Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

homestead - Re: [Homestead] Dryland agriculture

homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Homestead mailing list

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Rob <becida AT comcast.net>
  • To: homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [Homestead] Dryland agriculture
  • Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 21:27:41 -0700

At 10/18/2006 08:51 PM,Marie McHarry wrote:
On 10/18/06, Rob <becida AT comcast.net> wrote:

> I think this stuff is interesting, I've been
> reading it for some time and watching the changes in reporting.
> Anyway this one was a bit different.
>
> http://www.nevadaappeal.com/article/20061015/OPINION/110150097
>
The consensus in the part of the scientific community that studies
this stuff is that global warming is real. In addition to everything
else, sun activity has changed (it's cyclical, so it will -- hopefully
-- return to doing what it was doing) and is contributing to screwed
up weather.

Is the climate changing? I'd ask if it ever stayed the same? The earth is dynamic and in the long run never stays the same. We very well could be at that point in time where we start to notice the change. I don't know & I'm thinking that no one has a good enough handle on it to really tell what's happening.

I do wonder about the "consensus".

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm
>>"Scientists have an independent obligation to respect and present the truth as they see it," Al Gore sensibly asserts in his film "An Inconvenient Truth", showing at Cumberland 4 Cinemas in Toronto since Jun 2. With that outlook in mind, what do world climate experts actually think about the science of his movie?
Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."
But surely Carter is merely part of what most people regard as a tiny cadre of "climate change skeptics" who disagree with the "vast majority of scientists" Gore cites?
No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. "Climate experts" is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.
Even among that fraction, many focus their studies on the impacts of climate change; biologists, for example, who study everything from insects to polar bears to poison ivy. "While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge about the causes of global climate change," explains former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball. "They usually can tell us only about the effects of changes in the local environment where they conduct their studies."
This is highly valuable knowledge, but doesn't make them climate change cause experts, only climate impact experts.
So we have a smaller fraction.
But it becomes smaller still. Among experts who actually examine the causes of change on a global scale, many concentrate their research on designing and enhancing computer models of hypothetical futures. "These models have been consistently wrong in all their scenarios," asserts Ball. "Since modelers concede computer outputs are not "predictions" but are in fact merely scenarios, they are negligent in letting policy-makers and the public think they are actually making forecasts."
We should listen most to scientists who use real data to try to understand what nature is actually telling us about the causes and extent of global climate change. In this relatively small community, there is no consensus, despite what Gore and others would suggest. <<






Rob

becida AT comcast.net
Western Washington State, USA





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page