[ RadSafe ] OT: Global Warming
maurysis at peoplepc.com
Thu May 22 09:44:27 CDT 2014
Theo Richel is on the better path. One is not required to be a climate
scientist to analyse some pros and cons of climate science. The
scientific method is not peculiar to climatology ... there are many
elements of science that apply generally to all sciences.
The IPCC was formed in the 1980s as a political endeavor to identify and
publicize support for the conclusion that man-made emissions of carbon
are the cause of global warming; thus was AGW born ... the result of a
foregone conclusion ... science turned upside down.
My two cents is that the world needs to work on processes for learning
how best to cope with extreme variations in climate and weather. In due
course the causes and meaningful forecasts will become possible; for now
let's figure how how to cope with these ongoing variations in the world
Maury&Dog [MaurySiskel maurysis at peoplepc.com]
On 5/21/2014 3:54 PM, Theo Richel wrote:
I object, the Summary for Policymakers is a bad start, since it is not a
scientific but a political document. I'd say start with the IPCC-reports
themselves and combine that with the report from the NON-Governmental
International Panel on Climate Change (http://nipccreport.org/ ) .
Personally I have stopped wasting my time on the climate. Main reason:
no warming for 13-17 years despite a continuing increase of CO2 (but
which did cause a greening of the planet according to NASA, since CO2 is
plant food). And if you want to see how SCIENCE behaves in this field
then check the adventures of Steven McIntyre (www.climateaudit.org ) and
Anthony Watts (http://wattsupwiththat.com/) .
I am not a climate scientist (Just like Al Gore), but a science
journalist. In the past 40 years I have seen science - or at least the
environmental/health related parts of it - change from a group of very
modest people, always critical about their own work, and always afraid
to say/claim something that was outside their expertise to people who
have lost any sight of the borders of their knowledge. No matter how
specialized their original area of study was, you can ask them about
other areas as well and they will give the politically correct answers,
you can ask them how the future is going to be and they will tell you,
because they KNOW!
The science with regard to global warming is not settled. Yes it is true
that CO2 in the atmosphere has a warming effect, yes it is true that
CO2-concentrations are increasing, yes it is true that this is because
we burn so much fossil fuels. That has long been known and is not
controversial. The only real point of debate is climate sensitivity, how
much will the earth warm. That simply is not known, but there is every
reason to think that this will not be a problem. IE: The warming will ne
very limited (it hasn't warmed for the past 13-15 years) and its effects
will be for a large part beneficial. Many of these things are said in
the larger IPCC report, but NOT in the Summary for Policy Makers.
In the seventies and eighties I was an enthousiastic member of the
environmental movement in the Netherlands. Then the fight against
nuclear energy was most important. My former friends now have policy
positions in Greenpeace, WNF etc and very heavily influence the IPCC
(google Donna Laframboise). To end on a positive note: every poll these
days shows that people just do not worry about the climate anymore, the
economy is much more important.
Science is still the only way to solve the problems of humanity, but not
in its current politicized form.
More information about the RadSafe