Re: AMD's well may be running dry

On 21 Mar, 18:08, Maverick <S...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Andrew wrote:
On 20 Mar, 16:11, Maverick <S...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Andrew wrote:

On 19 Mar, 17:11, "Dr. Dweeb" <s...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Andrew wrote:

On 19 Mar, 14:49, "Dr. Dweeb" <s...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Andrew wrote:

On 18 Mar, 19:49, "Dr. Dweeb" <s...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Bill Todd wrote:

Dr. Dweeb wrote:

2. The program makers have admitted "cleaning up" some of the
statistical data they presented to support their argument. They also
failed to include more up to date data samples easily available from
NASA which would have further damaged their case.

The film argued that most global warming happend between 1900 and 1940
and that cooled between 1940 and 1975 when the post-war economic boom
was under way. This apparently showed, that global warming had little
to do with industrial emissions of carbon dioxide.

In the film this data was apparently sourced from NASA, one of the
newspapers in the UK asked the production company where this data had
come from. They admitted that it hadn't come from NASA but from a
1998 paper in a publication called the Medical Sentinel. The authors
of the paper are climate sceptics partly funded by the George C
Marshall Institute, a right-wing Washington think-tank.

Further investigation has revealed that the graph did not in fact come

from this paper but from an earlier publication by the same authors.

The paper used Nasa data from the 1980's but crucially in the film the
axis of the graph was modified to make it appear that the data came up
to the present day.

The film makers have admitted that they altered the graphics to make
it look as if the sample data ended in 2000 and not in the early
1980's.

Had that accessed the additional data available from 1980-2006 which
is available from the NASA web site then they would have found that
after a small dip temperatures continued upwards, it would also have
shown that temperatures have risen more since 1974 than they did
between 1900 and 1940, in doing so of course they would have destroyed
one of the most apparently telling points the film tried to make that
there was no statistical relationship between temperature rise and
industrial activity.

Actually, I did not experience that as the most telling point, but I am
willing to accept that you and/or others did. I will review the film again
and take special note.

Specifics would be nice - a link to the NASA data or summary please.

Possibly their most telling but also most obvious argument was the
one that the IPCC consists of scientists and non scientists (wow)
and that they don't all agree that climate change is being caused
by man. Wow again.

There was a clear implication that the non scientists were likely to
get it wrong.

Indeed. Political appointees being what they are you do not think
this specifically more likely? I guess you are entitled to that
opinion. My personal experience of the political process suggests
otherwise.

Of course, but there are a large number of governments including the
US who would prefer GW to pop back into its hole. Can you guarantee
that there was a majority of pro GW appointees to the IPCC.

You could make a strong counter argument to suggest that in all
probability lack of a high 90's% probability assessment that mankind
is making global warming worse in the IPCC report could be due to the
political appointees to the IPCC.

My claim was that they are more likely to get it wrong per se. independent
of their political motivations, since these motivations (+/-) are
independent (and in their specific case) more likely at odds with science.

Does it matter, unless you and the channel 4 program can show that the
non scientists all voted for global warming being caused by mans
activities then the point you and the program are making is
irrelevant.

Are you kidding!?! Have YOU seen the report and exactly who is on the
list? I doubt that you have. You'll also note that one scientist
threatened the UN if they don't take him off their list. Another
question has to do with the credentials of said scientists. Some aren't
even scientists, but bureaucrats. All I see is a political agenda.

Yes I have seen the report and yes the committee does include non
scientists. Does that matter, no because there is no evidence that the
inclusion of non scientists biased the report one way or another.

It matters when the UN makes a claim that *many scientists* are in
agreement here on their list... when in fact it is misleading.
The UN is a political body not a scientific one.


The majority of the members of the IPCC panel were scientists and
while it its true that the UN is a political body there is absolutely
no evidence that the inclusion of non scientists on the panel produced
a report which was more favorable to the global warming argument.

In fact there are a number of eminent scientists who have complained
that the IPCC report far from being to pro-GW did in fact pull its
punches. Lonnie Thompson one of the worlds leading experts on
Glaciers, Michael MacCracken the Chief Scientist of the Climate Change
Institute and previously senior climate change office at U.S. Global
Change Research Program, Dr. James Hansen Head of NASA's Institute for
Space Studies and Professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences
department at Columbia University, Stefan Rahmstorf Professor of
Physics of the Oceans Potsdam University, Bob Corell, chairman of the
Arctic Climate Impact Assessment all conclude that the IPCC panel
report was conservative and pulled it punches.

All of these scientists are leaders in their field of research and all
criticize the IPCC report for being to soft.

I would hate to get into a my list of scientists is better than yours
but since almost all the "scientists" produced to support the global
warming is a myth argument have either turned out to be A. Not
scientists, B not scientists in a field that is very relevant to GW, C
in the employ of an energy company or most frequently D. quoted out of
context and actually in the other camp I rest my case.

I would take your point if there was clear evidence that the non
scientists changed the conclusions of the report to the detriment of
the anti-global warming lobby.

And from what I can gleen that is about what did occur.
This is the part that can easily make a prudent person back away from
their claims to further study what is really going on.
So far, I see money and politics.


Sort of right but again not for the reasons that you think. The IPCC
has a history of producing reports that err on the side of caution
mainly because it is a concensus based organisation. Or put it another
way there is a large and very eminent group of scientists who think
that IPCC reports paint a rosier view of the situation than it should
based on the available evidence. They easily counterbalance the rather
unconvincing group produced by the Channel 4 program and the
additional names dragged up by posters to this group.

The fact that there is a smaller group of scientists who think that
the report over reacts suggests that the IPCC did err on the side of
caution.

And the scientist who wanted to withdraw his name from the report was
none other than Richard Lindzen who appeared in Channel 4's the Great
Global Warming Swindle. Hardly surprising since the report does not
reflect his minority view.

Minority view should be changed to "a different view".
The majority may very well be wrong on all accounts and is a bit scary.


As I have just pointed out the IPCC actually settled for a middle
ground, there is a equally large if not larger group of climate
scientists who think that the report is too conservative.





Incidentally Professor Wunsch one of the scientists who apparently
supported the thesis put forward in the program has this to say about
it.

Professor Wunsch said: "I am angry because they completely
misrepresented me. My views were distorted by the context in which
they placed them. I was misled as to what it was going to be about. I
was told about six months ago that this was to be a programme about
how complicated it is to understand what is going on. If they had told
me even the title of the programme, I would have absolutely refused to
be on it. I am the one who has been swindled."

When told what the commission had found, he said: "That is what
happened to me." He said he believes it is "an almost inescapable
conclusion" that "if man adds excess CO2 to the atmosphere, the
climate will warm".

Of course how much was never ascertained. A good scientist will say "we
just don't know yet and more research is needed".

LOL, given that Professor Wunsch's views were completely distorted it
is hardly likely that the program would have included any statement
from him on how much impact would be made by man made CO2.

Regards
Andrew Harrison

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT - Global Warming Revisited
    ... Reading comprehension problems again. ... >>When politics forces scientists to re-word their conclusions (the case ... >>of the IPCC summary reports), ... >>attract qualified scientists who have no agenda. ...
    (alt.machines.cnc)
  • Re: OT - Global Warming Revisited
    ... >which statement of k00k science you are taking issue with. ... >the IPCC summary reports), there is a problem. ... >scientists who have no agenda. ... >based on politics rather than science? ...
    (alt.machines.cnc)
  • UNITE! Info #165en: 3/4 The big "greenhouse" hoax (1)
    ... GLOBAL WARMING, ... IPCC SOUNDS THE ALARM ... truth could be expected from scientists as Bolin, Houghton, ... the 1990 IPCC report stated that in the past century ...
    (sci.energy)
  • Re: AMDs well may be running dry
    ... one that the IPCC consists of scientists and non scientists ... that there was a majority of pro GW appointees to the IPCC. ... inclusion of non scientists biased the report one way or another. ... I see money and politics. ...
    (comp.os.vms)
  • Re: EXXONMOBIL CONTINUES TO FUND GLOBAL WARMING DENIERS
    ... are you a total shit for brains? ... Multiple GW studies funded by the Bush Administration to DISPROVE GW ... I assume the word of the scientists who WROTE the goddamned things, ... They showed what they wrote in the report, ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)