[extropy-chat] Doubt and About

[Mike Lorrey]

--- Max More <max at maxmore.com> wrote:
> Any comments on Ron Bailey's recent piece on global warming?
> 
> How Hot Is It?
> Global warming creeps along
> November 19, 2003
> http://www.reason.com/rb/rb111903.shtml

Yeah, from the article:
"So assuming that Wentz' team has gotten it right, and the lower
troposphere is warming at a rate of 0.15 degrees per decade, that would
mean that the earth would be 1.5 degrees centigrade warmer in 2100 than
it is today. If Christy is right, he believes, "We might see a degree
of warming over the next century. Neither one of those temperature
increases is going to cause much of a catastrophe." "

The error in this prediction is that it assumes that temperature
increases linearly with carbon dioxide levels. This is false. Temp
follows a diminishing returns curve with respect to linear increases in
CO2, such that an increase in CO2 in the 20th century that caused a 1.5
degree increase would only cause a .75 degree increase in the 21st as
it piled on the previous levels of the 20th.

"In 2001, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) cited various climate models that predicted the world's climate
could warm between 1.4 and 5.8 degrees centigrade (2.5 to 10.4 degrees
Fahrenheit) by 2100. Of course, the higher catastrophic increase was
the one featured in headlines and cited by activists. Now, according to
the Wentz and Christy data, it looks like the smaller increase of the
IPCC's predicted range of temperatures is more likely to occur. (And if
you think that the IPCC's climate models are a bit questionable, you
really ought to look at how bad its economic models are, according to
The Economist)."

Despite this better data, the UN and the leftie chicken littles
continue to quote only the most extreme predictions (and continue to
ignore the diminishing impact curve). To quote The Economist: "Their
criticisms of the IPCC were wide-ranging, but focused on the panel's
forecasts of greenhouse-gas emissions. The method employed, the critics
argued, had given an upward bias to the projections."

So, rather than give a proper DOWNWARD bias to the projections as they
should to follow the known diminishing returns curve of CO2, they are
instead inventing an accelerating returns curve out of thin air as a
statistical artifact.

What is so insane about the IPCC's method is that instead of using
known science, they instead used an econometric model that assumed that
undeveloped and developing nations would grow into a western pattern of
emissions as they developed (and would not rely at all on more
efficient and low emissive technologies). Moreover, The Economist goes
on to say, the 15 members of the IPCC panel demonstrate a significant
lack of economic expertise to make such projections based on economic
data. As Harvey was talking about non-experts mixing it in earlier, it
appears that the IPCC itself is promulgating pseudoscience produced by
unqualified personnel, as The Economist itself accuses: 

"Can so many experts get it wrong? The experts themselves may doubt it,
but the answer is yes. The problem is that this horde of authorities is
drawn from a narrow professional milieu. Economic and statistical
expertise is not among their strengths. Making matters worse, the
panel's approach lays great emphasis on peer review of submissions.
When the peers in question are drawn from a restricted professional
domain—whereas the issues under consideration make demands upon a wide
range of professional skills—peer review is not a way to assure the
highest standards of work by exposing research to scepticism. It is
just the opposite: a kind of intellectual restrictive practice, which
allows flawed or downright shoddy work to acquire a standing it does
not deserve." 

Baily concludes, agreeing with myself more than others: "The New York
Times correctly notes that satellite data trends now more closely match
the predictions of climate models. The article fails to note that that
is largely because refined models are predicting lower temperature
trends. It seems that the planet is telling us that the climate models
most sensitive to changes in carbon dioxide have gotten it wrong and
need to be revised. So OK, global warming is not a "hoax," but the
danger it poses to humanity and to nature is being exaggerated by
activists."

Given that even the so called experts are ignoring the diminishing
returns curve of CO2, it is become more than a hoax, it is to be
concluded that there is massive negligence if not intentional fraud
going on.

> and:
> 
> Hot Air Conference
> Urgent action on a non-problem
> December 9, 2003
> http://www.reason.com/rb/rb120903.shtml

This article helps expose what I've been saying for a long time and
some on this list have been denigrating me and ignoring me for:

"The runup to the COP9 meeting has seen the publication of numerous
ritual warnings that the global warming is worse than expected and that
something must be done about it now. For example, the German Advisory
Council on Global Change issued a report that warned that likely
increases in global temperatures due to manmade causes over the next
century would be "intolerable." "

Now, isn't it interesting, as I have pointed out on occasion, that
Germany, one of the most socialized nations on the planet, with
extremely high taxes on fossil fuels that are used to finance their
welfare state system, is among the chief chicken littles, claiming that
things are worse than expected (despite data to the contrary) and
hyperdramatizing it with claims that anthropogenic warming will be
'intolerable'. 

Intolerable for what? For their welfare state system, is what. As
anthropic warming is increasingly determined to be a non-issue for the
true market economies, at least for the foreseable future, market
economies will continue to outperform non-market or semi-market
economies, draining currency badly needed to fund the retirements of
the post-war generation.

What is interesting is that the Germans admit that the global economy
can handle a 2 degree increase without problem, which means, according
to more accurate data, that we are good for at least the next two
centuries. But by then, it will be too late for the German nanny state.


=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/