<< CASH FOR NO COMMENT ~ MAIN ~ VIRGINIA MAT STRATEGY >>
WHATEVER HAPPENED TO CONSENSUS?
Sixty scientists have called on Canada’s Prime Minister to cool it on global warming:
“Climate change is real” is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified.
Which might explain why environmentalists don’t seem very frightened while flying around the planet hawking doom books (Tim Flannery is yet to respond to my polygraph challenge, by the way). More on our greenster pals from Scott Burgess and Andrew Bolt, who asks Dr Peter Ridd of James Cook University’s department of physical sciences if he’d noticed how institutional funding seemed to be directed towards the most alarmist of envirobabies:
“Yes,” he said shortly.
TomB,
Not to worry: by the end of the day at least one of Tim’s resident contrarians and trolls will be up to the challenge.
Posted by Spiny Norman on 2006 04 07 at 12:04 PM • permalinkDon’t worry now REDUCING pollution is causing Global Warming according to the BBC.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4880328.stm
Posted by Torontosteve on 2006 04 07 at 12:16 PM • permalinkAlso in Canada,
A fossil was recently found on Ellesmere Island (near the Arctic Circle)that appears to be the missing link from when fish first moved onto land, some 350 million years ago. At that time, it is reported, the Ellesmere had a had a sub-tropical climate.
Posted by Son of a Pig and a Monkey on 2006 04 07 at 12:35 PM • permalinkWell, almost coherent -I think antsyshpincter hacked my keyboard
Posted by Son of a Pig and a Monkey on 2006 04 07 at 12:38 PM • permalinkSpiny Norman,
Yeah, I think nothing says Right Wing Kool Aid drinker in Canuckistan like National Post…
In a discussion with a Moonbat, I cited something published in the Washington Times which was instantly dismissed with “Oh, that’s a Moonie paper…no credibility…etc.” to which I replied, “Do you feel the same way about the Christian Science Monitor?” Two, ahem, fringe religions…
(BTW, the item in the WT was from AFP, hardly a conduit for Right Wing friendly reporting)
How dare the science lobby spin the fate of the planet.
Posted by chinesearithmetic on 2006 04 07 at 12:51 PM • permalinkBut you see, JDB, the CSM is on their side, therefore is a accorded a degree of credibility with the Left that the NY Times and Washington Post must work hard to maintain. Christian Scientists, like the Quakers, fringe though they may be, are held up by the Left as the only “true” Christians solely because they oppose George Bush and his “phony war for oil”.
Posted by Spiny Norman on 2006 04 07 at 01:05 PM • permalink” . . .who asks Dr Peter Ridd of James Cook University’s department of physical sciences if he’d noticed how institutional funding seemed to be directed towards the most alarmist of envirobabies:
‘Yes,’ he said shortly.”
Hmmmmmmmmm . . .
Rips label off “Paco’s Patented Incoherentometer”, replaces with label reading “Paco’s Patented Global Warmulator”. Feeds Robert Fisk essay into machine until contraption overheats.
Whoa, baby! They’re right! The world’s heating up like a hot dog on the griddle! We must do something! Give me funds! Where is my grant money?!?
PACO! Cool it on the italics, willya?
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 04 07 at 02:25 PM • permalinkAhem…...on to more important issues, to wit:
...we may be able to watch comely Frog expats sunbathing topless on beautiful Montreal beaches in February.
Every cloud has a silver lining! ;-P
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 04 07 at 02:27 PM • permalinkFrom the linked article:
Observational evidence does not support today’s computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future.
<snip>
While the confident pronouncements of scientifically unqualified environmental groups may provide for sensational
headlines, they are no basis for mature policy
formulation. The study of global climate change is, as you have said, an “emerging science,” one that is perhaps the most complex ever tackled. It may be many years yet before we properly understand the Earth’s climate system. Nevertheless, significant advances have been made since the protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases. If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.
Ender? You other Mother Gaia™ worshippers in permanent panic mode? This is geniuine, objective science in action. Oh, and a responsible government.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 04 07 at 02:42 PM • permalinkAnother big gun in that list is Richard Lindzen. He has a good summary of the issues here (PDF, early draft, moderately technical). I highly recommend it.
Posted by Chris Chittleborough on 2006 04 07 at 02:59 PM • permalinkAnd Steven Milloy on this (and the other Top 10 Junk Science stories of the past 10 years) at FOXNews:
Including some shots at Al Gore—always worth the price of admission. (That happens to be “free” for this piece, but the thought still counts.)
Posted by andycanuck on 2006 04 07 at 03:28 PM • permalinkThe Gaia-worshippers are as ruthless as the Scientologists.
Put them all in the one room and they’ll beat each other to death with doctrine.Posted by SwinishCapitalist on 2006 04 07 at 05:08 PM • permalinkOh, heck, PW, porn? Why watch paid performers when you can sit on a warm, sunny beach, wearing reflective sunglasses, cool drink in one hand, book in the other, and exercising the muscles around your eyes? Not only is it free (the watching, not the beach stuff), it’s rather like hunting, when you stalk the prey…..no, I don’t think so. So, it’s like, um…..capture the flag?
Well, anywho, girl watching on a beach is the best means of viewing attractive females. Watching porn should be relegated to cold dark nights in lonely apartments by frustrated worshippers of Mother Gaia™.
Which is yet another reason to welcome global warming.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 04 07 at 06:39 PM • permalink#3 TomB - Dusk last night in Brisbane, saw the temperature drop below 20 deg C. My wife was complaining bitterly about this, what’s going on, bloody freezing, how unseasonal for mid-autumn etc. I commented that it was probaly just a temporary aberration and that some people actually believed that global average temperatures were rising. Her response was “Bullshit” as she turned the heaters on full bore.
Seems that she and the great quantum electrodynamicist share views in common.
Posted by Whale Spinor on 2006 04 07 at 07:26 PM • permalinkGreat irony from Gippsland in Victoria. A wind farm has been stopped from being developed because of the threat it posed to the “rare” orange bellied parrot, which flies through the area.
Decision criticised by shrill greenies, who were backing the windfarm as a “greenhouse solution” compared to Victoria’s reliance on thermal (coal) power.
Now the irony is that the said orange bellied parrot has previously been a pin-up-bird for the Greenies in the past and has singlehandedly been responsible for winning several Green causes in Tasmania.
Now the Greens are denouncing the halt to the wind farm, saying that “only 1 parrot per year is forescat to be killed on the rotor blades”.
Posted by Stop Continental Drift! on 2006 04 07 at 07:59 PM • permalinkHand out the protest signs!
Paco has invented the Italics Quagmire!
He can get us in but he has no idea how to get us out!
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 04 07 at 08:19 PM • permalink28. Cool SCD! Green on Green engagement. Hey everybody, GIRL FIGHT!!!
Posted by Vanguard of the Commentariat on 2006 04 07 at 08:23 PM • permalink29. Richard, I’ll bet John Kerry has a plan!
Posted by Vanguard of the Commentariat on 2006 04 07 at 08:25 PM • permalinkWhat does arise of the GHG antropogenic global warming debate is the lack of methodology and process in the detailed publications ie how they design and prove their experiments and observations.If we use an analogy of GW say being a drug that and whose efficacy is to be published the supression or ommission of process would preclude it being published in reputable journals.
The questions that are mostly ommitted are on how they correlate thier measurements and verification of results.
If we use the quantification of co2 and the growth portion of say 1880-2000 OR say the last 30 years would not a resonable scientist of which by profession should be a skeptic ask
a) did the change of collection apparatus from glass flasks- to high carbon stainless steel flasks in 1988 and from 500m to 2 litre affect the measurement.B)Did the change of measuring apparatus at around the sane time to gas spectometry effect the measuremens.
C)Why is not the range of amplitude in oscillation outside of the mean CO2 statistic given equal publication , now many here know that the co2 levels oscillate at around 16ppm that is a range of 32 ppm and there are seasonal variances depending on photsynthesis,wind direction and temperature when the temperature rises so does the seasonal oscillation of co2.
Mosrly every publication has legitimate questions but whilst the devil is in the detail the 3 second soundbite only ever shows the authors abstract,which at that part is akin to the spiel of a used car salesman,always look under the bonnet!there are normally questions on the mechanical attributes.
Posted by maksimovich on 2006 04 08 at 03:08 AM • permalinkMaksimovich, commenters are obliged to communicate in English here.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 04 08 at 08:38 AM • permalink33. Son of Maximo: I’m sorry, but the ponderosity of your vocabulary is too copious for my diminuative comprehension. Would you please licitate more explicitly?
