Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Well I think credible people don't compromise professionalism in the interest of brevity. To state unprovable scientific absolutes to criticize an opposing scientific opinion is unprofessional.

Foxfyre wrote:

Well I think credible people don't compromise professionalism in the interest of brevity. To state unprovable scientific absolutes to criticize an opposing scientific opinion is unprofessional.

That would lead to the consequence that credible scientist couldn't write letters to the editors of "normal" papers.

Well, I do believe that people interested in the climatologic science done at Natural Environment Research Council, the University of Reading, the Imperial College London, the University of Oxford, the University of Exeter and the QUEST Programme are already informed about it by various other sources.
-------------


So you liked that program, Foxfyre, and agree with it?

Do you think, everything was shown in the correct scientic and professional manner? (NB: it was a documentary running over nearly two hours and not a Letter to the Editor)

Would do you think how the various persons "critised" others? What that done professionally? (Again, it wasn't a short film.)

I haven't seen the program and have no opinion at all about it. I hope it did represent the point of view of the AGW skeptics accurately. I do have a problem with scientists who state unprovable scientific absolutes and I have a HUGE problem with those who presume to silence anyone offering a different scientific opinion.

Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London who also features in the film, warned the issue was too complex to be down to one single factor, whether CO2 or clouds.

He said: "The greenhouse effect theory worried me from the start because you can't say that just one factor can have this effect.

"The system is too complex to say exactly what the effect of cutting back on CO2 production would be, or indeed of continuing to produce CO2.

"It's ridiculous to see politicians arguing over whether they will allow the global temperature to rise by 2C or 3C."

Mr Stott said the film could mark the point where scientists advocating the greenhouse effect theory, began to lose the argument.

He continued: "It is a brave programme at the moment to give excluded voices their say, and maybe it is just the beginning.

"At the moment, there is almost a McCarthyism movement in science where the greenhouse effect is like a puritanical religion and this is dangerous."

In the programme Mr Calder said: "The greenhouse effect is seen as a religion and if you don't agree, you are a heretic."

He added: "However, I think this programme will help further debate and scientists not directly involved in global warming studies may begin to study what is being said, become more open-minded and more questioning, but this will happen slowly."
SOURCE

Read the letter again Walter. It is making unqualified statements re global warming and stating them as absolutes. Had they prefaced their remarks that "models suggest......" or "there is significant evidence for....." or some other qualifying factor in their statements, I would have no problem with them. But they come across as fanatics who are convinced they know it all and will brook no point of view other than their own.

I prefer this point of view re a discussion of the film:

Quote:

[...]

That's not a Letter to the Editor but he's -partly- quoted in that magazine.

You studied journalism at university, Foxfyre, and worked with various papers.
You surely know the difference - I do remember what I work it is to shorten those page-long ltters to some readable short paragraphe when I had to do it.


And again: these are responses not only to that Channel 4 program but (mainly) to the report here by McKie.

I've read that report as well as I've seen the program (though that not completely, I must admit).

The world hates the USA and GW Bush because we of course caused 9/11 and then invaded a very world friendly country. Global warming is going to kill us all, and Al Gore is an oscar winner.

Thank you liberal wack-nut media!

Foxfyre wrote:

Read the letter again Walter. It is making unqualified statements re global warming and stating them as absolutes. Had they prefaced their remarks that "models suggest......" or "there is significant evidence for....." or some other qualifying factor in their statements, I would have no problem with them. But they come across as fanatics who are convinced they know it all and will brook no point of view other than their own.

I prefer this point of view re a discussion of the film:

Quote:

[...]

That's not a Letter to the Editor but he's -partly- quoted in that magazine.

You studied journalism at university, Foxfyre, and worked with various papers.
You surely know the difference - I do remember what I work it is to shorten those page-long ltters to some readable short paragraphe when I had to do it.


And again: these are responses not only to that Channel 4 program but (mainly) to the report here by McKie.

I've read that report as well as I've seen the program (though that not completely, I must admit).

Not a letter to the editor? It sure appeared to be a letter to somebody.

"Lifestyle Extra" is "a website [is] run by a small team of developers whose job it is to collate relevant, interesting, dynamic content from various sources, in an easy-to-use format, that users appreciate".

Science is pretty solidly unified--there is pretty much a universal consensus even--that AIDS is 100% preventable. All that is required to combat Aids is to be in a mutually monogamous relationship with an uninfected partner, don't share needles with infected people, and carefully screen blood etc. before exposing somebody to it, and be born to parents who are not HIV positive. It is pretty indisputable that everybody who does this will be in no danger of contracting AIDS.

There is no universal consensus re preventing global warming however, and even where consensus exists, there is a pretty good margin of error allowed.

I think there is no way to realistically compare the prevention of AIDS with the prevention of global warming.

i have probably found the best and easily understandable information re. global warming on the "lloyd's of london" website - see link at bottom ....

LLOYD'S OF LONDON

(emphasis mine)
11. Because of issues related to data quality, the stochastic nature of extreme event impacts, length of time series,
and various societal factors present in the disaster loss record, it is still not possible to determine the portion of
the increase in damages that might be attributed to climate change due to GHG emissions
12. For future decades the IPCC (2001) expects increases in the occurrence and/or intensity of some extreme
events as a result of anthropogenic climate change. Such increases will further increase losses in the absence of
disaster reduction measures.
13. In the near future the quantitative link (attribution) of trends in storm and flood losses to climate changes
related to GHG emissions is unlikely to be answered unequivocally.

Especially for miniTAX:



:wink:

But what environmental crime had your parents committed before 1950 to have warmer winters by then, I wonder

What does this mean relative to the global warming doomsday scenarios? The prediction (say) that the Atlantic conveyor current that transports heat from the tropics to the Arctic might shut down owing to the melting of the Ice cap cannot be supported by any analysis of the model for atmosphere and oceanic flows. Convective and density induced circulation in liquids is highly complex and easily motivated by even small differences in the absence of other forces.

For those who wish, here is online the full documentary previously cited. Maybe Parados may look at the CO2 moments in the film since I've given up explaining him the CO2 cycle without images :wink:

The great global warming spindle[/size]

... sponsored by Munich Re and organized in Germany...

It is up to the state to take proactive measures against natural catastrophes by passing appropriate laws (e.g. regarding building safety and land use). It is also the state's responsibility to give the public basic protection and issue timely warnings.

foxfire wrote :

Quote:

Science is pretty solidly unified--there is pretty much a universal consensus even--that AIDS is 100% preventable. All that is required to combat Aids is to be in a mutually monogamous relationship with an uninfected partner, don't share needles with infected people, and carefully screen blood etc. before exposing somebody to it, and be born to parents who are not HIV positive. It is pretty indisputable that everybody who does this will be in no danger of contracting AIDS.

There is no universal consensus re preventing global warming however, and even where consensus exists, there is a pretty good margin of error allowed.

I think there is no way to realistically compare the prevention of AIDS with the prevention of global warming.

_________________
"...and be born to parents who are not HIV positive. ..."

usually children don't get to pick their parents .
hbg

miniTAX wrote:

... sponsored by Munich Re and organized in Germany...

München Re on "Georisks":

Quote:

It is up to the state to take proactive measures against natural catastrophes by passing appropriate laws (e.g. regarding building safety and land use). It is also the state's responsibility to give the public basic protection and issue timely warnings.

Nevertheless: Foxfyre abd you have convinced me by now:

climate change is either un-scientific or makes everyday-life much better.