[ExI] "Up against the warming zealots"...hmmm

[Olie Lamb]

On 7/23/07, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
>
> At 01:09 AM 7/23/2007 -0700, Samantha wrote:
>
> >I have seen no good reason to doubt global warming is real. I have seen
> >no good reason to doubt that human activities are strongly contributing
> >to global warming. I don't see why this is complicated.
>
> Do you mean you didn't read the following (e.g.), which I posted in
> launching this thread, or you're claiming it's all spin and bullshit?
> If the latter, what is your substantiation?


Well, I read Martin Durkin's response that you quoted, and I saw the
agitprop-doco, and all accompanying interviews, and I have reached some
pretty strong conclusions that Durkin is full of bullshit.  Apart from
lacking a scientific background, he deliberately and misleadingly uses
selected data, is constantly wrong about basic facts like:

" According to their own figures (from the
UN-linked Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), the temperature
has been static or slightly declining since 1998. The satellite data
confirms this. This is clearly awkward. The least one should expect
of global warming is that the Earth should be getting warmer"

compare

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Satellite_Temperatures.png

(yes, there is a spike in 1998.  Have temperatures been static since?)

In the subsequent interviews, Durkin continually prevericated, and where it
was pointed out that his selection of data excluded things that ran contrary
to his claims (like solar activity over the past 30 years), he dismissed
these as "moot points".


So "Why are the global warmers so zealous?"  Why "the ferocity of the
attack,..."(revealing) the intolerance and defensiveness of the global
warming camp. Why were Jones and co
expending such energy and resources attacking one documentary?"  why has
"the theory of global warming has not been subjected to this barrage of
critical
scrutiny by the media"

Ask yourself this: if the National Broadcaster had presented a doco that
said that Natural Selection was a "lie" being told to you by athiest
scientists like Richard Dawkins and David Attenborough, and it  had _not_
been presented with critical views, would that have been scientifically
responsible?

Such cotton-padding of critical discussion would not have been necessary if
the doco had been putting forth the views of someone like Carl Wunsch, who
is a proper sceptic.  If there were a doco saying "anyone who says that the
evidence is incontrovertible that recent temperature changes are entirely
due to anthropogenic emissions is wrong; anyone who says that they know
exactly what will happen to the climate in 50 years is also wrong", that
wouldn't have been a problem.  But Durkin didn't say anything like that.

The truth is, climate is a proper complex system.  There are more feedbacks
than you can poke a stick at.

Dramatic global temperature shifts, enough to destroy the global economy,
can happen in under a decade, and have happened before (eg: end of younger
Dryas).  Greenhouse gases have caused mass extinctions, and a climate
you-bloody-well-do-not-want (eg Methane Clathrate releases).

Can we be sure what's going to happen?  Not exactly.  Can we be sure of the
causes?  Not in the senses that the scientifically uneducated use.  That
doesn't mean that we can throw prudence to the wind, either.

Are Durkin's claims, implying surety that "Global Warming is a Lie",
justified ?  Fuck, no.


-- Olie
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070729/f47263a1/attachment.html>