Homestead mailing list

[Rob <becida AT comcast.net>]

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