next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects
What struck me about that article was its repeated use of charged language, especially its overuse of "alarmist computer models" (used 11 times in the article). Forbes is, naturally, a business-centric magazine. So I went to the source article (free here: http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf ) and had trouble seeing the "gaping hole". I'm not a climate scientist, but the abstract implies only that they can't seem to nail down just how much the cloud-protective effect (I think!) matters to the models. It's much more subdued than the Forbes article leads us to believe. I'm still digging for the press release, which should be easier to interpret, but in the mean time, I've found that Roy Spencer (the lead author), believes in Intelligent Design and acknowledges a prior bias in regards to climate science, signing a declaration which reads "We believe Earth and its ecosystems — created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence — are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth's climate system is no exception" see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(scientist) But if he presents good evidence for a problem with climate change issues (i.e., if his personal views don't affect his scientific objectivity), let's have a look. One major principle of scientific progress is having somebody else repeat your results. So if (and I say "if", because I think the Forbes article took a lot out of context) there's a problem with current climate models, they should indeed be revisited. In the mean time, however, even the Forbes article didn't say that climate change isn't happening, only that "increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed". So, warming is happening, but maybe our predictions aren't spot-on. That doesn't surprise me. Glad you brought this into the mix, Lois. --Bob Farmer On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 20:35, Lois Codling <loiscodling@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote: > > Are the scientists who are always ready to drop a theory in face of > evidence, ready? > > http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html > > Lois Codling >
next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects