World Politics

[Cobblestones]

"More emails came to light yesterday, including one in which an American climatologist admitted it was a travesty that scientists could not explain a lack of global warming in recent years."

Let me just reply quickly to this.

The point is: data show (and this has been published in scientific journals and it is widely publicized) that the warming trend has stagnated over the last few years. It means that global average temperatures haven't increased, but they have been steady, on a high level. There's nothing new about it and neither has it been tried to hide.

Now, (older) climate models did not predict this plateau; I think most predicted a steady increase. Again, nothing new about it, since predictions of climate models are published and publicized. It turns out, when you improve those models and include effects from ocean currents solar activity etc. you can model the plateau relatively well a posteriori.

You can look at these, widely known facts from two extreme sides:
1) you could argue that climate models have no predictive power whatsoever and never will have, or
2) you could argue that with more and more data points to compare to, climate models get more and more refined and will therefore give better and better predictions.

I think the history of scientific progress supports mostly argument 2. Now, if you think that climate science is no science at all and it's more like alchemy or astrology, then argument 1 would be appropriate.

Anyway, that a climate researcher bemoans the fact that (older) models did not predict the plateau is no evidence whatsoever of a conspiracy, because it does not reveal anything which hasn't been publicized many times before. It's not different than, say, a medical researcher saying that despite years and years of funding cancer or AIDS research, we haven't found a cure yet.

 

[Anonymous]

He won. Look at how much effort you had to expend to see the truth catch up to lies.

His/their entire mis and disinformation campaign is for one purpose. Paying lower taxes no matter what. That's it.

very sharp but is that realy true?

 

[Anonymous]

Now go and reflect on the methods people like Karl Rove and Ben Wren use in campaigns, and tell me how they are any different. In fact, you'd think Rove and Alinsky were born of the same mother. I mean, look at the rhetoric about having terrorists tried in court in NY and compare the usage of language to the dictates above. Kind of seems like Alinsky is the father of Republican rhetoric...or maybe he was just codifying for the left what was already practiced by politicians for the last...oh...history of politics.

Seems like he needed to spell out skullduggery to the newly active left of that period in history, where it appears this type of thing is the native language of people like Rove and Carville.

The Alinsky thing in relation to Obama is just a manifestation of what Alinsky said to do, only propagated by the other side. How ironic...

Irony? Yes, I'd say so. Alinsky the 'community organizer' whose prized pupils include Hillary Clinton among others. Don't see where Alinsky worked with too many right wingers... wonder why?

This stuff really gained traction during the Bork confirmation (or crucifixion) when Uncle Teddy unloaded on Bork during the hearing. I don't think anything like that had ever happened before. Coined a new phrase, "getting Borked". Folks can point the fingers at the right if it makes them feel better as we are the bigots, homophobes, racists who want to let old people die in the streets while hoarding all the money we steal from the unionized workers of this country lest we forget about polluting the environment (as if we don't need clean air and water??). I could go on but hopefully the point is made.

There are really bombastic things coming from the right too. No excuses for that.

There was a time when there was some decorum betwen folks who disagree but those days are long, long gone.

 

[Anonymous]

Let me just reply quickly to this.

The point is: data show (and this has been published in scientific journals and it is widely publicized) that the warming trend has stagnated over the last few years. It means that global average temperatures haven't increased, but they have been steady, on a high level. There's nothing new about it and neither has it been tried to hide.

Now, (older) climate models did not predict this plateau; I think most predicted a steady increase. Again, nothing new about it, since predictions of climate models are published and publicized. It turns out, when you improve those models and include effects from ocean currents solar activity etc. you can model the plateau relatively well a posteriori.

You can look at these, widely known facts from two extreme sides:
1) you could argue that climate models have no predictive power whatsoever and never will have, or
2) you could argue that with more and more data points to compare to, climate models get more and more refined and will therefore give better and better predictions.

I think the history of scientific progress supports mostly argument 2. Now, if you think that climate science is no science at all and it's more like alchemy or astrology, then argument 1 would be appropriate.

Anyway, that a climate researcher bemoans the fact that (older) models did not predict the plateau is no evidence whatsoever of a conspiracy, because it does not reveal anything which hasn't been publicized many times before. It's not different than, say, a medical researcher saying that despite years and years of funding cancer or AIDS research, we haven't found a cure yet.

