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]

Re: [Phys-l] Solving American ______________



I think you are making an attempt at being funny. It's not that the data isn't
available for people to look at. I don't think the scientific community has
done a good job on many levels. Scientists are attacked for questioning the
methods and findings of other scientists. The public is told there is
incontroverrtible proof without that proof being explained. We are shown a
graph that shows CO2 levels are ever rising and asked to believe that this
explains recent warming by itself. Simplistic computer models are predicting
the future climate many decades in advance, when clearly we know little
about climate forcings and feedbacks. These same models have largely
failed so far. The IPCC has done a poor job of evaluating scientific findings
and based conclusions on anecdotes and non-peer reviewed publications to
support its claims. An earlier report was based largely on fabricated proxy
data by Mann et al. This is not to say that AGW isn't happening, but rather
that the science is sloppy. Last year's East Anglia e-mail scandal revealed
scientists behaving badly. No wonder the public is losing confidence in
science. When a politician like Al Gore is the main spokesperson for AGW,
the public is seeing the politicization of science. I think it would be hard to
find anyone who hasn't been educated about global warming, so it's not a
matter of ignorance. It is a matter of distrust.



On 9 Nov 2010 at 21:41, John Mallinckrodt wrote:


On Nov 9, 2010, at 7:41 PM, marx@phy.ilstu.edu wrote:
...if people were shown the evidence for global warming and not just
told to accept it
because lots of scientists
claim its happening, then people might be persuaded.


Right. Why is it that climate scientists absolutely refuse to reveal the evidence (about current and
historic CO2 levels, about the temperature record, about the infrared absorption bands of H20,
CO2,and methane, about satellite observations of reduced upward radiation in those bands, about
arctic ice coverage, about positive CO2 feedback mechanisms from thawing permafrost, about
the effects of increasing albedo, etc.) with the rest of us? Why is it that we are told to just shut up
and accept it? Really makes you wonder about motives, doesn't it?
John Mallinckrodt
Cal Poly Pomona


No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1153 / Virus Database: 424/3246 - Release Date: 11/09/10