"T. Keating" <tkusenet@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:oarmv31d5kspp1nsqc7kcv6cr9o7jg1b92@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 01:07:44 -0700 (PDT), chemist
> <tom-bolger@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>>On Apr 8, 1:50 am, Annabel Lee <annabel....@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>wrote:
>>> I see no science or logical debate going on here. Just insults and
>>> assertions without any references.
>>>
>>> This is ridiculous! I'm out of here!
>>
>>I try to discuss the "Science" of AGW I mostly get
>>illogical arguments in reply When I point these
>>illogicalities out, my opponents resort to insults.
>
> You're not interested in discussing Science.
> You have no science training..
> Yet you've adopted the nickname "chemist".. A fraud..
>
>
> The science behind AGW is fairly clear..
Monday, 22 January, 2001, 16:53 GMT
Global Warming Not "Clear Cut"
The IPCC claims the science of global warming is beyond question
By BBC News Online's Jonathan Amos
Scientists sceptical about the nature or pace of global warming
challenged
the "consensus" being presented on the issue on Monday by researchers
working for the United Nations.
There are huge uncertainties to do with the science that goes into
the
computer models that predict the future
Prof David Unwin, Birkbeck College, London
Meeting in Shanghai, China, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change
(IPCC) said the Earth would warm up in the coming 100 years faster than
at
any time in the last 10,000 years. And they pointed the finger of blame
squarely at human activities, in particular fossil-fuel burning.
The panel's Working Group One said computer models were predicting
temperature rises of between 1.4 and 5.8 degrees Celsius over the coming
century and sea level rises that could be measured in tens of
centimetres.
It said there was now little doubt about what was happening to the
planet's
climate and governments should act to curb greenhouse gas emissions.
But several scientists outside the IPCC criticised what they described
as
the "arrogance" of the UN body, insisting that the evidence for global
warming was still far from certain.
Climate uncertainties
Sir John Houghton, the former UK Met Office chief who co-chaired the
Shanghai meeting, said that, in his view, there could no longer be any
doubt
about the human effect on climate.
Some believe indirect solar effects have a bigger impact than the
IPCC
will concede
"The evidence is certainly sufficiently strong for countries to take
action
based on what we've said," he told BBC News Online. "I think there are
very
few scientists who'd disagree with the IPCC. And most of those who do
disagree have not published much," he added.
However, the prominent global warming sceptic Professor Philip Stott,
from
the University of London, was quick to disagree. He said recent research
had
damaged the credibility of the IPCC and its climate predictions.
"In the last month alone, serious scientific studies have undermined the
whole basis of these predictions, with the temperature over the oceans
seen
as exaggerated by up to 40% and the very relation****p between carbon
dioxide
and temperature questioned."
Political response
He added: "The IPCC models and correlations are not new; they are
re-cycled
'old hat'. It is essentially a political response to the collapse of The
Hague climate talks."
Professor Stott said computer models presented various "stories" or
scenarios and people should not see them as outcomes that were bound to
happen.
"There are over 40 such stories; inevitably, of course, the media
selects
the very worst storyline," he said.
His concerns were echoed by Professor David Unwin, an environmental
scientist at Birkbeck College, London. He said the IPCC was guilty of
glossing over many of the uncertainties in climate science.
"These uncertainties are never really made explicit," he said. "The IPCC
will give you error bars but there are huge uncertainties to do with the
science that goes into the computer models that predict the future."
He said the models had progressively drawn back from the real doomsday
scenarios of a few years ago as climate processes had become better
understood and incor****ated into calculations. "And in my view, and in
the
view of many other scientists, this refinement has a long way to go."
Weather hazards
Professor Unwin said the IPCC, in becoming "fixated on the control of
carbon
dioxide as a measure to tackle global warming", had allowed other issues
such as energy conservation and cleaner air to slip off the agenda.
"And it has made light of all the other levers that society could pull
to
aid and adapt its way out of the problem that we may or may not have.
All
the social science evidence on weather hazards shows that, by and large,
trying to modify the hazard isn't a strategy that works.
There is a lobby which makes money out of global warming promotion
and
research, and governments around the world collect taxes on the back of
it
all
Piers Corbyn, weather forecaster
"I would like the IPCC to stress the steps that society could take to
adapt
better to the consequences of global warming - and that includes managed
retreat from the shoreline, not building on flood plains, care with
water
conservation and scheduling, and so on."
Piers Corbyn of Weather Action, a company that provides long-term
forecasts
to UK industry, claimed the IPCC had quite simply got it wrong. Corbyn,
like
a large group of solar scientists, believes the UN body has
underestimated
some of the indirect effects of the Sun on the Earth's climate.
"Particles and magnetic effects from the Sun are the decisive influence
that
controls world temperatures," he said. "The evidence can be seen in the
graphic representation of geomagnetic activity plotted alongside world
temperatures. The two correlate very closely.
"I think there is a political agenda here. There is a lobby which makes
money out of global warming promotion and research, and governments
around
the world collect taxes on the back of it all. If governments are
serious,
they should sup****t research into solar effects."
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
"CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet's climate on
long, medium and even short time scales." R. Timothy Patterson,
Professor Of Geology, Director Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Center,
Carleton University, Canada
|
