| Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
| [Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
So, you are placing your 'faith' with the Monitoring Service that Bellamy is
disagreeing with because they did what? Say he was full of poopy? Off-hand,
I'd say Bellamy called them poopy-heads first, so he wins! Where's their
data? What 'data' did Bellamy site wrong? What scientific context had he
'misunderstood'? Where is that 'scientific literature' that Bellamy
neglected?
I took a look at the FAQ's. I'm not totally convinced they are saying
anything I didn't already read in Creighton's novel or in any of the
alarming global warming lit. In fact, most of their 'FAQ's aren't much more
than old popular views not backed up by science. Case in point :
"The National Academy of Sciences, The American Geophysical Union, The
American Meteorological Society, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) have all issued statements affirming that climate change is
underway, the impacts are significant, and humans have influenced recent
climate changes. Although Crichton likes to claim that consensus in not
relevant in science, we disagree."
Oooo. I'm all a 'twitter! They DISAGREE. Isn't that what science is all
about? Disagreement and dialogue?
I know I'm treading on extremely thin ice here by questioning why someone of
BC's rep and breadth of knowledge would believe someone on a phone, but
being 260 pounds, I'm used to it... Treading on thin ice, that is... Hell,
some linoleum floors are afraid of me...
I'm just not convinced by the numbers that we have much, if anything, to do
with it.
Daryl L. Taylor, Fizzix Guy
Greenwich HS, CT
PAEMST '96
International Internet Educator of the Year '03
NASA SEU Educator Ambassador
www.DarylScience.com
This email prepared and transmitted using 100% recycled electrons!
-----Original Message-----
From: Forum for Physics Educators [mailto:PHYS-L@list1.ucc.nau.edu]On
Behalf Of Bernard Cleyet
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 4:04 PM
To: PHYS-L@LISTS.NAU.EDU
Subject: Junk Science from Bellamy and Crichton [bc]
ZNet Commentary
Junk Science May 16, 2005
By George Monbiot
For the past three weeks, a set of figures has been working a hole in my
mind. On April 16th, New Scientist published a letter from the famous
botanist David Bellamy. Many of the world's glaciers, he claimed, "are
not shrinking but in fact are growing. ... 555 of all the 625 glaciers
under observation by the World Glacier Monitoring Service in Zurich,
Switzerland, have been growing since 1980."(1) His letter was instantly
taken up by climate change deniers. And it began to worry me. What if
Bellamy was right?
He is a scientist, formerly a senior lecturer at the University of
Durham. He knows, in other words, that you cannot credibly cite data
unless it is well-sourced. Could it be that one of the main lines of
evidence of the impacts of global warming - the retreat of the world's
glaciers - was wrong?
The question could scarcely be more important. If man-made climate
change is happening, as the great majority of the world's climatologists
claim, it could destroy the conditions which allow human beings to
remain on the planet. The effort to cut greenhouse gases must come
before everything else. This won't happen unless we can be confident
that the science is right.
Because Bellamy is president of the Conservation Foundation, the
Wildlife Trusts, Plantlife International and the British Naturalists'
Association, his statements carry a great deal of weight. When, for
example, I challenged the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders
over climate change, its spokesman cited Bellamy's position as a reason
for remaining sceptical.(2)
So last week I telephoned the World Glacier Monitoring Service and read
out Bellamy's letter. I don't think the response would have been
published in Nature, but it had the scientific virtue of clarity. "This
is complete bullshit."(3) A few hours later, they sent me an email.
"Despite his scientific reputation, he makes all the mistakes that are
possible". He had cited data which was simply false, failed to provide
references, completely misunderstood the scientific context and
neglected current scientific literature.(4) The latest studies show
unequivocally that most of the world's glaciers are retreating.(5)
------
The above is approximately one fourth of the Commentary (including foot
notes). For all of it address:
http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2005-05/15monbiot.cfm
******************* SSI SPECIAL NOTICE *****************
We are pleased to announce a FAQ webpage on Michael
Crichton's State of Fear. Crichton's latest book has
characters debating data (complete with graphs and
footnotes) and concepts that cast doubt on the validity of
global warming evidence. This doubt is echoed in the
author's message at the end of the novel and in public
interviews. Readers may understandably take away some
misconceptions from his book. To clear up these
misconceptions, we have selected some representative cases
to discuss.
State of Fear has generated a lot of media and given a voice
to climate skeptics. Global warming skeptics seized on the
book and many of the misleading arguments presented in the
book are being echoed in many forums - from the op-ed
section of the Washington Post to the Senate floor. Our
webpage "Crichton's Thriller State of Fear: Separating Fact
from Fiction" examines a few of the book's arguments by
evaluating the scientific data presented and bringing in
additional resources to paint a larger picture of climate
change.
This FAQ was prepared by Dr. Brenda Ekwurzel, UCS's Climate
Scientist. Helpful comments were provided by Raymond T.
Pierrehumbert at the University of Chicago. We hope this FAQ
will be a useful resource both in countering the claims in
State of Fear as well as climate change skepticism more
broadly.
View Crichton's Thriller State of Fear: Separating Fact from
Fiction at:
<
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/global_warming/page.cfm?pageID=1670