OT:Global Warming and Junk Science

[John Hemmer]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Nancy Palmquist" <nlp at vss3.com>
To: <filepro-list at lists.celestial.com>
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 2:54 PM
Subject: OT:Global Warming and Junk Science


> Bill Campbell wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 19, 2007, John Esak wrote:
>>>> Sctt ???
>>> Must be that old comedy teletype group based out of Chicago....  :-)
>>>
>>> Incidentally, on an even less filePro-related topic, for those following 
>>> the
>>> global warming thing. We just got 8 to 10 inches of snow here in 
>>> Hazleton,
>>> PA (Eagle Rock)... maybe it's fixed???   :-)
>>>
>>> Just kidding...  just kidding... please no cards and letters.
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>> Seriously, I *do* firmly believe in global warming and that it has been
>>> active during the past 40 years. When we were kids November in Northern 
>>> NJ
>>> was *always* filled with many 1 and 2 foot snow storms.  These days, 
>>> you're
>>> lucky to get any snow even into December and January.  The thing is, I 
>>> want
>>> to believe that the causes for this global warming are just that 
>>> glboabl,
>>> meaning earth based, nature based, cyclical weathern patterns, etc. I'm 
>>> not
>>> convinced that man's various forays into all the things we do have 
>>> *caused*
>>> this trend in more heat less filling. We certainly have huge impact, I 
>>> am
>>> just one that still has an open mind as to the real causes.
>>
>> Actually, the human impact is probably minimal compared to external
>> factors, primarily the sun.
>>
>> I just finished reading ``Unstoppable Global Warming: every 1,500 Years''
>> by S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery which goes into this in great 
>> detail.
>> It has extensive references to real scientific studies, not political
>> screeds and bad science as promoted by the IPCC and Al Gore.
>>
>> The authors point out man inconvenient truths including:
>>
>>    + The current warming is the most recent in hundreds of cooling and
>>      warming cycles that occur every 1,500 years +- 500 years.
>>
>>    + Frequently there are rapid changes in climate, on the order of a
>>      decade or so.
>>
>>    + Current temperatures are less than they were in the 1930s, and
>>      temperatures in most of the Antartic are decreasing, not increasing.
>>
>>    + Temperature and CO2 levels are related, with CO2 levels increasing
>>      *AFTER* temperatures rise, lagging by about 800 years (this is 
>> evident
>>      even in Gore's movie).
>>
>>    + There are fewer storms, hurricanes, etc. during warming periods than
>>      curing the cold periods,  Major storms are largely caused by
>>      temperature differences between the poles and the equator, and the
>>      temperature changes are minimal at the equator.  Historical records
>>      show much higher storm activity during cooling periods, the most
>>      recent being the Little Ice Age from about 1600 -> 1850 than they 
>> are
>>      during the warmer periods.
>>
>>    + Warmer periods are generally conducive to all forms of life with 
>> lower
>>      rates of disease, better crops.  Far more people die due to cold 
>> than
>>      heat, particularly since the advent of air conditioning.
>>
>>    + Modern farming methods require far less land to feed people than so-
>>      called ``Organic'' farming.
>>
>> The authors point out that the primary advocates of human-caused global
>> warming are (and I'm quoting):
>>
>>    + Computer models that cannot explain past temperatures, let alone
>>      accurately forecast future ones, and whose funding depnds on the
>>      public's fear of radical warming.
>>
>>    + Activists who oppose modern technology, abhor expanded human
>>      populations, and expecially hate the low-cost energy that alleviates
>>      human poverty and misery.  They say we must renounce attractive
>>      lifestyles, give up yigh-yield farming, shorten millions of lives, 
>> and
>>      put more pressure on Third World forests for fuelwood.
>>
>>    + European politicans.
>>
>>    + Jourhalists looking for scary headlines.
>>
>>    + Various national and international bureaucracies and UN-appointed
>>      members and staff of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
>>
>> I am not an atmospheric scientist.  My degree is in Physics and Math from
>> The Johns Hopkins University, and I do have a fair understanding of 
>> science
>> and the scientific method.  Equally important, I have a good 
>> understanding
>> of economics and politics, well summarized by Mencken:
>>
>>      The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace
>>      alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless
>>      series of hobgoblins.  -- H.L. Mencken, 1923
>>
>> Bill
>>
> Bill,
>
> It would sure go a long way if normal people could get to an
> understanding of the forces at work without all the junk science that
> the media, politicians, etc. throw at us day in and day out.  The drival
> they push as science in the media is usually crap. A sound bite without
> all the information that really makes it helpful.  As you notice, even
> renown scientists are found on both sides of each argument/discussion,
> often being paid by the corporations that benefit from how the argument
> plays out.  A formula for developing some very bad science. All this
> filters into the text books that the schools use and further confuses
> the population.
>
> I know our impact on the planet is much less than we imagine. The world
> has the ability to heal itself quite rapidly (in the real time line of
> events), we do more damage to the creatures than to the planet.  But
> even then it just shifts the populations as other fill in the gaps in
> the ecosystems.
>
> I find this also very true in health issues where they like to push
> drugs, instead of total overall better health.  It seems you can never
> trust anything they say, which leads people to ignore it all.  Some
> better life style stuff has got to be actually right, but it gets lost
> in the rest of the clutter.
>
> I think we really have trouble with this because the scientific training
>  we receive is rote and not critical thinking.  Memorize this and that,
> instead of understanding and thinking for yourself.  A very difficult
> thing to teach, but important to the development of scientifically
> minded citizens.  People better able to make decisions that affect our
> environment and how we interact with it.
>
> Well - Sorry all.  I got off on a bender with this one.
>
> Nancy
>
>
> -- 
> Nancy Palmquist MOS & filePro Training Available
> Virtual Software Systems Web Based Training and Consulting
> PHONE: (412) 835-9417    Web site:  http://www.vss3.com
> _______________________________________________
> Filepro-list mailing list
> Filepro-list at lists.celestial.com
> http://mailman.celestial.com/mailman/listinfo/filepro-list


But Nancy,  haven't you heard there is a consesus!

John  :-)


>