Posted by Vanguard of the Commentariat on 2006 04 08 at 11:28 AM • permalinkmaksimovich is noting that one aspect of the climate change debate hasn’t been discussed: did improvements in sampling and measuring techniques have a significant impact in measuring CO2 in the atmosphere? For example, more accurate techniques might tend to show higher amounts of CO2. Or some variation thereof. It’s a good question, as your data is only as good as your measurements.
The other point centers around natural variations in CO2 levels. This variation would be significant in measuring CO2 levels; all we ever see is a single number. Were natural variations accounted for in the sampling? If most of the samples were taken at a natural high level, and this was not accounted for, the CO2 levels would show an increase.
In other words, any serious scientific debate on climate change (which we have yet to see) needs to address the data sampling and statistical computations. If those aren’t as objective as possible, with errors minimized, any collected data are worthless.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 04 08 at 11:39 AM • permalinkEh, atmospheric CO2 levels, Bush’s approval ratings…don’t you know that when some crucial number is hit, it spells imminent disaster for the subject? Bush will be gone next month, and so will the Earth if we don’t cease all energy consumption immediately!
Sheesh, do we have to explain everything to you stupid right-wingers?
I am still waiting, 18 months on, for someone to call for auto manufacturers to share their space drive - used to ship SUV’s to Mars and a number of outer moons and causing them to warm, melt polar caps, etc.
Posted by John Anderson on 2006 04 08 at 01:19 PM • permalinkCruella 34
commenters are obliged to communicate in English here.
???????????????
Just a darn minute! I’ve read some of those those croquet threads, or whatever they are, and you ain’t EVEN telling me THAT stuff was in English! Boooooo!!!!!!!!!!!Posted by Stoop Davy Dave on 2006 04 08 at 02:57 PM • permalinkI don’t handle rejection well and I’m pretty thin skinned, sensitive and wear my heart on my sleeve.
Texas Bob — You got room for it ‘twixt the hash marks?
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 04 08 at 07:52 PM • permalinkI don’t handle rejection well and I’m pretty thin skinned, sensitive and wear my heart on my sleeve.
T-Bob, have you been hanging out with Emily P?
Posted by Vanguard of the Commentariat on 2006 04 08 at 08:07 PM • permalinkMy apologies to 34 and 35.But the issue is indeed a complex issue and this is what is not understood by most commentators.Most scientists outside of their specialist subjects would not comprehend the complexities of the GHG hypotheisis.
If you view the data at the IPCC site at Grida.cn even they do not realise the contrarian evidence in their database.
Whilst mostly a scientific theory can be simplified,to a paragraph or two say the theory of thermodynamics ,the complexities of the global warming hypothesis would briefly require pages to describe the variables.
As 36 puts more succintly then I did it is indeed a questionable point of the accuracy of the measurements and the improvements of data measurement and the accuracy of the apparatus and models that is omitted from the abstracts.
The question is how accurate is the scientific measurement.Firstly it will never be 100% accurate no measurement apparatus can ever be 100% accurate in any field.To alleviate the inaccuracies a large number of statistical functions are introduced based on assumptions to provide a best guess measurement of the data.
The quantificiation of the measurement problem of the atmospheric content of co2 is always a best guess.Why? ....
If we are measuring the quantity of CO2 per X volume of gas the N body problem arises and the complexities of counting seperate molecules at a given time.
Here is the problem a matchbox size container contains around 10 to the 23 quantity of molecules.At sea level atmospheric pressure and at 0c the single molecule of air will experience 4 million collissions every second.
Whilst the use of statistical mechanics will give an estimate of the quantity it is always a best guess,and never an actual number.That is the question of debate,who has ever bought an appliance,Pc,car,etc that ever produces results to manufacturers specification?
Posted by maksimovich on 2006 04 08 at 09:56 PM • permalinkMaks, if you’re saying that many of these jokers are politicizing science in the service of an agenda, I could not agree more. One of the bedrock principles of scientific method is a healthy skepticism. The lockstep agreement of the leftie scientific climate change set appears to this layman to contradict that basic tenet.
Posted by Vanguard of the Commentariat on 2006 04 08 at 11:42 PM • permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
Signatories to be discredited and denounced in 5… 4… 3…
The Gaia-worshippers are as ruthless as the Scientologists.
O_O
(Or is being published in the National Post, like the Washington Times make one automatically discredited?)