71
   

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

 
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Mar, 2007 10:28 am
Why did the cartoonist transpose Gore's face with that of Roger Ailes?
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/original/ailesjuly26.jpg
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Mar, 2007 12:25 pm
There was a very telling admission near the end of the report pasted by Walter on the estemmed Nicholas Stern;

Quote:
Sir Nicholas says his team also took a different approach in the way they treated the scientific evidence. Rather than just working with the most likely scenarios, they took into account the smaller chances of far more severe events unfolding. And those events tend to be the most expensive. "You take into account the different probabilities and what kind of damages could follow," he says. "And at each stage where you've got a 'could', you've got a probability distribution. So you have to build that into the story. We're starting to be able to do that."


This, of course, is not at all a "different approach to the way they treated the scientific evidence". That statement is a lie. It is instead the deceitful inclusion of speculations, unsupported by any scientific analysis, in a work otherwise labelled as science.

It was refreshing to note their acknowledgement that it was precisely these "smaller chances of far more severe events unfolding" that created the alleged cost of 20% of world GDP impact they predict. The problem with all this is that there is no scientific basis on which to calculate the probabilities of these "smaller chances" at all. They are merely possibilities much like the possibility of a major meterorite impact in 10 years or the sudden collapse of the earth's magnetic field -- both of which events would have orders of magnitude worse effects than those deceitfully forecast for global warming. They are not at all the predictions of anything that could even loosely be described as the scientific method. They are mere speculations.

The credulous crowds infected with the AGW hysteria would do well to read and consider these words.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Mar, 2007 02:53 pm
Nignog.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Mar, 2007 03:12 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
This, of course, is not at all a "different approach to the way they treated the scientific evidence". That statement is a lie. It is instead the deceitful inclusion of speculations, unsupported by any scientific analysis, in a work otherwise labelled as science.


He's still a public servant, I high ranked, indead.

You should sue him. Or at least tell the American Academy of Arts and Sciences that they should do something about their Honorary Fellow.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Mar, 2007 03:22 pm
Josep Stalin and Adolph Hitler were also high ranking public servants. That argument carries no weight.

I'm quite condident that the American Academy of Arts and Sciences has its share of fools and charlatains among its members. I have no particular opinion of Mr Stern one way or the other. I am able to see the fraud perpetrated in the report he signed though.

in order to calculate the economic cost of unchecked AGW by his model he would have to assign a specific numerical probability to these "unlikely, low probability" events. The problem is that science is quite unable to assign or even crudely estimate their likelihood. That is simply a fact.

Hysteria, even that endorced by "high ranking public servants with Mediaval titles, remains hysteria.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Mar, 2007 03:29 pm
Sir Nicholas Stern's job as public servant is quite different to that of Adolf Hitler, who only became a public in the state of Brunswick to get the German nationality.

Medieval titles are part of a society with a longer historic background than 500 years, especially in a monarchy.

Besides that, to compare Sir Nicholas with Stalin and Hitler is normaly beyond the quality of your responses.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Mar, 2007 03:36 pm
I did not see where anybody compared him to Stalin or Hitler. It is a valid observation that being a high ranking public servant does not qualify one as a climatologist or any other discipline nor does it in itself qualify one as a noble or trustworthy or competent person.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Mar, 2007 03:46 pm
Okay, if the Second Permanent Secretary at H.M. Treasury ("medieval tile") lies in published interview about essential parts of his job.

Hitler was only nominally a public servant in the state of Brunswick, for a very short period (only a few days to get his German citizenshi) and not high ranked at all, btw.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Mar, 2007 03:51 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Sir Nicholas Stern's job as public servant is quite different to that of Adolf Hitler, who only became a public in the state of Brunswick to get the German nationality.

Medieval titles are part of a society with a longer historic background than 500 years, especially in a monarchy.

Besides that, to compare Sir Nicholas with Stalin and Hitler is normaly beyond the quality of your responses.


I made no comparison of Mr Stern with Hitler or Stalin. I merely noted that your reference to the necessary credibility of "high ranking public servents is without merit. Indeed I explicitly affirmed that I had no opinion of Mr Stern, one way or the other. My criticism was restricted exclusively to the content of the report he signed.

I recognize and accept the affection of the British for the titular relics of their meideval past. In this country we simply don't recognize such things. Using them to add weight to an ovbiously fradulent report which openly mislabels speculation as science fully merited the mild contempt in my reaction.

A final note. Even ignoring for the moment the gross errors in assigning any probability to unsupportable speculations, the problem of estimating something as complex as the global cost of AGW, or just extimating the economic effects of postulated events has a great deal of uncertainty. Moreover this uncertainty is apt to be asymmetrical -- we are likely to be far more accurate in estimating the losses to extant economic activities that may ne negatively affected by our (unsupported) assumptions of what may happen than we are to properly estimate the benefits associated with them. Normally in a scientific work of this kind there is some explicit acknowledgement of the likely werror bounds in the overall estimate. I see none here. This is very odd for a matter of such great consequence.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Mar, 2007 03:57 pm
Quote:
The Permanent Secretary is the Accountable Officer of the Department, which means that he or she is answerable to Parliament for ensuring that the Department spends money granted by Parliament appropriately. Permanent Secretaries are thus frequently called for questioning by the Public Accounts Committee and Select Committees of the House of Commons. The permanent secretary usually chairs a department's management board which consists of executive members (other civil servants in the department) and non-executive directors.

Some larger departments also have a Second Permanent Secretary who acts as deputy.
(copied/pasted from from a booklet, the then Minister of State in the Foreign Office gave me two years ago)


As for instance HM Treasury. And as second permanent secretary it was Sir Nicholas duty to make and sign this report.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Mar, 2007 03:59 pm
A wiser, or merely less credulous or ambitious man would have declined to sign and simply resign.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Mar, 2007 04:05 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
A wiser, or merely less credulous or ambitious man would have declined to sign and simply resign.


Well, civil servants usually don't resign because they do their job.
(Permanent secretaries as well as all civil servants aren't dependent on elected politicians for appointment but - as the name says - permanent and politically neutral.)
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Mar, 2007 04:23 pm
Not online yet, but in tomorrow's The Observer (page 3):

http://i17.tinypic.com/2nlcnjs.jpg

Since I'm too lazy to copy/paste that report (will surely be online soon), here something scanned:

http://i16.tinypic.com/2zfpeew.jpg
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Mar, 2007 04:23 pm
http://i16.tinypic.com/2pzyxpj.jpghttp://i15.tinypic.com/3ygmyhw.jpg
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Mar, 2007 06:26 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
georgeob1 wrote:
A wiser, or merely less credulous or ambitious man would have declined to sign and simply resign.


Well, civil servants usually don't resign because they do their job.
(Permanent secretaries as well as all civil servants aren't dependent on elected politicians for appointment but - as the name says - permanent and politically neutral.)


If then this is merely the work of a civil service bureaucracy, led and approved by a non-accountable non-entity with a title, then it is certainly being falsely described by the credulus medai.


Your last post shows there may be some hope for you Walter. (Though I must say it is just like the British - the observer in this case - to accuse Americans of overhyping global warming - this on the heels of their own government's much touted but asinine and fraudulent report. Shameless hypocrisy - but very common in the world, particularly in Europe.)
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Mar, 2007 01:14 am
Link to my above[/URL

----------------

From today's Sunday Telegraph:

[quote][URL=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/18/ngreen318.xml]Scientist takes legal action over climate claim


Richard Gray, Science Correspondent

A leading solar expert has told how he was vilified by environmental campaigners and condemned by scientists after he was wrongly branded a climate-change denier.

Prof Nigel Weiss, from the department of astrophysics at Cambridge University, claims he was astonished to see the strength of feeling against him.

The former president of the Royal Astronomical Society was accused of denying man-made climate change in a column published in a Canadian newspaper.

The article, written for the Toronto-based National Post, said the highly regarded scientist had claimed that global warming could be accounted for by fluctuations in solar activity.

Prof Weiss, however, describes the claims as a "slanderous fabrication" and says he believes that man-made carbon dioxide is directly responsible for global warming.

He said he fully supports the opinion put forward by the UN's International Panel on Climate Change.

Prof Weiss is now taking legal action though a Vancouver-based lawyer in an attempt to obtain an apology and a retraction from the National Post.

His case emerged after other leading scientists disclosed that they had received death threats after speaking out against climate change. It has raised concerns that the science on global warming has been "hijacked" by lobby groups who are seeking to influence the debate.

Prof Weiss said: "People attacked me violently on web sites and by email for having such opinions. There was an extraordinary number of references to me on the web. People did contact me to ask me if I really believed this.

"It makes one cross if one's views are misrepresented and put across in a way that is so far removed from what I do believe. It makes me angry and upset that this has happened."

Yesterday, Larry Solomon, the columnist who wrote the profile of Prof Weiss, said: "I wrote the piece as a laudable profile of Prof Weiss and his work. I am perplexed as to why he has responded in this way."

Another leading scientist, Prof Carl Wunsch, an oceanographer at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, claimed that he was duped into taking part in a documentary that denied climate change. He said his views in Channel 4's The Great Global Warming Swindle were "grossly distorted".[/quote]
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Mar, 2007 07:33 am
Here is the Post piece in which Professor Weiss claims he was misquoted or misrepresented or whatever. What do you think?

Will the sun cool us?
The Deniers -- Part VII
Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post
Published: Friday, February 02, 2007
January 12, 2007

The science is settled" on climate change, say most scientists in the field. They believe that man-made emissions of greenhouse gases are heating the globe to dangerous levels and that, in the coming decades, steadily increasing temperatures will melt the polar ice caps and flood the world's low-lying coastal areas.

Don't tell that to Nigel Weiss, Professor Emeritus at the Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics at the University of Cambridge, past President of the Royal Astronomical Society, and a scientist as honoured as they come. The science is anything but settled, he observes, except for one virtual certainty: The world is about to enter a cooling period.

Dr. Weiss believes that man-made greenhouse gases have recently had a role in warming the earth, although the extent of that role, he says, cannot yet be known. What is known, however, is that throughout earth's history climate change has been driven by factors other than man: "Variable behaviour of the sun is an obvious explanation," says Dr. Weiss, "and there is increasing evidence that Earth's climate responds to changing patterns of solar magnetic activity."

The sun's most obvious magnetic features are sunspots, formed as magnetic fields rip through the sun's surface. A magnetically active sun boosts the number of sunspots, indicating that vast amounts of energy are being released from deep within.

Typically, sunspots flare up and settle down in cycles of about 11 years. In the last 50 years, we haven't been living in typical times: "If you look back into the sun's past, you find that we live in a period of abnormally high solar activity," Dr. Weiss states.

These hyperactive periods do not last long, "perhaps 50 to 100 years, then you get a crash," says Dr. Weiss. 'It's a boom-bust system, and I would expect a crash soon."

In addition to the 11-year cycle, sunspots almost entirely "crash," or die out, every 200 years or so as solar activity diminishes. When the crash occurs, the Earth can cool dramatically. Dr. Weiss knows because these phenomenon, known as "Grand minima," have recurred over the past 10,000 years, if not longer.

"The deeper the crash, the longer it will last," Dr. Weiss explains. In the 17th century, sunspots almost completely disappeared for 70 years. That was the coldest interval of the Little Ice Age, when New York Harbour froze, allowing walkers to journey from Manhattan to Staten Island, and when Viking colonies abandoned Greenland, a once verdant land that became tundra. Also in the Little Ice Age, Finland lost one-third of its population, Iceland half.

The previous cooling period lasted 150 years while a minor crash at the beginning of the 19th century was accompanied by a cooling period that lasted only 30 years.

In contrast, when the sun is very active, such as the period we're now in, the Earth can warm dramatically. This was the case during the Medieval Warm Period, when the Vikings first colonized Greenland and when Britain was wine-growing country.

No one knows precisely when a crash will occur but some expect it soon, because the sun's polar field is now at its weakest since measurements began in the early 1950s. Some predict the crash within five years, and many speculate about its effect on global warming. A mild crash could be beneficial, in giving us Earthlings the decades needed to reverse our greenhouse gas producing ways. Others speculate that the recent global warming may be a blessing in disguise, big-time, by moderating the negative consequences of what might otherwise be a deep chill following a deep crash. During the Little Ice Age, scientists estimate, global temperatures on average may have dropped by less than 1 degree Celsius, showing the potential consequences of even an apparently small decline.

Dr. Weiss prefers not to speculate. He sees the coming crash as an opportunity to obtain the knowledge necessary to make informed decisions on climate change, and the extent to which man-made emissions have been a factor.

"Having a crash would certainly allow us to pin down the sun's true level of influence on the Earth's climate," concludes Dr. Weiss. Then we will be able to act on fact, rather than from fear.

Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Urban Renaissance Institute and Consumer Policy Institute, divisions of Energy Probe Research Foundation.

CV OF A DENIER:

Nigel Weiss, professor emeritus of mathematical astrophysics in the University of Cambridge, discovered the process of "flux expulsion" by which a conducting fluid undergoing rotating motion acts to expel the magnetic flux from the region of motion, a process now known to occur in the photosphere of the sun and other stars. He is also distinguished for his work on the theory of convection, and for precise numerical experiments on the behaviour of complicated non-linear differential equations. Nigel Weiss is a recipient of a Royal Society Citation, he is a past President of the Royal Astronomical Society, and a past Chairman of Cambridge's School of Physical Sciences. He was educated at Clare College, University of Cambridge.
LINK
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Mar, 2007 08:07 am
Foxfyre wrote:
Here is the Post piece in which Professor Weiss claims he was misquoted or misrepresented or whatever. What do you think?


He says that it was a "misleading account" of his views.

http://i18.tinypic.com/2hnnfd5.jpg
Source

University of Cambridge Press Release

Well, Solomon exchanged emails with Dr. Weiss, didn't print/publish Dr. Weiss's correction but carried on to characterize Dr. Weiss as someone who denies that greenhouse gases are the principal cause of climate change.

