Comments on: Am I Anti-Science?

By: DirtCrashr

DirtCrashr — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 03:14:34 +0000

The demand for “consensus” to prevails strikes me as much more than something of a scientific coming-together (kum-bah-yah), but as a demand for Solidarity.

By: Mike

Mike — Wed, 14 Mar 2007 15:45:47 +0000

If you haven’t seen it yet, watch The Global Warming Swindle, a BBC documentary on the subject. It is VERY exhaustive in the subject matter it covers.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831&q=global+warming+swindle

By: TCO

TCO — Wed, 14 Mar 2007 02:46:55 +0000

Show me the peer-reviewed papers. Don’t get too excited about the work of advocates. That can be a dry hole (on the anti-warmer side).

By: DirtCrashr

DirtCrashr — Tue, 13 Mar 2007 18:32:38 +0000

The IPCC is a political entity operating at the whim and command of the UN - as economist and President Vaclav Klaus of the Czech Republic has pointed out. Accurate chemical CO2 gas analysis of air over 180 years show a different trend compared to the literature of IPCC climate change actually published.
"Accurate measurements had been done amongst others by de Saussure 1826, Pettenkofer/v.Gilm 1857, Schulze 1864/71, Farsky 1874, Uffelmann 1886, Letts und Blake 1897, Krogh and Haldane 1904, Benedict 1912, Lundegardh 1920, van Slyke 1929, DÃ¼rst and Kreutz 1934 alternatively 1940, Misra 1942 or Scholander 1946 with measuring instruments through which from 1857 (Pettenkofer) an accuracy of +/-0,0006 Vol% to under +/-0,0003 Vol% =3 ppm (Lundegardh 1926) was achieved. These pioneers of chemistry, biology, botany, medicine and physiology constituted the modern knowledge of metabolism, nutrition science, biochemistry and ecology. Modern climatology ignored their work till today even
though it is the basis of all textbooks of the mentioned faculties and was honoured with several Nobel prizes. In total over 90 000 measurements within nearly every year since 180 year gave the following results:
1. There is no constant exponential rising CO2 -concentration since preindustrial times but a varying CO2-content of air following the climate. E.G. around 1940 there was a maximum of CO2 of at least 420 ppm, before 1875 there was also a maximum.
2. Historical air analysis by chemical means do not prove a preindustrial CO2 -concentration of 285 ppm (IPCC),as modern climatology postulates. In contrast the average in the 19th century in northern hemisphere is 321 ppm and in the 20th century 338ppm.
3. Todays CO2 value of. 380 ppm, which is considered as threatening has been known several times in the last 200 years, in the 20 th century around 1942 and before 1870 in the 19th century. The maximum CO2 -concentration in the 20th century roses to over 420 pmm in 1942."

It's not a consensus - and consensus isn't how Science works. Check out the rebuttals: Dipl. Biol. Ernst-Georg Beck, Merian-Schule Freiburg, 8/200

By: Glenn B

Glenn B — Tue, 13 Mar 2007 04:59:51 +0000

As far as what Joe Miller had to say, why doesn’t he say just that to Al Gore, and tell him to shut up. makes as much sense as it did telling you, maybe even more.

By: JW

JW — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 14:59:13 +0000

Now, why would that giant ball of fusing hydrogen have anything to do with our climate? That’s just silly.

By: TCO

TCO — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 01:30:32 +0000

Steve McIntyre has written hundreds of blog posts with assertions or “possibilities” or “scratch padding” of errors. He has only published one real article in a real science journal (the GRL letter). And that was 2 years ago. In addition, he has been tendentious in responding (and may have even been misleading in original intent in his GRL article) to Huybers, who showed very nicely how he conflated a change in centering with a change in standard deviation dividing. Pretty weak, in my mind.

By: May

May — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 00:43:16 +0000

Great dialog on this post! I agree with TJIT’s comment regarding the unfortunate political/media interpretation of “global warming”. The specific ideas proposed in the theory of climate change are however, falsifiable as is any theory accepted in the scientific community. I think that scientists need to engage themselves in both research and the political process, so the general public can expect accountability from politicians. There is an initiative at http://www.sefora.org/ Scientists and Engineers for America. I found this website helpful and (relatively) unbiased.

By: Bob Smith

Bob Smith — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 15:16:50 +0000

Air quality throughout the US, especially in urban areas like Los Angeles, is higher than it was in the 50s and 60s, yet asthma rates are higher. I conclude pollution doesn’t cause asthma.

By: Jeff Smithpeters

Jeff Smithpeters — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 06:46:52 +0000

Absent global warming, there's more than enough reason already to reduce CO2 and other emissions and reduce the consumption of fossil fuels.

Perhaps the increasing rate of children with asthma in the past 20-30 years is enough reason on its own if you really do prefer to help people rather than short-term business interests.