Global warming?
in [Design]
|
From: Bob Monsen on 8 Feb 2010 21:09 "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:mch0n5phi3i1j8d3d097vu2i25r984oodn(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 09:05:32 -0800, "Bob Monsen" <rcmonsen(a)gmail.com> > wrote: >>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 > Actually, being a conformist almost never makes you a crank. Cranks are folks who think they know better than scientists, when they don't even understand the trivial things. They write long letters to famous scientists, explaining their (usually wrong) solutions to problems that were solved 100 years ago. Conformists are boring, but are probably right more often than they are wrong... I know that I'm almost completely ignorant about the science behind global warming, but then again I'm not claiming anything about it. I'm just asking you to tell me why you believe that the scientists, newspapers, governments, etc are all wrong. Ravinghorde has indicated that he believes that the scientists are running some kind of scam, falsifying data, suppressing contradictory results. That explains his/her view. Do you also believe that the 97% of publishing climate scientists that believe in global warming are either stupid, duped, or scamming the public? To my mind, that view doesn't pass occam's razor. Regards, Bob Monsen
From: John Larkin on 8 Feb 2010 21:28 On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 19:55:10 -0600, "Tim Williams" <tmoranwms(a)charter.net> wrote: >"Bob Monsen" <rcmonsen(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >news:1265681393.233038(a)sj-nntpcache-3.cisco.com... >>> How come nobody is worked up over a real - and fixable - problem, >>> man-made particulates? >> >> I don't know. There is such a partisan attitude in Washington that >> lawmakers fight for things because the other side is opposed to it. Too >> bad, all they seem to do is bicker and boast. > >Too bad? It's too bad they don't spend *all* their time bickering -- then >nothing would get done and government wouldn't keep getting bigger! > >Tim Which is why the public is usually smart enough to elect a president or governor from the opposite party of the one that runs the legislature. John
From: John Larkin on 8 Feb 2010 21:36 On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 18:09:50 -0800, "Bob Monsen" <rcmonsen(a)gmail.com> wrote: >"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message >news:mch0n5phi3i1j8d3d097vu2i25r984oodn(a)4ax.com... >> On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 09:05:32 -0800, "Bob Monsen" <rcmonsen(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: > >>>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 >> > >Actually, being a conformist almost never makes you a crank. Cranks are >folks who think they know better than scientists, when they don't even >understand the trivial things. They write long letters to famous scientists, >explaining their (usually wrong) solutions to problems that were solved 100 >years ago. Conformists are boring, but are probably right more often than >they are wrong... > >I know that I'm almost completely ignorant about the science behind global >warming, but then again I'm not claiming anything about it. I'm just asking >you to tell me why you believe that the scientists, newspapers, governments, >etc are all wrong. I believe they haven't made their case beyond a reasonable doubt. Nonlinear models of chaotic systems are not predictive. The temperature and tree ring data is suspect. Nobody has explained the forcing functions, namely why we had ice ages, little ice ages, warming periods, or the current blizzard on the East coast. The scientific concensus has been wrong about all sorts of stuff in the past. > >Ravinghorde has indicated that he believes that the scientists are running >some kind of scam, falsifying data, suppressing contradictory results. That >explains his/her view. It looks as if some are. > >Do you also believe that the 97% of publishing climate scientists that >believe in global warming are either stupid, duped, or scamming the public? >To my mind, that view doesn't pass occam's razor. It's possible that they're wrong. It's likely they are wrong about future effects of warming on weather... if there is indeed warming in our future. And I don't believe the 97% number either. After I typed the paragraph above, my wife just walked in and said "It's raining. The weather forecasts are useless." Really. John
From: nospam on 8 Feb 2010 21:38 "Bob Monsen" <rcmonsen(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Do you also believe that the 97% of publishing climate scientists that >believe in global warming are either stupid, duped, or scamming the public? I believe the AWG machine is as good at cherry picking scientists to support itself as it is at cherry picking data. Interesting piece here http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/02/08/andrew_montford_interview/
From: Bob Monsen on 8 Feb 2010 22:08
"Raveninghorde" <raveninghorde(a)invalid> wrote in message news:o8i0n51ncgcpjcuiesttjplkj8jnc4fa6g(a)4ax.com... > 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... >>> 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. > Galileo has been blamed by historians of science for overstating his case, belittling his competition, etc. This sort of behavior isn't anything new to science. However, if you throw out all the data here due to a few uncensored emails, you are you are throwing out the baby with the bathwater. When you say IPCC 2007 is looking 'dodgy', you mean there are some errors. The report is FOUR VOLUMES... it was written by literally hundreds of scientists, and reviewed by hundreds more. However, errors are inevitable, and are eagerly pounced on by such denizens as the politically motivated Global Climate Coalition and the Information Council on the Environment. The real question is how do you know what _you_ hear is the truth? See http://www.newsweek.com/id/32482/page/1 for more information on the politics behind this. There has been a program by the various affected industries to 'spin' this in such ways as to slow down any action. Their motive has been to try to show that there is a divisive dispute in the scientific community where none exists. I'm not surprised that scientists who have been working tirelessly on this issue, because they believe it is a huge looming danger, think they have a moral imperative to fight 'fire with fire'. That was clearly a mistake, both ethically and politically, but one can sympathize with them. When you fight with liars and cheaters, taking the high road isn't always easy. The real irony is that the stupid, misguided political effort to derail any action and to dupe the public has actually induced the scientific community to ignore data instead of considering any anomalies as new data to explain. Regards, Bob Monsen |