National Post article 09.02.07
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Mar, 2007 08:39 am
I would like to hear from Proressor Weiss in his own words re the effect of solar activity on climate rather than what others say he said. Is he saying that solar activity is insignificant compared to human activity? Or is he saying that humans are having a significant effect? And on what basis is an expert on solar activity saying that humans are having a significant effect?

The real story here, however, is not Dr. Weiss's opinion because there are distinguished scientists holding differing opinions on both sides of this debate. The real story is in the 'death threats' and hate mail etc. etc. directed at anybody even accused of being a skeptic or global warming denier. (There is a difference between the skeptics and the deniers, but the radical environmental wackos don't seem to make the distinction. You will understand that I find it difficult to take somebody as having serious scientific knowledge or credentials who would presume to shut up somebody who holds a different scientific opinion.

God help us if science is so forced into poltical correctness that only one point of view is allowed.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Mar, 2007 08:41 am
On a lighter note Laughing

Global Warming: Moving Towards Metrosexuals
By Daniel Clark
Mar 17, 2007

The latest point of emphasis in the global warming movement is that cattle farming endangers the planet by producing too much methane. So now, steaks and hamburgers are classified as instruments of destruction, along with large vehicles, lawn mowers, and charcoal grills. It can't be much longer before cowboy movies, cigars and hockey are held to be enemies of the earth as well.

This has got to be the most blatant assault on guyhood since ABC moved Coach to the same night as Roseanne, and turned Hayden Fox into Phil Donahue. It's a wonder that liberals don't cut to the chase, by simply claiming that global warming is caused by testosterone. Then, they could make public school nurses siphon the offending fluid from the boys during health class.

Many environmentalists believe that the earth is a living organism, personified by the Greek goddess Gaia. Conveniently, it turns out that Gaia is a shrew, who demands that her men be reduced to henpecked, metrosexual noodles. Manliness makes Gaia angry, and we wouldn't like her when she's angry, because she'll turn into a green monster and start smashing everything to bits. Hell hath no fury like an earth goddess exposed to excessive cattle-produced methane emissions.

Wouldn't it be more plausible if a few items like styling gel, latte makers and tofu were said to destroy the planet as well? Perhaps, but that would not serve the purpose of expanding the base of the global warming movement. Since no liberal cause can produce much support on its own, any one of them must ally itself with all other liberal causes, so that they can pool their resources.

That's why it's almost impossible to distinguish the original purpose of a left-wing political rally. What starts out being an 'anti-war' demonstration will invariably become an convention of environmentalists, gun control advocates, pro-abortionists, animal rights activists, racial Balkanists, and outright Communists, because that's the only way to prevent the size of the crowd from being laughably small. Therefore, environmental alarmists must incorporate other causes within their own, in order to keep their core of support relatively large and energized. Clearly, they've determined their alliance with the feminists to be vital to these ends.

It's not coincidental that the icon of the global warming movement is former vice president Al Gore, who, during the 2000 presidential campaign, sought advice from feminist author Naomi Wolf on how to become an "alpha male." Needless to say, she did not suggest that he scarf down a steak sandwich while sitting behind the wheel of a riding mower. Instead, her solution was to dress him in earth tones, as if obsessing over his wardrobe was any way to attain guydom. Never is it manly to ask, "does this make my butt look big," even if you want the answer to be yes.

For Wolf to tell Gore that he'd become an "alpha male" just by wearing the right clothing is a little like a mother patronizing her young child. She probably got the idea when Gore put a bucket over his head and said, "Look, Ms. Wolf, I'm an astronaut," and she replied, "Yes, of course you are, dear."

Images of global destruction being more powerful than images of normalcy and stability, Gore and friends are bound to win the competition for people's emotions. Hence, they are now deterring any analysis of the issue, by calling skeptics "global warming deniers," a not very subtle comparison to neo-Nazis. If we succumb to this intimidation like a bunch of namby-pamby rice cake eaters, the debate will be lost for good.

Thus, the global warming movement seeks to repress guyhood in order to perpetuate itself. If a guy is shown a picture of a sad-looking polar bear adrift on an ice floe, his first thought will be something like, "I've heard that bear steaks are tough, but maybe if you marinated them in beer, they'd turn out all right." At that point, the alarmists' emotional ploy is foiled. In a world without guy stuff, however, his vacant mind may be invaded by irrationalities like, "Who will take care of the
polar bears' children?"

In this chicken-and-the-egg scenario, the success of the global warming movement is both the cause and effect of our society's emasculation. It would have never gotten this far if the "Nineties Man" hadn't paved the way. When "I feel your pain" became a successful presidential campaign slogan, we should have known that charcoal-grilled steaks would soon be on the endangered list.

Daniel Clark is a Staff Writer for the New Media Alliance
SOURCE
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 09/20/2024 at 09:32:24