Archive for the ‘Scientific American’ Category

Disorder in the ranks of Global Warming fanatics?

February 10, 2007

Hi Brit,

It seems that the Church of Global Warming should pick a High Priest to coordinate things.

On one hand we have, Congress eyes legislation to fight climate change (which I mentioned previously,) many countries are trying to implement the Kyoto Treats, and the EU is in the process of adding all sorts of new environmental laws.

On the other hand, we have, Climate Change Verdict: Science Debate Ends, Solution Debate Begins.  While I contest the “Science debate ends” part, having posted about this several times in the recent past, I point out the “Solution debate begins” part, as it relates to what I just mentioned above.  If there is still debate, even among the ranks of the faithful, as to what to do about Global Warming, then a rational person would have to question how our politicians can know what laws to pass to fix it?  If they understand things better than the Climate Scientists on who’s’ knowledge rests the concept and proof of Global Warming, perhaps they should write the IPCC reports on the subject.  Wait, sorry, I forgot, they did.  Still, one would think that some scientific basis would be needed to formulate solutions to a real problem.

On the gripping hand, I found this, UTSA researchers examine effects of global warming on Antarctic.  Now, call me crazy, but I thought this was “settled science,” and we know that the Antarctic ice is melting.  So, a rational person must ask, why are we waisting money examining things we already know all about?  Shouldn’t those funds be going to find a solution to Global Warming, or at least to implementing the solutions the politicians already seem to know about?

I have to say, Global Warming fanatics, y’all really should anoint a High Priest in an effort to get your act together.  How about AlGore?

the Grit

Thank you Scientific American!

February 3, 2007

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