Global warming?
in [Design]
|
From: nospam on 8 Feb 2010 10:40 "Bob Monsen" <rcmonsen(a)gmail.com> wrote: > See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_consensus, which >mentions that 97% of a set of polled, publishing scientists in the field >believe that it is occurring, and that it is being caused by human activity. >Could they all really be wrong? Polling scientists in the field of climate change? A bit like polling turkeys about Christmas. >So, if you have any real evidence against global warming, or an alternate >theory that fits the evidence, please post it. The global climate is controlled by brain waves emitted by a giant green jellyfish which hides behind the moon. If we all pray to the jellyfish it will make the climate nicer for us (except we don't actually know if a bit warmer or a bit colder would be nicer). My theory could be wrong, but, can we afford to take the risk? We really need to invest millions writing green jellyfish computer models and simulations to determine the correct level of prayer to avoid destruction of the entire planet. Once that is done we can hold many expensive global summits to allocate prayer between the nations and we can set up prayer trading schemes so developed countries can pay undeveloped countries to pray for them......
From: Raveninghorde on 8 Feb 2010 11:05 On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 20:09:54 -0800, "Bob Monsen" <rcmonsen(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >Having just read 'Peddling Prosperity' by Krugman, I'm currently sensitized >to the problem of policy being driven by idiots (supply siders on the right >and 'strategic traders' on the left). However, I don't think that is >happening here. There appears to be a broad consensus amongst climate >scientists. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_consensus, which >mentions that 97% of a set of polled, publishing scientists in the field >believe that it is occurring, and that it is being caused by human activity. But from the CRU leaked emails we know that every effort was made to block publication of non alarmist views. Since the alarmists controlled publication then a poll of publihing scientists is unrelaible to say the least. >Could they all really be wrong? I know the history of science is full of >situations where most scientists believed something that was shown to be >false (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether). However, unless >you are willing to just chuck science and base policy on faith, you need to >at least give them the benefit of the doubt, or come up with an alternate >theory that fits the facts as well. > >So, if you have any real evidence against global warming, or an alternate >theory that fits the evidence, please post it. > >Regards, > Bob Monsen Climate has always changed. The Sahara used to be pasture land for example. The onus is on the alarmists to explain pre-industrial climate change. Once that is nailed then we can look at the residual of current change not explained already. What caused the MWP? The LIA? The Roman climate optimum? Since you like wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum /quote Of 140 sites across the western Arctic, there is clear evidence for warmer-than-present conditions at 120 sites. /end quote
From: Bob Monsen on 8 Feb 2010 12:05 "Raveninghorde" <raveninghorde(a)invalid> wrote in message news:a2d0n5pi39e3tb4pm0smtq8i7hehgeg1u7(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 20:09:54 -0800, "Bob Monsen" <rcmonsen(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >>Having just read 'Peddling Prosperity' by Krugman, I'm currently >>sensitized >>to the problem of policy being driven by idiots (supply siders on the >>right >>and 'strategic traders' on the left). However, I don't think that is >>happening here. There appears to be a broad consensus amongst climate >>scientists. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_consensus, >>which >>mentions that 97% of a set of polled, publishing scientists in the field >>believe that it is occurring, and that it is being caused by human >>activity. > > But from the CRU leaked emails we know that every effort was made to > block publication of non alarmist views. Since the alarmists > controlled publication then a poll of publihing scientists is > unrelaible to say the least. > Ah, so it is a conspiracy theory. Interesting. I thought it was based on something more substantive. Do you have any idea how many journals there are? Do you know how most journal articles are refereed? Saying there is a global conspiracy about this is like saying that Jews run the world. How do they do it? :) Larken mentioned that they could all be using the same fudged data set. I guess that could be true, but how likely is it? I'll agree that it is more likely that somebody will get funding if they are not a crank. However, tenured professors like to be iconoclasts, and harbor grudges. Seems like they could use that to expose a conspiracy of this