Thank you Scientific American!

Hi Brit,

Well, the buy in to the Global Warming hoax is complete with this bit from Scientific American, Final Report: Humans Caused Global Warming.  The once independent and respected science magazine has, obviously, been either bought or pressured by Higher Powers into this trite piece of crap journalism.  What a sad day.

For instance, they say “a panel of climate experts has confirmed,” when they know, or should know, that the “climate experts” have backgrounds in a wide range of disciplines having nothing to do with climate studies.

Then they continue with, “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a working group of some 3,000 delegates from 113 countries, today issued its final report here on the state of climate change”  Which is another bit of reportage dung, since this isn’t the final report but, rather, the premature release of the summary of a report that will be issued later, but which will be edited to conform to the political statement represented by this summary.  Shame on you once great science journal.

Then they go on to include this bit of drek, “Some of the models show an ice-free Arctic. We see more severe extremes, heat waves. We see a lot of heavier precipitation, drought increases in a lot of regions. Tropical cyclones are projected to become more intense in a lot of areas with ongoing increases in sea surface temperatures,” says Gerald Meehl, an atmospheric scientist at the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and a contributing author. “We see what we’ve already seen but everything becoming a lot more extreme.”  Knowing full well that computer models of climate change are not intended to be predictive, but, rather, are merely a means of testing scientists’ understanding of what has happened to date.  I would ask, “who is paying you off SA, and what is the dollar amount necessary to buy your integrity?”

 Then they slip this in, “This warming would vary from place to place, with some regions experiencing far more,” begging the question of what is actually meant by “global warming?”

Back to computer models we have this pearl of wisdom: For instance, thanks to a diversity of computer models—as well as several runs of each—the scientists can now provide a best estimate for the temperature change based on a doubling of carbon dioxide (CO2) levels in the atmosphere: three degrees Celsius.  To which I must ask, if the models are worth the cost of the electricity it takes to run them, then why are several runs of each necessary?  The answer, of course, is that the models are tossing dice (random numbers) somewhere in their bowels so each run comes out different.  Keep this in mind when your taxes go up based on these “facts.”

Finally, we come to the real problem with this article, and the IPCC report.  Instead of being based on science, it’s based on politics and committee meetings as is shown by, “The process of drafting this summary report proved contentious at times. For example, a sentence was ultimately removed that said man-made greenhouse gases outweigh the contribution of the sun by a factor of five.”  Sorry to bother you “climate scientists” with this, but “facts” are either true, or they are not true.  Anytime data has to be followed with a plus/minus degree of accuracy, it’s a guess just like an opinion poll.  Scientific American should know better than to fall for this crap.  You disappoint me greatly.

the Grit

6 Responses to “Thank you Scientific American!”

  1. naught101 Says:

    you crack me up greatly.

    if you actually READ the IPCC summary for policy makers, you’ll notice that the factor of five data is still there, complete and correct. it’s just that the wording “outweigh.. by a factor of five” was to politically forceful. the facts are there, but now people have to work it out for themselves.

    there’s no such thing as a “fact” when you are dealing with the future. there are only probabilities. the science inherently recognises this. the models are basically simplistic chaos systems. they run multiple times, and then the range and average is taken into account to put forth predictions.

    why are you even writing such a detailed critique if you have to beg for an definition of “global warming”? global warming it the [i]average warming of the globe[/i]. if point A gets 1C cooler, and point B gets 3C warmer, then the average of the two is 1C warmer.

    I wonder why you question the Scientific American? I don’t read it, but I assume that it’s a magazine devoted to scientific evidence. but you aren’t questioning the science, are you? you’re questioning the political integrity of the magazine. well and good, but you have no more proven political integity than they do, and you have NO scientific evidence to back up your claim that the science reporting is “crap… dung… drek”.

    nice reading you.

  2. madmouser Says:

    Grit, I agree with you wholeheartedly. This global warming issue is just another scare tactic so that the government can take away more of our money, apply new regulations and on and on. They have drained all they can from the current pile of crap, so they needed a new one. Bigger and scarier than the others.

    Mother Nature is in charge and she likes things to run in cycles. It pleases her, so we have no power over Mother Nature and the little impact our billions of dollars can make will hardly be noticeable. But, all the friends and political contributors who will make great fortunes at our expense will greatly appreciate it.

    Like I said in a previous blog, if people are the cause, then the best solution is to rid the world of a lot of people. Let’s everybody go to war until we get the population down to the number of people best suited for
    an preferable climate.

    Why beat around the bush. You have a problem and now you have the definitive solution. They only thing left to do is to decide who goes to war with whom. Maybe draw names from a hat.

  3. naught101 Says:

    surely those calling for half the population to be wiped out should volunteer to be on the front line?

  4. britandgrit Says:

    Hi n,

    As to facts, I’m getting tired of hearing all you fact deniers. For instance, the fact you mention, that Global Warming is really Average Global Warming. Of course, if people thought that only some areas were warming, they might not care, so the Political – Scientific Complex has to make it personal. For that matter, the method used to calculate these average temperatures is, to put it nicely, questionable. In many areas of the world the measurements from one instrument are being used as representative for thousands of square miles. Oh, and those just happen to be areas showing the most warming. Combine that fact with the political editing of the IPCC reports and that body’s remarkable ability to summarize a report that hasn’t been written yet, and anyone should be skeptical. If you follow the money behind Global Warming, you should go beyond being skeptical, to being angry.

    Hi m,

    Over population is, as you say, the real problem in the world. However, our glorious political leaders won’t do anything about this, since it would reduce the tax base and, in time, increase everyones’ standards of living and education to the point where enough people would want to change the basic order of things, starting with who the glorious political leaders are.

    the Grit

  5. Lee Says:

    When an “ology” becomes an “ism” it is time to question motives.
    I am yet to be convinced the facts point significantly in any particular direction regarding temperature changes on a world wide basis. However I am concerned by the hysteria about the negative impacts a rise in temperature would have on our environment. I am sure the negatives have been well documented by the evening news. I would be pleased to have a warmer climate. We would benefit from a longer growing season. An ice free northwest passage would open up more effective shipping lanes for lower transportation costs and more international trade. Warmer winters would reduce heating costs and use of fuel. Etc. Etc. Etc. If we were faced with the prospect of global cooling (as we were 30 years ago), would we not have a similar doomsday senerio about the disasters of lowering sea-levels and glaciers covering our poorest cities.

    Where is the outrage about spending billions of dollars to rebuild the levees around New Orleans and not designing them to withstand the 2 foot higher sea-level we will surely have within 100 years?

    If we are to believe by faith in global warming. I suggest we all view “An Inconvient Truth” and “The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe”. Both are about global warming and come to very different conclusions.

  6. britandgrit Says:

    Hi Lee,

    Very good! You are now on our “most welcome commenter” list!

    As to New Orleans and levees and Government money, that is just the way NOLA is. A very significant percentage of Federal aid to build/maintain/expand/improve the levee system always seems to vanish as it passes through the State and Local government. It’s been that way for decades and, considering the results of the last election, change is unlikely. Since my son lives there, I worry about this a lot! On the up side, even the threat of a hurricane makes him come home, so we get to see him more 😉

    Come back often,
    the Grit

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: