Where is the maths? I only ever find handwavy explanations which I find
>> unconvincing, or stuff based upon the assumption that it is true.
>
>Try difference between sunlight absorbed by the Earth and energy radiated
>the warm Earth.
>Obviously you have to make assumption on absorption, temperature of earth is
>pretty well
>tied down. Can you get a temperature above zero with any assumption you are
>comfortable with?

I don't see how one can meaningfully answer such a problem without a
detailed analysis, a supercomputer and information on the fine detail of
the insulating properties of the atmosphere which, from what I can
gather, even those doing the modelling don't profess to have. Clearly
global warming is a function of two things, how much the sun heats the
earth, which depends on cloud cover, and on the rate of cooling. which
depends on the level of insulation afforded to the planet by the
atmosphere, including the level of opacity to infrared radiation
afforded by green house gases - as far as I can tell these effects are
much more subtle and difficult to quantify.

If the proponents on either side of the argument are failing to take
*both* effects into account it is not unreasonable to think that any
calculations they have done are incorrect.

On the one side we have a fairly complete and, in so far as I can judge
from my knowledge of all its elements, accurate account of the effect of
sunspots on cloud cover, together with supporting empirical evidence.
Clearly this should be taken into account in any scientific climate
modelling scenario.

On the other hand we have a camp which appears to be dismissing the
effect of cloud cover on climate variation and putting the large
variations in climate down to tiny variations in carbon dioxide levels,
although in so far I have been able to tell, their own supercomputers
cannot accurately predict the magnitude of the effect. Moreover their
model fails to account for the antarctic anomaly and measured
atmospheric temperatures, both factors which ought to falsify it. When
one combines that with the recognition that the bulk of work on green
house gases is funded by politicians with an agenda, my feeling about
this group is that it loses scientific credibility.

It does not mean they are all dishonest. As in all areas of science,
they do the calculations they are taught to do, and they believe the
people who teach them. Then of course they will teach the same
calculations to the next generation. That is how myth propagates, and it
is why one should pay no attention to consensus when assessing science.

Neil Bates

unread,
Mar 15, 2007, 11:10:44 PM3/15/07
to

"Oh No" <No...@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:sGz3uwUk...@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk...
The greenhouse effect was not disregarded or ill considered by mainstream
scientists when Thatcher did whatever she did, AFAIK. Can you give some
sort of summary reason for believing that it was so up to that point? Just
remember that quote from the Life Science Library, 1965, expressing the
general consensus of the time IIRC. Sure, maybe there are other
complexities etc, and they should all get a proper hearing. But there is no
legitimate point made by denigrating the basic point - and do you have a
rebuttal to the basic CO2 spectrum issue? Note also that people with bad or
selfish motives can coincidentally be right anyway; it is a fallacy to
assume the opposite of what has been compromised, and one cannot argue a
material point using aversion to someone's motives.

Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply

unread,
Mar 17, 2007, 5:36:09 PM3/17/07
to
In article <45f984cb$0$29102$426a...@news.free.fr>, "Cl\.Massé"
<ret...@contactprospect.com> writes:

> The weather can't predicted farther than 10 days, with the same computers.
> Even if the hypotheses are sound, it isn't certain that the global warming
> can be predicted.

This is a misunderstanding. Yes, 10 days is about the limit for
predicting the weather, meaning at time x on day y the temperature will
be a, the humidity b, the precipitation c, the wind speed d etc. For
climate, that doesn't matter. We are concerned with the AVERAGE values,
averaged over, say, tens of years. Even if such models can't predict
the WEATHER more than 10 days in advance, they CAN predict the AVERAGED
quantities which are important for climate.

Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply

unread,
Mar 17, 2007, 5:39:48 PM3/17/07
to
In article <Oc8jdzqU...@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk>, Oh No
<No...@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk> writes:

> This may turn out to be because the bulk of them have one paymaster.
> They are employed at the Hadley centre,

At most, that is true only for the UK. Don't forget the rest of the
world.

> Having ascertained that the source of the science
> is Margaret Thatcher, all one can say is that it is corrupt.

This is an error in logic. See my previous post. As another example,
consider the fact that Hitler was a vegetarian. (Not because more
people in the world can be fed, and not for health reasons, but for
moral reasons.) Whatever one thinks of vegetarianism, I think we would
agree that merely the fact that Hitler was a vegetarian is not a reason
not to be a vegetarian. Hitler ate potatoes. Does that mean I
shouldn't?

Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply

unread,
Mar 17, 2007, 5:40:14 PM3/17/07
to
In article <sGz3uwUk...@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk>, Oh No
<No...@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk> writes:

> It is, however, a matter of historical record that she picked up on the
> issue when the greenhouse effect was disregarded or ill considered by
> mainstream scientists, brought it to the fore for political reasons, and
> put huge amounts of money into research to support it when she had been
> cutting all other areas of research.

Maybe it was a good thing that, in the middle ages, the Trivium
(grammar, rhetoric and logic) came before the Quadrivium (arithmetic,
geometry, astronomy and music). It is one of the oldest tricks in the
book to attempt to attack the verity of a statement based on the
incompetence of the speaker. Socrates would have sent you flying for
this one. EVEN IF MAGGIE THATCHER DID THIS, that doesn't mean that
global warming is a scam. Before discussing science, one must
understand logic.

