Re: Ice cap melting FAST !

"Froggy" wrote ...
Tchiowa wrote:
> Froggy wrote:
> > Tchiowa a écrit :
> > > Froggy wrote:
> > > > Tchiowa a écrit :
<snip>
> > Well, if really I believed that (i) the doctor's advice is profundly
biased and (ii) the risks associated with the proposed cure vastly outweight
the ailment, then I would probably go and see another doctor.
> Which is *exactly* what the US did and the other doctors (like NOAA) said
"not so fast".

I see no evidence of that in the source you provided. Where do you have any
statement from the NOAA stating that the Kyoto protocol's cost outweight its
potential benefits?

-->I'd like to see such, since it seems T is just implying as fact something
that exists only as disinformation.

Actualy what the US administration does is to try and tamper scientific
reports to make them fit its political agenda:

-->(and not just WRT climate science--this has been done with USGS reports
regarding wildlife and EPA findings regarding poisoning of groundwater, as 2
examples)

usa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/climate-change.html
"After coming to office, the administration asked the National Academy of
Sciences (NAS) to review the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC) and provide further assessment of what climate
science could say about this issue. The NAS panel rendered a strong
opinion, which, in essence, confirmed that of the IPCC. The
AmericanGeophysical Union, the world's largest organization of earth
scientists, has also released a strong statement describing human-caused
disruptions of Earth's climate. Yet Bush administration pokespersons
continue to contend that the uncertainties in climate projections and fossil
fuel emissions are too great to warrant mandatory action to slow emissions."

Which prompted over 60 leading scientists-Nobel laureates, leading medical
experts, former federal agency directors (democrat and republicans), and
university chairs and presidents-to voice their concern over the misuse of
science by the Bush administration, on February 18, 2004.

<snip>

> I don't know. Do you? Are you willing to risk *any* deaths on a "maybe"?
We did that once. I'm not in favor of doing it again.

This cuts both ways. Are you willing to do nothing to address a potentially
devastating phenomenon because, maybe, most of the scientists have got it
wrong?

-->Apparently so, while having atimes offered arguments that are
contradictory even within themselves, such as the thread where Tchiowa
claimed for earth's climate some nebulous 'equilibrium finding' process;
given even a simple chart showing large mean global temperature change over
time, and asked to show an equilibrium tmeperature, T made an utter fool of
himself by first claiming the chart showed no temperature values (it took
current mean as zero point and showed past temperatures as differences), and
then tried some silliness by claiming I understood not the meaning of Delta
T; pressed further to provide an equilibrium temperature, T did everything
BUT provide one. The decrepitude of intellectual dishonesty of that one is
as remarkable as that of the current administration WRT actual science

> > And why do you believe that scientists have such a bias. After all,
there's much more money to be made on the "big oil" side, no?

What's rather remarkable about the innuendo mongering against US EAS
scientists is that the presumption is that scientists finding global warming
and especially anthropogenic contributions to such are implied as spinning
up data just to keep grants flowing, and this under the watch of
governmental agencies whose administrators would win MUCH appreciation from
our oil-rich barons in DC were any sort of deception
discovered--counter-intuitive, to say the least.
>
> The scientists aren't oil company employees.

But the politicians editing their reports are:

Still from
http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/climate-change.html:
"The edits [on several 2002 and 2003 scientific climate change reports]
increased and at times overstated the level of uncertainty associated with
climate science. According to the New York Times, the edits tended"to
produce an air of doubt about findings that most climate experts say are
robust."

The edits were made by Philip A. Cooney, then chief of staff of the White
House Council on Environmental Quality, who formerly worked for the American
Petroleum Institute and led the oil industry's drive to prevent restrictions
on greenhouse gas emissions.32 Mr. Cooney is a lawyer with no scientific
training.
[...]
Two days after the original documents with Cooney's edits were
released, Cooney resigned. Just days later, Exxon Mobil Corporation
announced that the company had hired Cooney for an unspecified
position. The chairman of Exxon Mobil, Lee Raymond, has been an
outspoken opponent of efforts to curb global warming. According to the
Associated Press, Raymond has "come out strongly against the Kyoto
Protocol and has repeatedly questioned the science behind climate
change."

==>Following the NY Times exposure of Cooney's chicanery, the White House
avowed that the changes made by Mr. Cooney were part of the normal
interagency review that takes place on all documents related to global
environmental change.
. . SNAFU, indeed.
Oh, and here's two examples of Cooney's 'artistry':
http://img444.imageshack.us/my.php?image=08climategraph2cx.jpg

> Remember Greenpeace and the Shell platform?
<snip>
> Do you think Greenpeace is biased toward oil companies?

No. Greenpeace was wrong in that case. Note that they eventually
acknowledged it when confronted with properly researched evidence.
Now because Greenpeace was wrong on that case, and an oil company was right,
does that mean that all environmentalists are wrong and all oil
companies are right, on all case?

-->All too usual propagandists' method of taking the (selected) part to
equal the whole, similarly when White House cliamed one of Cooney's reports
was okayed by NAS.
'He did one good one, thus his work is good and approved by scientists' is
what was hopefully implied
Pathetic.

<snip>
> We know 100% for sure that if we competely stopped all CO2 emissions the
earth would continue to warm.

I do not think that any climate scientist would be willing to state that we
know anything "100% for sure" regarding the climate's future.

-->True, while the notion that "if it's hot out, there's no need to turn off
the furnace since the house is getting hot anyway" SOMEHOW does not occur to
be as idiotic an argument to Tchiowa as the 'stop CO2 emissions and earth
still warms' one constitutes, when the fact of ongoing warming STRONGLY
suggests NOT to add to it needlessly.

> Some scientists think it wouldn't warm quite so fast but all agree it
would continue to warm.

Not *some*. The overwhelming majority.

-->Correct, and as claimed as representative by one ostensibly knowledgable,
is an outright lie.

> We also know 100% for sure that Kyoto would cause a recession in the US
and
> since the US is the economic driver for the world today then that would
> mean a worldwide recession. We just don't know how deep it would be and
> how many people would be hurt and possibly die because of it.

You "know 100% for sure" that the relatively modest additional cost of
the Kyoto protocol to the US, for using fossil fuels, would be enough
to trigger a severe recession?! Wow!

-->Remarkable, huh?

Then how come the much, much more significant cost of the increase in oil
prices has not had that effect yet?

> My vote is that we answer these questions *first*. Jumping to a wrong
conclusion would also make it "too late".

If there's a scientific consnsus on anything, it is on the fact that we'll
probably never know anything "100% for sure" in this matter for a
very long while. Saying "let's wait until we know for sure" is a thinly
disguised way of saying "let's sit on our hands forever". The decision
to do or not do anything, based on the (naturally imperfect) knowledge
available today, is a political decision.

-->Utterly so, while the Big Oil and Bush regime apologists crow on that 'no
no no--it's those scientists that are pushing a political agenda'

Now some politicians seems to have a marked tendency to prefer
misrepresenting available information, in a wide range of cases, rather than
try and face the reality.

-->One sure way to get paid. Big Corporations have big pockets, and
politicians are one of the highest yielding with lowest risk investments
that can be made.
. . not even the appearance of deniability with Cooney--right from
editorial dilution and devaluation of climate science consensus into the
embrace of Exxon went he--quelle surprise!

Cheers,
Froggy

-->Cheers,
-maxwell


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled
    ... I'm basically "at home" with snow and ice. ... Proof is not to be had in science. ... The scientists active in these areas make it their ... climate forcing, in my view. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: OT - Hansen acknowledges solar forcing
    ... but that doesn't say anythihg about global warming. ... If you'd ever done any real science, ... initialised to the observed state and none of the climate states in the ... Then we were warned by the Club of Rome,supported by large numbers of scientists, that we would run out of natural resources in our lifetimes. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: Does Bruce Sing "Change In The Weather" ???
    ... ed by Sarah Palin critical of the Copenhagen climate summit called ... Copenhagen’s political science. ... Some scientists had strong doubts about the accuracy of ... As governor of Alaska, I took a stand ...
    (rec.music.artists.springsteen)
  • Re: How Scientists Cant Communicate
    ... start of his paper - that scientists are heterogenous. ... topics like evolution and climate change are hardly people innocently ... misunderstanding the science. ... or that adjusting to climate ...
    (rec.arts.drwho)
  • Re: Does Bruce Sing "Change In The Weather" ???
    ... ed by Sarah Palin critical of the Copenhagen climate summit called ... Copenhagen’s political science. ... Some scientists had strong doubts about the accuracy of ... This resulted in such government bureaucrats taking ...
    (rec.music.artists.springsteen)