On Tue, 13 May 2008 23:03:50 -0700 (PDT), Pit <spamlister@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
after considering some belly-button fluf, wrote:
>
>You have had your opinion through scientific peer review no doubt.
Yes, actually I have. Plenty of papers by people like Roger Pielke Snr
(professor of climatology at the University of Colorado) for example.
Then there's Richard Lindzen (professor of climatology at MIT). Quite
obviously, here are two (and there are more) professors of Climatology
who find the evidence unconvincing and have published papers on the
matter - studiously ignored by UN IPCC, naturally.
>
>Climate change is a fact and has been since a bunch of reptiles
>snuffed it .
Sure - the only constant is change.
BTW, have you seen the latest from Germany? A paper suggesting that we
may be looking at a(nother) decade of static or even dropping temps.
Of course, they suggest that this natural change will "mask" or
"suppress" the effects of AGW, which will - of course - return
afterwards. So keep that panic up, won't you?
But I don't think that's the best one. The absolute best one is Gavin
Schmit (or was it James Hansen?) on RealClimate. You see, he argues
that the static temps of the last 8 years or so don't falsify his
beloved climate models. Essentially, he is saying that as long as the
uncertainty in the models overlaps the uncertainty in the
observations, his models are not falsified. That sounds perfectly
reasonable until you take the trouble to calculate how much change
we'd need to falsify his models. Wanna guess? How about this: temps
need to drop by 10C or rise by 13C to falsify his models by this
standard. Oh, and it needs to be lasting too - he won't accept
anything less than 20 years worth of data, and prefers more. And - of
course - in his opinion NASA GISS temp. reconstructions are the "best"
metric. Did I mention that he's involved in the "adjustments" used in
this series? No? Oh well, I'm sure he wouldn't let any personal biases
or preconceptions affect his temperature series work - that would be
unprofessional, wouldn't it?
Actually, I take it back - that's only second best. The best is your
friend and mine, Al Gore. We should all pay attention to what he says.
Here are some quotes for you:
"He's a loony and in the pay of oil companies, so we can't really
trust him"
"I've put my money where my mouth is and invested in alternative
energy and carbon offsets"
"It's OK to exagerate the effects of global warming to get people to
act"
**** he's good, isn't he? If you doubt his word, it's because you have
a financial interest in the outcome. Of course, his own financial
interest in the outcome is because he cares about the environment -
that he stands to make a fortune from any carbon trading scheme is
just a bonus, right? And he's happy to lie to you about how bad it is
because he wants to protect the environment and it has absolutely
nothing to do with any financial interests he may have, right? Sure...
On a completely different topic, I have a bridge I'm looking to sell.
Know anyone who might be interested? One owner, well maintaned, good
income stream - hey, it's the perfect investment. Going for a song too
- but only because I like you.
Neil
---
Neil Fisher / Bob Young
Thundercords
personal opinion unless otherwise noted.
Looking for spark plug leads?
Check out http://www.magnecor.com.au
|