scale. So, why isn't that happening on a much larger scale? >>Could they all really be wrong? I know the history of science is full of >>situations where most scientists believed something that was shown to be >>false (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether). However, unless >>you are willing to just chuck science and base policy on faith, you need >>to >>at least give them the benefit of the doubt, or come up with an alternate >>theory that fits the facts as well. >> >>So, if you have any real evidence against global warming, or an alternate >>theory that fits the evidence, please post it. >> >>Regards, >> Bob Monsen > > Climate has always changed. The Sahara used to be pasture land for > example. > > The onus is on the alarmists to explain pre-industrial climate change. > Once that is nailed then we can look at the residual of current change > not explained already. > > What caused the MWP? The LIA? The Roman climate optimum? > > Since you like wikipedia: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum > > /quote > > Of 140 sites across the western Arctic, there is clear evidence for > warmer-than-present conditions at 120 sites. > > /end quote Well, it is clear that we are in a very cold spell, geologically. On the other hand, the earth was covered in ice for a while: http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/1998/09.17/EarthWasComplet.html. So, technically, the entire earth has been subject to global warming since then... ;) Being an iconoclast is often useful and fun, but taking it to extremes makes you a crank. Regards, Bob Monsen
From: John Larkin on 8 Feb 2010 12:11 On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 09:05:32 -0800, "Bob Monsen" <rcmonsen(a)gmail.com> wrote: >"Raveninghorde" <raveninghorde(a)invalid> wrote in message >news:a2d0n5pi39e3tb4pm0smtq8i7hehgeg1u7(a)4ax.com... >> On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 20:09:54 -0800, "Bob Monsen" <rcmonsen(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >>>Having just read 'Peddling Prosperity' by Krugman, I'm currently >>>sensitized >>>to the problem of policy being driven by idiots (supply siders on the >>>right >>>and 'strategic traders' on the left). However, I don't think that is >>>happening here. There appears to be a broad consensus amongst climate >>>scientists. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_consensus, >>>which >>>mentions that 97% of a set of polled, publishing scientists in the field >>>believe that it is occurring, and that it is being caused by human >>>activity. >> >> But from the CRU leaked emails we know that every effort was made to >> block publication of non alarmist views. Since the alarmists >> controlled publication then a poll of publihing scientists is >> unrelaible to say the least. >> > >Ah, so it is a conspiracy theory. Interesting. I thought it was based on >something more substantive. > >Do you have any idea how many journals there are? Do you know how most >journal articles are refereed? Saying there is a global conspiracy about >this is like saying that Jews run the world. How do they do it? :) > >Larken mentioned that they could all be using the same fudged data set. I >guess that could be true, but how likely is it? I'll agree that it is more >likely that somebody will get funding if they are not a crank. However, >tenured professors like to be iconoclasts, and harbor grudges. Seems like >they could use that to expose a conspiracy of this scale. So, why isn't that >happening on a much larger scale? > >>>Could they all really be wrong? I know the history of science is full of >>>situations where most scientists believed something that was shown to be >>>false (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether). However, unless >>>you are willing to just chuck science and base policy on faith, you need >>>to >>>at least give them the benefit of the doubt, or come up with an alternate >>>theory that fits the facts as well. >>> >>>So, if you have any real evidence against global warming, or an alternate >>>theory that fits the evidence, please post it. >>> >>>Regards, >>> Bob Monsen >> >> Climate has always changed. The Sahara used to be pasture land for >> example. >> >> The onus is on the alarmists to explain pre-industrial climate change. >> Once that is nailed then we can look at the residual of current change >> not explained already. >> >> What caused the MWP? The LIA? The Roman climate optimum? >> >> Since you like wikipedia: >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum >> >> /quote >> >> Of 140 sites across the western Arctic, there is clear evidence for >> warmer-than-present conditions at 120 sites. >> >> /end quote > >Well, it is clear that we are in a very cold spell, geologically. On the >other hand, the earth was covered in ice for a while: >http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/1998/09.17/EarthWasComplet.html. So, >technically, the entire earth has been subject to global warming since >then... ;) > >Being an iconoclast is often useful and fun, but taking it to extremes makes >you a crank. You can say the same thing about being a conformist. John