Personally, I have more contempt for Thatcher than for most politicians.
However, if she says that the sun is shining, that doesn't make it dark
out.

Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply

unread,
Mar 17, 2007, 5:40:45 PM3/17/07
to
In article <1173635594.6...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>,
"Robert" <rlold...@amherst.edu> writes:

> On Mar 11, 6:05 am, Oh No <N...@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > One might think that this is just another bunch of lies from a different
> > commercial quarter. I had always thought there was some science behind
> > the greenhouse effect, but one has to question whether there actually is
> > any, or whether people are just making calculations on the basis of an
> > accepted wisdom with no fundamental scientific basis. As I know that
> > string theorists and CDM cosmologists do exactly that, I have to
> > question other areas of science too.
>

> This post tests my new resolve to be more collegial, but I like
> chalenges.
>
> During the 1990s I maintained a reasonable degree of "prove it
> scientifically" attitude with respect to the climate problem. Some
> people, in order to get attention, certainly exaggerated some issues.
>
> However, the scientific data are now in and have been analyzed by the
> best Earth Scientists on the planet. They speak with nearly one voice
> on the general topic of climate problems. The "excursions" in the COv2
> levels, temperature and pollutant levels (which seriously hurt our
> critical ozone layer are well beyond what one would expect for
> "normal" fluctuations, given the records of the last 100,000 years or
> more.
>
> The conclusion is very robust: human activity has begun to have a
> serious impact on the planetary climate, and a very deleterious one.
> If we continue to ignore the twin monsters of over-population and
> climate degradation, we may be in for some mighty unpleasant times
> here on Earth. It is our children and their children who will suffer
> the most.
>
> Al Gore (one of the most insightful and science-friendly world leaders
> I know of) has a good movie out on these issues. It is called "An
> Inconvenient Truth". It is worth seeing. It puts things in proper
> perspective. And the science is sound.

Right on. Even if Margaret Thatcher did support global warming for her
own reasons, that doesn't make it false. The truth of a statement is
unrelated to the competence of the speaker. The biggest fool can say
that the sun is shining, but that doesn't make it dark outside.

With respect to politics, note that in the case of global warming, Bush
claims (whether it is true or not) that there are differences in
opinion, thus one shouldn't base one's actions on one point of view. On
the other hand, with regard to WMD in Iraq, where there really WERE
different points of view, he downplayed the fact, and said that even if
there were different points of view, one should base one's actions on
the worst-case scenario. Why the different logic? Either he is stupid
or he is not driven by logic but by whatever supports his agenda (in
both cases, oil plays a large part of it) or both.

For the record, I actually worked in the field of climate research in
the 1990s, specifically testing the sensitivity of global circulation
models (like those used to predict the weather) to paleoclimatic
boundary conditions (which one needs to know if one wants to use these
models to say something about how the climate in the past responded to
various boundary conditions such as the amount of carbon dioxide etc).

Oh No

unread,
Mar 17, 2007, 6:19:53 PM3/17/07
to
Thus spake Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply <hel...@astro.multiC
LOTHESvax.de>
The problem is that they are dependent on assumptions which appear to be
both uncertain and incomplete. I have listened to yet another interview
today of meteorologists who both distance themselves from the channel 4
programme, but at the same time avoid answering any question on the
extent of the human causes of global warming with all the skills of an
experienced politician. Meanwhile some serious questions go unanswered,
and important factors in climate change are not included in the models.
I honestly don't think anyone really knows all the causes of climate
change on a truly scientific basis. What I do think is that there is far
too much involvement of politics and the media to make it easy to get a
true and balanced picture.

Cl.Massé

unread,
Mar 19, 2007, 1:08:45 PM3/19/07
to
"Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply"
<hel...@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de> a écrit dans le message de news:

> Maybe it was a good thing that, in the middle ages, the Trivium
> (grammar, rhetoric and logic) came before the Quadrivium (arithmetic,
> geometry, astronomy and music). It is one of the oldest tricks in the
> book to attempt to attack the verity of a statement based on the
> incompetence of the speaker. Socrates would have sent you flying for
> this one. EVEN IF MAGGIE THATCHER DID THIS, that doesn't mean that
> global warming is a scam. Before discussing science, one must
> understand logic.
>
> Personally, I have more contempt for Thatcher than for most politicians.
> However, if she says that the sun is shining, that doesn't make it dark
> out.

I can't grasp you logic here. Sure, if Maggie says that the sun is shining,
that doesn't make it dark out, like if she says that the sun is darking out,
that doesn't make it dark out. But what is the bearing on the green house
effect? Does the Quadrivium addresses it, or what?

What have been said here so far, is that if the scientists unanimously say
that the green house effect is the main cause of global warming, that
doesn't prove it is true. On the other hand, there have been thorough
discussion on the physics of the claim, which contradicts the scientists,
and that is possible proof because experimentally testable. What have you
to say about the very topic?

0 new messages