[NatureNS] Re: Global warming - debate heats up

References: <20061122225204.9q95b59j0uxw800w@my2.dal.ca> <96C4F31B-CAC3-4C17-A92E-43FB22BE6DA1@ns.sympatico.ca> <7.0.1.0.0.20061123144518.0511b338@ns.sympatico.ca>
From: Steve Shaw <srshaw@dal.ca>
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 18:02:38 -0400
To: naturens@chebucto.ns.ca
Precedence: bulk
Return-Path: <naturens-mml-owner@chebucto.ns.ca>
Original-Recipient: rfc822;"| (cd /csuite/info/Environment/FNSN/MList; /csuite/lib/arch2html)"

next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects



--Apple-Mail-2--818919052
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=ISO-8859-1;
	delsp=yes;
	format=flowed

Thanks Blake, very informative and scary.  I've just read these quickly =20=

and second your recommendation: anyone interested in vast =20
disinformation campaigns funded by threatened commercial interests =20
should read at least the first of these excerpts, then the last.

As far as I've been able to make out, none of the folks on this list so =20=

far including me actually works close to this area either in academia, =20=

industry or government, so Bruce Stevens' authorative commentary was an =20=

eye-opener (someone in a closely related field -- presumably without =20
any conflicting interest re. the Monbiot commentaries just mentioned).  =20=

I'd largely agree with points 1-4 (with some reservations about =20
reviewers), but 5-7 are more interesting in what's not being said as a =20=

corollary.  Point 5 indicates that the multiproxy approach to this =20
problem by now has been almost completely discredited.  In the language =20=

of any scientific field this means that one now has to completely =20
discount the so-called hockey stick claimed result -- back to square =20
one.

Bruce, in your opinion, does this mean that there is now NO useful =20
current model that predicts recent climate change with any significant =20=

reliability? Or did you mean that this is an inferior model compared =20
with others that do it better?  As a corollary, is it then the case =20
that the claimed excess in the upturn in average global temperature =20
(near the end of the hockey stick) simply cannot yet be associated with =20=

any certainty at all with anthrogenic activity (as opposed to the =20
complicated past history of the system, plus global/astronomical cycles =20=

that Dave Webster was referring to originally)?   I hope I'm not =20
misinterpreting, but this last conclusion ("significant excess warming =20=

next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects