[ RadSafe ] OT: Global Warming

[Maury]

*Amen!

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 
around us.
Best,
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.

  Theo Richel