[ RadSafe ] OT: Global Warming
bradkeck at mac.com
Thu May 22 13:11:52 CDT 2014
But if one were a climate scientist on the IPCC site, such as Drs. Knutti and Sedlacek, one would say "meet the new models, which are nearly the same as the old models - struggling in their ability to accurately simulate the Earth's climate"
Niels Bohr put it more succinctly: "prediction is difficult, especially when it involves the future"
Perhaps - and for my international colleagues, please excuse my arcane baseball reference :) - Prof. Bohr was related to Yogi Berra?
Sent from my iPad
> On May 22, 2014, at 9:44 AM, Maury <maurysis at peoplepc.com> wrote:
> 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.
> 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
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
More information about the RadSafe