From: Raveninghorde on 8 Feb 2010 12:43
On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 09:05:32 -0800, "Bob Monsen" <rcmonsen(a)gmail.com> wrote: >"Raveninghorde" <raveninghorde(a)invalid> wrote in message >news:a2d0n5pi39e3tb4pm0smtq8i7hehgeg1u7(a)4ax.com... >> On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 20:09:54 -0800, "Bob Monsen" <rcmonsen(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >>>Having just read 'Peddling Prosperity' by Krugman, I'm currently >>>sensitized >>>to the problem of policy being driven by idiots (supply siders on the >>>right >>>and 'strategic traders' on the left). However, I don't think that is >>>happening here. There appears to be a broad consensus amongst climate >>>scientists. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_consensus, >>>which >>>mentions that 97% of a set of polled, publishing scientists in the field >>>believe that it is occurring, and that it is being caused by human >>>activity. >> >> But from the CRU leaked emails we know that every effort was made to >> block publication of non alarmist views. Since the alarmists >> controlled publication then a poll of publihing scientists is >> unrelaible to say the least. >> > >Ah, so it is a conspiracy theory. Interesting. I thought it was based on >something more substantive. I haven't suggested a conspiracy theory. I have pointed out that a key group of alarmists have interfered with the peer review process and the publication of articles even to the extent of having a journal editor removed. Since this alarmist group control one of the surface temperature records, HADCRUT and their US mates control GISS it is fair to say there is some doubt over the accuracy of these records. Particularly as they are tied in with Mann and his hockey stick. This bunch also, to use their own words, "hid the decline". This reflects on the historical temperature reconstruction based on tree rings. To summarize they had to fudge the post 1960 tree ring record which showed a temperature decline because this did not agree with their instrumental record. Despite post 1960 tree ring data being useless we are meant to believe the pre 1960 reconstruction is valid. On top of that the IPCC 2007 report is looking pretty dodgy at the moment. There is plenty about that in the British papers. If you feel this amounts to a conspiracy then that's your theory not mine. I'm just pointing out some of the facts. > >Do you have any idea how many journals there are? Do you know how most >journal articles are refereed? Saying there is a global conspiracy about >this is like saying that Jews run the world. How do they do it? :) > >Larken mentioned that they could all be using the same fudged data set. I >guess that could be true, but how likely is it? I'll agree that it is more >likely that somebody will get funding if they are not a crank. However, >tenured professors like to be iconoclasts, and harbor grudges. Seems like >they could use that to expose a conspiracy of this scale. So, why isn't that >happening on a much larger scale? There is plenty of evidence of fudged data in the 2 main surface temperature records. I only trust the satellite records which unfortunately only goes back to 1979. > >>>Could they all really be wrong? I know the history of science is full of >>>situations where most scientists believed something that was shown to be >>>false (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether). However, unless >>>you are willing to just chuck science and base policy on faith, you need >>>to >>>at least give them the benefit of the doubt, or come up with an alternate >>>theory that fits the facts as well. >>> >>>So, if you have any real evidence against global warming, or an alternate >>>theory that fits the evidence, please post it. >>> >>>Regards, >>> Bob Monsen >> >> Climate has always changed. The Sahara used to be pasture land for >> example. >> >> The onus is on the alarmists to explain pre-industrial climate change. >> Once that is nailed then we can look at the residual of current change >> not explained already. >> >> What caused the MWP? The LIA? The Roman climate optimum? >> >> Since you like wikipedia: >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum >> >> /quote >> >> Of 140 sites across the western Arctic, there is clear evidence for >> warmer-than-present conditions at 120 sites. >> >> /end quote > >Well, it is clear that we are in a very cold spell, geologically. On the >other hand, the earth was covered in ice for a while: >http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/1998/09.17/EarthWasComplet.html. So, >technically, the entire earth has been subject to global warming since >then... ;) > Exactly. Climate changes. With or without our help. >Being an iconoclast is often useful and fun, but taking it to extremes makes >you a crank. > >Regards, > Bob Monsen > |