Comments on: CLIMATE CHANGE? OR JUST A STRETCH OF BAD WEATHER?

By: Kent j

Kent j — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 12:45:52 +0000

Think locally. Act locally. Govern locally.
Everything else results in tyranny.
People protecting their own property will save the planet.
Politicians protecting their own asses will not. Ever.

By: Brad

Brad — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 15:50:37 +0000

Oecolampadius,
As others have suggested, the “leave it to the scientists, and especially the brights at the NAS” argument is ridiculous. I am a scientist at a large university, and I know many, many scientists, including NAS members. They are no more rational or reasonable than the guy who fixed my water heater. They are motivated by money, ego, political agendas, lab space, undergrad girls (the guys), university policies to whine about (the women, in order to get bigger pay raises), etc, and many of them are such utter fools I would not want them making decisions about when the cat box should emptied, much less social/political policy. These brights are prone to rejecting manuscripts that conflict with their research programs, rejecting grant proposals that might fund competing research, etc. They are not sources of wisdom or even reliable data. Leave unto scientists; sheesh.

By: 10 more reasons to disbelieve global warming Â« the spike

10 more reasons to disbelieve global warming Â« the spike — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 08:26:40 +0000

[...] A comment by a retired geology Ph.D. on this well-considered piece on the irrationality of the climate change debate (from the felicitously named Rightwing Nuthouse) lists ten more reasons to be skeptical of anthropogenic global warming: [...]

By: mannning

mannning — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 03:48:36 +0000

SShiell–good post. It accords with my understanding of the position of my friends at T.J Watson Research Labs.

Why are people so eager to draw trend lines on data that is corrupted or deficient? Perhaps to buttress an argument that isn’t quite firm?

By: SShiell

SShiell — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 21:51:51 +0000

Comment #31 continued:

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established by the World meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and was tasked to evaluate the risk of climate change caused by human activity. Their 2001 report stated:

In Climate Research and modelling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the ong-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” (IPCC-TAR, 2001, page 774)

This finding has not changed in the intervening years. And yet these very same climate models are used to this day for long term predictions.

Some of the major problems inherent in these models are:
They do not consider observed solar dimming and post-1985 brightening
They do not take account the existance of water vapor dimmers
They do not accurately model the role of clouds

In fact they do not deal with the one single major factor in climate change, water vapor, at all. And yet these models are cited with feverish regularity their predictions of the gloom and doom of climate change.

By: Neocon News Â» Daily Quick Hits 3/3/08

Neocon News Â» Daily Quick Hits 3/3/08 — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 05:57:01 +0000

[...] CLIMATE CHANGE? OR JUST A STRETCH OF BAD WEATHER? [...]

By: Allahpunditredux

Allahpunditredux — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 04:52:29 +0000

Syn said:
“As for new sources of energy to fuel modern civilizationâ€™s survival Iâ€™m ready to go nuclear on severe environmental restrictions and ridiculous fads. Iâ€™d like to advance a little further in creating energy sources other than no drilling in anwar, higher CAFE standards and requiring everyone use mercury-filled light blubs.”

You know nothing about the light bulbs. The amount of mercury is the size of a microdot. You’d need a few hundred light bulbs to equal the amount of mercury in a thermometer. Why does taking some environmental friendly measures scare you so much?

By: Chris

Chris — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 03:37:59 +0000

Too funny.

“Render unto science the things that are scienceâ€™s, and unto politics the things that are political.”

Somebody needs to wake noted theologian/scientist and nobel prize winner, Algore. Are you freaking kidding me? You are arguing that because I am not a scientist, even though I’ve taken advanced physics and chemistry, that I have no right to weigh in on this debate? And I must submit to the will of divinity school drop-out Algore? Send in the freaking clowns. If this is the best argument the pro-AGW side can muster then we’re almost through with the nonsense.

By: bobwire

bobwire — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 02:38:41 +0000

Global warming/climate change: yes there are cycles, and yes I believe man can have an influence to an extent which may be hard to quantify. For me the question is, will Jesus arrive in time to pull our nuts out of the fire, or is he already here picking broccoli, mowing our lawns and just too otherwise pre-occupied to notice?

By: SShiell

SShiell — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 23:27:35 +0000

Oleo - You state “Thereâ€™s voluminous evidence in support of the overall utility of climatological models.” I did not state there wasn’t utility in these models - as an example, the National Weather Service uses them to good effect with Hurricane forecasting and such. But even these only provide the percentages, possible alternatives, trend and risk analysis - not answers.

There has been some progress made in Regional and Short-term Climatological Models but even they still have nagging issues associated with them, such as predicting radical events such as droughts (UK Regional Model recently validated but with exceptions) and extreme inclement weather cycles (some of the National Weather Service models). But the major long term models used for projecting 50 and 100 year world wide cycles have yet to be validated.

When faced with this same issue within our legal system, the courts require validation. On more than one occasion I have had to defend the analysis I had performed for an Environmental Impact Statement to a court, the rationale for using the specific model(s) and the model’s validation information.

I only ask the same of you. I am not being a contrarian here. It is a standard that I have to live by in my own world and only ask you the same. You say there is evidence to the contrary, Good. Show me the validation of a single long-term global model.