Posted by:
CSRAJim
at Sat Feb 13 00:06:42 2010 [ Email Message ] [ Show All Posts by CSRAJim ]
Brad,
>>Jim, the fossil fuel folks and the guys at Fox news love people like you-you're really drinking their kool-aid by the gallon. Let's look at it point by point:
Kind of like the folks at ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, and the east and left coast times love people like you…
>>Startegy one: Deny global climate change-never mind that virtually ALL the researchers and authorities in the actual field of climatology will tell you the science is rock-solid. Deny it anyway. The sheeple WANT to believe, after all...
With folks like some of these “scientists” perpetrating this “international” fraud as “science”…Yeah, that’s rock solid to me…You choose to believe what you wish…No worries
>>Two: Claim that solar, wind, geothermal, etc are "impractical", "unproven", "too expensive", "not competitive" (and carefully ignore the huge wind farms springing up across the country, thin-film nano-solar that will be available later in 2010 and reduce solar electric costs by such a large percentage that it will make it competitive with current -and I might add heavily subsidized-fossil fuels, and the fact that the solar and wind potential of west Texas alone could power the entire country, were the infrastructure upgraded to permit distribution, etc, etc, etc....)
You really didn’t read what I said…Until they can produce it on the scale necessary to provide energy for the nation…It IS unproven, impractical and too expensive and without the benefit of forced implementation by the government with legislation (law), NOT COMPETITIVE.
>>Three: Call yourself an "Environmentalist", and claim that you are all for changes at some carefully undefined "future date" when such things will be "practical". Repeat as necessary.
By degree, I am an environmentalist and from years of experience, I know the bureaucratic “red tape” first hand and just how expensive it all of this stuff is…When I graduated from college, I thought I’d be making a difference for the environment but I came to realize over time, that this was not the case. You only know what the alphabet news tells you. Again, no worries…
>>Four: When backed into a corner, grudgingly acknowledge past environmental successes, but paint them as "isolated instances", and not worth their "massive cost". After all, what good has a peregrine falcon ever done YOU?
Backed into a corner? Please that is not something you are capable of doing…Try again. Yes, BILLIONS of dollars over almost two decades for 1-3% success…Yes Brad, I’m afraid you’ll buy anything because in your mind, that’s close enough for government work…
>>Honestly I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree here, my friend. But I'll bet Palin's 2012 campaign could definitely use you. You're her kind of people!
OK, we’ll agree to disagree here except for preserving our herping…I think we’re mutual in that regard. No, Palin and I are not our kind of people as it appears as though she’s “in it for the money” and didn’t even finish her term as Governor…Kind of like your President.
Have a good one,
Jim.
PS: Read below…Here are just a few of the emails Brad…I guess you’ve not actually read them…
Let’s see, reading things like best estimates, disclaimers, problems for policymakers (bureaucrats and politicians) is problematic but reading FOR WHOME THE WHOLE IPCC EXERCISE IS UNDERTAKEN? Reading something like this from scientists is most troubling…I thought this was about science (as environmentalism was back when I first started)…Yeah, you stick to your evening news casts…By the way in these emails, the spelling is theirs…
From: gjjenkins@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
To: m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: RE: WGI emissions/scenarios conference
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 09:15 +0000 (GMT)
Mike
I think the problem is the same one as in 1988 and 1994. In order to answer the question: "what is IPCC's best estimate of climate change over the next hundred years, and the uncertainties?" we need a single best estimate of emissions (plus a range of uncertainty). In the same way as modellres say "here is our best estimate of climate sensitivity plus a range" then the SRES group should do the same thing. Of course they can make all the usual disclaimers and talk about surprises just as the climate modellers do. But NOT to come up with an estimate for a Business as Usual emissions scenario (plus a range, of 6GtC to 30GtC at 2100) seems to be ducking responsibilities. "Getting away from single number answers" is very laudable scientifically, but it presents policymakers (for whome the whole IPCC exercise is undertaken) with a problem. As long as there is a central estimate and a range, the surely both communities could be happy, as they ultimately were with BaU in 1990 and IS92a in 1995?
Geoff
OK, perhaps that email above didn’t raze any concerns with you but, interest by the WHITE HOUSE for “needed visibility”? Really? The time frame here is 1998 and who was in the WHITE HOUSE at this time? If they went skiing, who paid for it? I wonder WHY none of this is discussed in the alphabet news…Perhaps it is similar to what is going on with the pythons in the ENP or the experiment at SREL (that we will not see until the “peer review” is complete in June 2010)…By the way, after Dr. Overpeck shared in the IPCC’s Nobel Prize he moved on and is now at the University of Arizona…
From: "Jonathan T. Overpeck"
To: Phil Jones
Subject: Re: climate of the last millennia...
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1998 12:17:24 -0700
Cc: k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ray bradley , mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Hi Phil - thanks for your detailed reply to my email. I look forward to working with you and the rest of the gang to really improve the state of paleo contributions to the detection/attribution issue. The earlier we get a small group together, the better, so I suggest we try to take you up on
the AMS add-on idea. It would be ideal to have a 1 to 1.5day mtg in Boulder since we have many of the needed perspectives (ice core, coral, seds, data, etc) here. What would be the best dates for you (and Keith - I'm hoping he'll be up for this too). We can find the extra $$ to get folks to Boulder and have a quality time (do you ski?).
Once we set the dates with you (PLEASE SEND FAVORED DATES), Mike and Ray, we can set the agenda. The main thing is that it would set the stage for the extra degree of data sharing we'll need before the planned Santorini mtg (still no dates - please bug Jean-Claude!!). Sound ok?
As for the data from your paper, I'd like to get them up with the data from the other studies on the WDC www site asap. (JUST LET ME KNOW HOW!) The White House is interested in knowing the state-of-the-art, and if we can get everything together at one www site (including data and figs), I think I can get some needed visibility for the paleo perspective. You probably
know this, but Henry Pollack's Borehole view of things (similar conclusions to the other recent papers) is about to appear in Science. Although each proxy and method does have it's limitations and biases, the multiproxy view is compelling with regard to the patterns of temp change over the past
several centuries. The IPCC next time around should be much stronger than last on the paleo side of things (although still not as good as it can get!).
Of course, I'll continue to work with Mike and Ray to get the rest of the individual series out into the public domain. Santorini should be the goal - not alowwed on the island without coughing up data first!
Aloha and thanks again! Peck
Dr. Jonathan T. Overpeck
Head, NOAA Paleoclimatology Program
National Geophysical Data Center
325 Broadway E/GC
Boulder, CO 80303
tel: xxx-xxx-xxxx
fax: xxx-xxx-xxxx
jto@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Brad, you can read this yourself…Now it is October 2009 and it looks like OVERWHELMING CONSENSUS to me with the “scientists” in-the-loop of the data and the policy statements…But as you read these, who was interested in the data in the WHITE HOUSE back in 1998…”motivations are increased and continued grant funding, university advancement, job advancement, profits and payoffs from carbon control advocates such as Gore, being in the limelight, and other motivating factors I am too inexperienced to identify.” Who would think that a SINGLE TREE could "skew" the data for the 20th century "reconstruction'?
Brad, there are over 1,000 of these…I recommend that you find them and READ them…They have a very interesting story to tell…One that the alphabet news seems to gloss over…I’m feeling really backed into a corner now…Later.
Eugene I. Gordon wrote:
David:
I concede all of your points but add one other thought. It is my grandchildren I worry about and I suspect their grand children will find it exceedingly warm because sunspots will return and carbon abatement is only a game; It wont happen significantly in their lifetime AND IT WONT BE ENOUGH IN ANY CASE. HENCE _WE WILL NEED A GEOENGINEERING SOLUTION_ COME WHAT MAY!
-gene
/Eugene I. Gordon/
/(908) 233 4677/
/euggordon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx/
/www.germgardlighting.com/
*From:* geoengineering@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
<> *On Behalf Of *David
Schnare
*Sent:* Sunday, October 04, 2009 10:49 AM
*Cc:* Alan White; geoengineering@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
*Subject:* Re: CCNet: A Scientific Scandal Unfolds
Gene:
I've been following this issue closely and this is what I take away from it:
1) Tree ring-based temperature reconstructions are fraught with so much uncertainty, they have no value whatever. It is impossible to tease out the relative contributions of rainfall, nutrients, temperature and access to sunlight. Indeed a single tree can, and apparently has, skewed the entire 20th century temperature reconstruction.
2) The IPCC peer review process is fundamentally flawed if a lead author is able to both disregard and ignore criticisms of his own work, where that work is the critical core of the
chapter. It not only destroys the credibility of the core assumptions and data, it destroys the credibility of the larger work - in this case, the IPCC summary report and the underlying
technical reports. It also destroys the utility and credibility of the modeling efforts that use assumptions on the relationship of CO2 to temperature that are based on Britta's work, which is,
of course, the majority of such analyses.
As Corcoran points out, "the IPCC has depended on 1) computer models, 2) data collection, 3) long-range temperature forecasting and 4) communication. None of these efforts are sitting on firm ground."
Nonetheless, and even if the UNEP thinks it appropriate to rely on Wikipedia as their scientific source of choice, greenhouse gases may (at an ever diminishing probability) cause a significant increase in global temperature. Thus, research, including field trials, on the leading geoengineering techniques are appropriate as a backstop in case our children find out that the current alarmism is justified.
David Schnare
On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 8:35 AM,
Eugene I. Gordon
wrote:
Alan:
Thanks for the extensive and detailed e-mail. This is terrible but not surprising. Obviously I do not know what gives with these guys. However, I have my own suspicions and hypothesis. I
dont think they are scientifically inadequate or stupid. I think they are dishonest and members of a club that has much to gain by practicing and perpetuating global warming scare tactics. That is not to say that global warming is not occurring to some extent since it would be even without CO2 emissions. The CO2 emissions only accelerate the warming and there are other factors controlling climate. As a result, the entire process may be going slower than the powers that be would like. Hence, (I postulate) the global warming contingent has substantial motivation to be dishonest or seriously biased, and to be loyal to their equally dishonest club members. Among the motivations are increased and continued grant funding, university advancement, job advancement, profits and payoffs from carbon control advocates such as Gore, being in the limelight, and other motivating factors I am too inexperienced to identify.
Alan, this is nothing new. You and I experienced similar behavior from some of our colleagues down the hall, the Bell Labs research people, in the good old days. Humans are hardly perfect creations. I am never surprised at what they can do. _ I am perpetually grateful for those who are honest and fair and thankfully there is a goodly share of those._
-gene
*From:* Alan White <><>
*Sent:* Saturday, October 03, 2009 8:28 PM
*To:* Gene Gordon
*Subject:* Fw: CCNet: A Scientific Scandal Unfolds
more of the same. what gives with these guys?
-----
CSRAJim
[ Hide Replies ]
|
RE: You know what? - CSRAJim, Sat Feb 13 00:06:42 2010
