anorton wrote:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 13:12:22 -0800, "anorton"
wrote:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 09:26:04 -0700, Lewis Hartswick
wrote:

Rich Grise wrote:
Dave__67 wrote:
On Jan 27, 9:09 am, ignator wrote:
NOVA has become total goo-goo-gaa-gaa science, and is now
intended for
kids. I wish they would replay the original shows I remember from
1976, these were not dumb down. Oh well, the intent is to get more
kids in science. Just what I need more kids that are academic, and
have no "knack".
Same with scientific american- they dialed the smarts waaaay back.

I used to have a supscription to SA; I dropped it in the 1970's when
they
went warmingist.

Uh, don't you mean "coldingist", sir? The exact same data (up to that
year) they're looking at now -used- to point to another ice age,
remember? All I can say for sure is that "climate" scientists have a
long, long way to go, both in understanding and modeling, before
they're accurate. Humans can't predict squat...yet.
Humans 0, Mother Nature 1.


No, not really. There were a few speculative papers talking about a
possible cooling trend that were picked up and sensationalized in
1975 by
Newsweek and others. Even then, by far, most published research
pointed to
warming not cooling. Pretty much all papers back then emphasized the
need
to more study and more computer power. See here for more info:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-...s-in-1970s.htm

I remember many headlines about ice and can't remember any about
warming from back then, and I took up the environmental sword at that
time. I've been recycling, reducing, and reusing for 40 years. That
site you linked is run by an Aussie AGWKer who usurped the skeptic
name, the blackguard. sigh


You stated above: "All I can say for sure is that "climate"
scientists have
a long, long way to go, both in understanding and modeling, before
they're
accurate." That would have been be an accurate conclusion 36 years
ago, and
that is why you did not hear a call to action back then even if you did
catch pieces of the scientific debate. However, A lot of progress
has been
made in 36 years, and the fundamental question of human-produced CO2
causing
warming is settled in the minds practically every one who has any
expert
knowledge in the subject.

OK, show me a single one of those "climate" scientists who can make
their current modeling software -accurately- predict the future. Hell,
they can't even make it track the _past_ accurately, and they have
exact data for that. Go ahead, prove me wrong.


I am sorry, but these statements about models are just pure propaganda.
For past correlation see for example the plot on the second page of this
paper:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2005/...sen_etal_1.pdf
This whole myth about inaccurate models started with this fellow's
testimony to congress in 1988:
http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-pm072998.html
He falsified the data by omission by excluding Hansen's most likely
scenarios.

Future predictions of various models with various assumptions can be
found he
http://www.ig.utexas.edu/people/staf..._predictio.htm

Yes they differ, but they all predict warming.

What convinces me is not even the models. You can do the calculation on
paper to find the LEAST possible effect:
http://www.hfranzen.org/GWPPT6.pdf



Jayzuss, I can't believe that, even after the scandals about doctoring
data and keeping skeptic papers from getting published, you bastids
still don't accept facts and can't see that the burning wool is being
pulled over your eyes by scam artists going for the enviro-loot.
deep sigh

Another hallmark of propaganda is yesterday's unfounded and discredited
accusation is today's fact. No one has been found after investigations
to have doctored data (and there have been a lot of accusations thrown
around). There was the IPCC incident which involved an exagerated
conclusion by one of the technocrats writing the report (they repeated
the conclusion of an older paper about Himalyan glaciers that had
previously been shown to be incorrect). This was brought to light by
other scientists who had contributed to the report (not a very
indicative of a conspiracy is it).

If you have a good background in physics you can look at the paper
calculations yourself. If not, you either believe there is this vast
conspiracy of tens of thousands of people lasting for 35 or 40 years or
you do not.

--
We're all here because we're not all there.



Excellent points, anorton.

But

What seems to stick in people's craw is attributing a cause to the effect.



--

Richard Lamb
email me:
web site: http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb