Re: Climate modelling

On Mar 26, 6:50 pm, Gianna <gia...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Martin Brown wrote:

And even today you can still purchase US scientists
to testify on oath that "there is no proof that smoking causes cancer"
using a form of words crafted by some of the best legal brains on the
planet.

Well, as any respectable scientist will tell you, it is accepted as scientific
fact that smoking tobacco drastically increases the risk of the smoker suffering
from cancer (among other things) and especially from lung cancer.

The reason that you can still find one that will say there is no proof smoking
causes cancer is because it is equally accepted as scientific fact that it does
not, and you will be able to find any number of scientists happy to say so.
There would be no need for any legal brains to be involved for that.

That is exactly the impression that you are meant to be left with.

However, it is the problem of proving that the cocktail of known
carcinogens detectable in the inhaled smoke are the causative agent of
later developig cancer. There is a long delay between exposure and
effect. It is quite possible that other cofactors and/or genetic
susceptibility is also involved. It is well known for instance that
the very nasty carcinogen beta-naphthalamine (now banned worldwide)
only affected a percentage of the men exposed to it industrially.

There is an argument based strict interpretation of current COSHH
regulations that every time anyone lights a cigarette they should be
required to fill in a hazardous experiment notice for synthesis and
environmental release of known carcinogens.

But as I said, it does increase the risk to the point where smoking might
reasonably equate to having a death wish.

Shortens life by a significant amount and almost guarantees serious
lung damage if not cancer. The notices on the sides of the packets
seem to have lost their effectiveness.

It might be interesting to note that at a certain age, it was suggested to me
that I might benefit from smoking in moderation ... by a doctor. This used to
be quite commonplace in the past, in most western countries anyway.

Doctors and scientists can be wrong. But as more evidence becomes
available they revise their opinions and advice.

MY point here is that there are good, altruistic, scientists, and there are
those who take the money and do the work ... familiar with what happened to
scientists in America in the fifties and early sixties?

Of course there are people including scientists who are like that. But
they are in a minority. The vast majority of scientists want to find
out about *NATURE* and natural phenomena and will report what they
find warts and all.

Mmmm, but I was referring to the period mentioned, when the US government funded
a massive expansion of MIT (for example) and where students earning appropriate
degrees were offered employment as research scientists. The research work was

MIT was what is euphemistically referred to as dual use enabling
technologies, precision machining, materials research and mathematical
physics most of which is in the open literature - the secret bomb
design work was carried out at the classified closed sites of Los
Alamos and Lawrence Livermore.

entirely on 'defence' systems, specifically the pursuit of nuclear weapons
technology and related delivery systems. Publication of discoveries was of
course forbidden under state secrecy laws.

There are still gaps in published HEP and nuclear science texts caused
by the wish to discourage nuclear proliferation (at least it is in the
interests of nuclear powers to keep their trade secrets secret).

When pressed about this situation in the sixties, graduates were known to
express the view that they were only researching into the secrets of the
universe and the application of their work was nothing to do with them.

Science is amoral. It still describes the natural world and the laws
of physics even if the application is for weapons design. The Teller-
Ulam and Sakharov solutions to making the H-bomb were independent of
their politics.

The only distinction is that Sakharov like Oppenheimer has a soul
whereas Teller does not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrei_Sakharov
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Oppenheimer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Teller

The physics was still correct no matter how unpleasant the individual
scientist or application.

Nature is the ultimate arbiter of any scientific theory.

This was not a minority. This was mainstream scientific research. I cannot be
bothered to mention the additional chemical and biological weapons research ...
oops I have. It should not be assumed that these areas of endeavour have gone
away, although they are certainly no longer on the same scale as during the
'cold war'.

No-one has ever said that science is moral or that all brilliant
scientists (or artists for that matter) are nice people. I fail to see
what relevance this has to your not accepting the evidence for climate
change. The chemistry behind weapons research was independent of who
did it. In fact the very nasty Japanese research was in huge demand
post WWII by both the US and Russia who grabbed it and gave immunity
to the researchers whose research results they wanted.

And to make the point that British climate scientists are just as
concerned about misrepresentation by the AGW lobby overstating their
case and making sensationalist headline grabbing claims that are
unsubstatiated by the facts.

Indeed, at least two of them are. This is not disputed.

Has it ever occurred to you that the reason why there are not more
scientists denying AGW is that most of those that have looked at the
evidence see that it is compelling? Why do you need a conspiracy
theory to explain this?

Regards,
Martin Brown

.