Scientist have not found a cure for cancer but Lance Armstrong will.

I am curious if anyone remembers the studies back in the 70’s that said the world was getting colder?

For me I do not believe there is a conspiracy involved with the global warming research. Maybe a few political guys and rich dudes have made millions or billions off of the carbon credits or some other cry bull **** scam (like this verde guy selling those electronic ciggarets!).
I really do not give a ****. I am going to continue to throw aluminum cans in the rivers by the truck loads and throw my cigarette buts out on the street. I keep buying old smoking vehicles so I can increase the pollution.



Common freaking sense says you should not pollute the environment, conserve energy, and try to be as efficient on this planet as possible. WHY DOES anyone have to make profit from that? WHY IS IT SO ****ING HARD to convince others to just believe in science and not pollute? Both sides suck at telling their arguments and the rest of us laugh our asses off at the two sides going at it all the time! Have fun stuck nuts.

 

[Anonymous]

Let me just reply quickly to this.

The point is: data show (and this has been published in scientific journals and it is widely publicized) that the warming trend has stagnated over the last few years. It means that global average temperatures haven't increased, but they have been steady, on a high level. There's nothing new about it and neither has it been tried to hide.

Now, (older) climate models did not predict this plateau; I think most predicted a steady increase. Again, nothing new about it, since predictions of climate models are published and publicized. It turns out, when you improve those models and include effects from ocean currents solar activity etc. you can model the plateau relatively well a posteriori.

You can look at these, widely known facts from two extreme sides:
1) you could argue that climate models have no predictive power whatsoever and never will have, or
2) you could argue that with more and more data points to compare to, climate models get more and more refined and will therefore give better and better predictions.

I think the history of scientific progress supports mostly argument 2. Now, if you think that climate science is no science at all and it's more like alchemy or astrology, then argument 1 would be appropriate.

Anyway, that a climate researcher bemoans the fact that (older) models did not predict the plateau is no evidence whatsoever of a conspiracy, because it does not reveal anything which hasn't been publicized many times before. It's not different than, say, a medical researcher saying that despite years and years of funding cancer or AIDS research, we haven't found a cure yet.

If you are interested in the other side of the argument you may want to read what Patrick Michaels has to say. It appears as though there is more to this story than a few manipulated emails.

http://www.cato.org/people/patrick-michaels

He's been arguing this man-made global warming is junk science since at lease 1992 when he authored;

"Sound and Fury criticizes "science by sound and bite" and congressional show trials complete with testimony that has not been peer-reviewed according to scientific standards. Among the misconceptions exposed is the claim that most scientists subscribe to the apocalyptic vision of global warming. Even Greenpeace's survey of scientists who participated in the major United Nations study of climate change found that only 13 percent of the respondents believed that failure to change our energy use would result in a runaway greenhouse effect.

Michaels shows that the slight warming over the last century has been far less than the prophets of the apocalypse would expect -- throwing the reliabitily of their computer climate models into doubt -- that most of it happened before industry's massive carbon dioxide emissions began, and that most of the warming is at night, when it produces benign effects such as longer growing seasons. In other words, the warming that has resulted from natural climatic processes is beneficial."

 

[Cobblestones]

If you are interested in the other side of the argument you may want to read what Patrick Michaels has to say. It appears as though there is more to this story than a few manipulated emails.

http://www.cato.org/people/patrick-michaels

He's been arguing this man-made global warming is junk science since at lease 1992 when he authored;

"Sound and Fury criticizes "science by sound and bite" and congressional show trials complete with testimony that has not been peer-reviewed according to scientific standards. Among the misconceptions exposed is the claim that most scientists subscribe to the apocalyptic vision of global warming. Even Greenpeace's survey of scientists who participated in the major United Nations study of climate change found that only 13 percent of the respondents believed that failure to change our energy use would result in a runaway greenhouse effect.

Michaels shows that the slight warming over the last century has been far less than the prophets of the apocalypse would expect -- throwing the reliabitily of their computer climate models into doubt -- that most of it happened before industry's massive carbon dioxide emissions began, and that most of the warming is at night, when it produces benign effects such as longer growing seasons. In other words, the warming that has resulted from natural climatic processes is beneficial."

Scott, yes, I do look at both sides. Now, I haven't read 'Sound and Fury', and I likely won't since anything written in 1992 about climate science will be hopelessly outdated, no matter on which side of the debate it falls (and yes I do remember the Global Cooling predictions of the 1970s). Now, from your link, I learn that this guy has published a new book in 2009 which of course debunks one thing right there: the myth that non-mainstream opinions are suppressed and unpublished.

However, I don't have this book either, so I'm not able to comment on it, but I can comment on the quote you've provided:

It is true that in 1992, not many people (including scientists) believed in a runaway greenhouse effect. It is also true that climate models (even today) are not perfect in any sense. Reality will be different from the models, because climate is a complex system and we don't know all the factors and how everything ties together. That said, reality could very well be worse than what the models predict. It is also true that there will be benign consequences of global warming (it seems P. Michaels does not deny the fact of global warming in general). Rising temperatures might make large parts of Canada and Siberia much more habitable, for instance. The question is: will the benefits outweigh the bad consequences? For example, if global warming turns parts of Asia or the American midwest into a desert. Would we need to relocate large parts of, say, the Indian and Chinese population to Siberia or Americans to Canada? How could that work without major upheavals? What are the economic consequences of such a move, if necessary?

It is precisely to answer these questions that we do climate research. And when we find a consensus, shouldn't we act on it? As I see it, there's probably as good a consensus as you can get among a bunch of scientists. You'll never get 100%. And I cannot see a global conspiracy of Global Warming proponents. Neither before nor after reading the emails. The consequences of not acting seem dire enough. So why sit on your hands?

Yes, I agree, the economy now might slow down with cap & trade, and yes, we have to bring more or less every country on board, since it's a global problem, and yes, maybe, just maybe, it turns out less bad than anticipated. Are those good enough reasons to bet the lives of future generations on? When we discussed the national debt earlier in this thread you were quick enough to point out the tremendous debt load for our children. A runaway greenhouse effect would likely overshadow that by orders of magnitude.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

It is precisely to answer these questions that we do climate research. And when we find a consensus, shouldn't we act on it? As I see it, there's probably as good a consensus as you can get among a bunch of scientists. You'll never get 100%. And I cannot see a global conspiracy of Global Warming proponents. Neither before nor after reading the emails. The consequences of not acting seem dire enough. So why sit on your hands?

Yes, I agree, the economy now might slow down with cap & trade, and yes, we have to bring more or less every country on board, since it's a global problem, and yes, maybe, just maybe, it turns out less bad than anticipated. Are those good enough reasons to bet the lives of future generations on? When we discussed the national debt earlier in this thread you were quick enough to point out the tremendous debt load for our children. A runaway greenhouse effect would likely overshadow that by orders of magnitude.

A consensus is what politics is all about, it should not be a part of pure science since the facts should be undisputed and undeniable. However, since science has never been "pure" in the first place, often based upon incomplete data or understanding of how the data effects reality, consensus brings about policy based on incomplete data.

I believe that you will find most educated people who are opposed to man made global warming (we often error, including myself, in referencing this as global warming) actually believe that history has evidence of both warming and cooling in the past - times that were far warmer than today and other times that were far cooler. This position is that, unlike localized air quality, man has nearly the same effect on global weather in the long term as the mosquito has on a speeding locomotive. The scientists that do not support the theory of man made global warming are not saying that it does not exist - but that it is not man made, and has slowed based on natural environment changes; that man is not going to make it warmer or cooler in Copenhagen by the decisions made there, however, the economies that may be necessary in the future to deal with the results of the natural trends are going to suffer because of a consensus that is based on faulty scientific data.

Now that was a sentence to make a law professor proud (short and to the point is not a goal of the law student).

 

[Cobblestones]

A consensus is what politics is all about, it should not be a part of pure science since the facts should be undisputed and undeniable. However, since science has never been "pure" in the first place, often based upon incomplete data or understanding of how the data effects reality, consensus brings about policy based on incomplete data.

I believe that you will find most educated people who are opposed to man made global warming (we often error, including myself, in referencing this as global warming) actually believe that history has evidence of both warming and cooling in the past - times that were far warmer than today and other times that were far cooler. This position is that, unlike localized air quality, man has nearly the same effect on global weather in the long term as the mosquito has on a speeding locomotive. The scientists that do not support the theory of man made global warming are not saying that it does not exist - but that it is not man made, and has slowed based on natural environment changes; that man is not going to make it warmer or cooler in Copenhagen by the decisions made there, however, the economies that may be necessary in the future to deal with the results of the natural trends are going to suffer because of a consensus that is based on faulty scientific data.

Now that was a sentence to make a law professor proud (short and to the point is not a goal of the law student).

First of all, as you say, science is rarely 'pure' in the sense that the facts are the facts and a theoretical/mathematical description of reality is 100% correct. There's few theories, typically in basic physics, where that view applies (to a degree). Computer models are called models for a reason. Data at the forefront of science has always been subject to interpretation. Once a consensus is achieved, a hypothesis will acquire the status of an accepted, scientific theory. I think we're near that step in the case of man-made global warming.

Yes, there have been warm and cold cycles in geological times. The point is, we can explain a lot of those with present climate models. Why? Because the models can take into account effects due to changes in the earth's orbit, changes of the tilt of the earth's axis, changes in the atmosphere (SO2, CO2, dust particles etc.) due to volcanic activity or asteroid impacts, changes in ocean currents or land mass distributions due to continental drift etc. The same precise climate models we use for our predictions! And guess what, they can also take into account effects due to changes of the atmospheric composition due to human activity. That's the 'man-made' part. Why are you doubting that one, single, specific detail?

 

[Anonymous]

Scott, yes, I do look at both sides. Now, I haven't read 'Sound and Fury', and I likely won't since anything written in 1992 about climate science will be hopelessly outdated, no matter on which side of the debate it falls (and yes I do remember the Global Cooling predictions of the 1970s). Now, from your link, I learn that this guy has published a new book in 2009 which of course debunks one thing right there: the myth that non-mainstream opinions are suppressed and unpublished.

However, I don't have this book either, so I'm not able to comment on it, but I can comment on the quote you've provided:

It is true that in 1992, not many people (including scientists) believed in a runaway greenhouse effect. It is also true that climate models (even today) are not perfect in any sense. Reality will be different from the models, because climate is a complex system and we don't know all the factors and how everything ties together. That said, reality could very well be worse than what the models predict. It is also true that there will be benign consequences of global warming (it seems P. Michaels does not deny the fact of global warming in general). Rising temperatures might make large parts of Canada and Siberia much more habitable, for instance. The question is: will the benefits outweigh the bad consequences? For example, if global warming turns parts of Asia or the American midwest into a desert. Would we need to relocate large parts of, say, the Indian and Chinese population to Siberia or Americans to Canada? How could that work without major upheavals? What are the economic consequences of such a move, if necessary?

It is precisely to answer these questions that we do climate research. And when we find a consensus, shouldn't we act on it? As I see it, there's probably as good a consensus as you can get among a bunch of scientists. You'll never get 100%. And I cannot see a global conspiracy of Global Warming proponents. Neither before nor after reading the emails. The consequences of not acting seem dire enough. So why sit on your hands?

Yes, I agree, the economy now might slow down with cap & trade, and yes, we have to bring more or less every country on board, since it's a global problem, and yes, maybe, just maybe, it turns out less bad than anticipated. Are those good enough reasons to bet the lives of future generations on? When we discussed the national debt earlier in this thread you were quick enough to point out the tremendous debt load for our children. A runaway greenhouse effect would likely overshadow that by orders of magnitude.

Not sure where to start. If we need a concensus then it really isn't science, is it? The models from the scientists are wrong so why should we be so willing to fundamentally change the economic structure of the world in order to accomodate something may or may not exist? What if we were head long preparing for the next iceage that was predicted in the 70's by a 'concensus' of scientists?

It makes me question not only their findings but their motives. Please explain (if it turns out to be a hoax) to what purpose or end?

Here is an short interview of Patrick Michaels conducted by a couple of LA radio personalities. If you listen, the interview starts at about 3:20.

http://www.kfi640.com/cc-common/mediaplayer/player.html?redir=yes&mps=JohnandKen.php&mid=http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/18227/1h/cchannel.download.akamai.com/18227/podcast/LOSANGELES-CA/KFI-AM/JK1123096P.mp3?CPROG=PCAST?CCOMRRMID&CPROG=RICHMEDIA&MARKET=LOSANGELES-CA&NG_FORMAT=talk&NG_ID=kfi640am&OR_NEWSFORMAT=&OWNER=&SERVER_NAME=www.kfiam640.com&SITE_ID=616&STATION_ID=KFI-AM&TRACK=

And more;

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/07/20/shifting-of-the-pacific-decadal-oscillation-from-its-warm-mode-to-cool-mode-assures-global-cooling-for-the-next-three-decades/

And more;

http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~dbunny/research/global/predictions.pdf

And Easterbrooks resume;

http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~dbunny/resume.htm

 

[Cobblestones]

Not sure where to start. If we need a concensus then it really isn't science, is it? The models from the scientists are wrong so why should we be so willing to fundamentally change the economic structure of the world in order to accomodate something may or may not exist? What if we were head long preparing for the next iceage that was predicted in the 70's by a 'concensus' of scientists?

It makes me question not only their findings but their motives. Please explain (if it turns out to be a hoax) to what purpose or end?

Here is an short interview of Patrick Michaels conducted by a couple of LA radio personalities. If you listen, the interview starts at about 3:20.

http://www.kfi640.com/cc-common/mediaplayer/player.html?redir=yes&mps=JohnandKen.php&mid=http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/18227/1h/cchannel.download.akamai.com/18227/podcast/LOSANGELES-CA/KFI-AM/JK1123096P.mp3?CPROG=PCAST?CCOMRRMID&CPROG=RICHMEDIA&MARKET=LOSANGELES-CA&NG_FORMAT=talk&NG_ID=kfi640am&OR_NEWSFORMAT=&OWNER=&SERVER_NAME=www.kfiam640.com&SITE_ID=616&STATION_ID=KFI-AM&TRACK=

And more;

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/07/20/shifting-of-the-pacific-decadal-oscillation-from-its-warm-mode-to-cool-mode-assures-global-cooling-for-the-next-three-decades/

And more;

http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~dbunny/research/global/predictions.pdf

And Easterbrooks resume;

http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~dbunny/resume.htm

I think I explained the scientific consensus part in the previous post. It is precisely how science works. The ice age predicted in the 1970s never ever remotely reached the level of consensus of the man-made global warming hypothesis. 'The models of the scientists are wrong?' How can you state that with that degree of certitude? The models do a great job describing the past. You can, of course, argue their predictive power and we won't know until things come to pass, but let's turn it around, is there any modern climate model which does describe the past and does not predict some degree of warming in the future? And if so, what is the qualitative difference of such a model? Could it be tested by a new lab data, or new observations?

 

[BroDeal]

It is interesting that what has been mentioned does not concern you at all about the ethics and legitimacy of the scientists favoring global warming - you are not alone as a check of the AP, Reuters, and the UPI did not turn up anything about the hacking or early commentary. While I am sure that could just be a sign of cautious journalism, I would think they should at least mention the basics since it is an issue that sells papers and involves serious allegations. There is a reason the voters of the right distrust the major news organizations to present a balanced view even when it would be profitable.

This is why people like me don't trust people like you. I cannot decide whether you are lying, stupid, or delusional. A simple check with Google shows the following "liberal" media covering the story:

The San Francisco Chronicle -- Wow, even those gay left coasters the Repubs are so scared of are covering it.
The New York Times -- I would have expected this liberal rag to bury the story.
ABC Online -- So much for all three major networks being controlled by a shadowy cabal of people who hate America.
Reuters -- Looks like you were wrong. Reuters is actually reporting it.
The Associated Press -- I guess this is the death of the left wing media conspiracy.
The Washington Post -- Whoah. The liberal Post, which destroyed Nixon, is on the case.
The LA Times -- Oooh oooh ooh. More left coast libs are reporting. Whoda thunk it.
NPR -- Even a news outlet funded by socialism is reporting it.
Newsweek -- Well, maybe they are not in on the conspiracy.
USA Today -- OMG. USA Today has gone against the liberal agenda!! ZOMG!!1!
The Christian Science Monitor -- Those libs in Taxachusetts must not have received their orders from lib central.
CNN -- Yes, the fact source the crazies love to hate, CNN, is reporting it.

I could go on and on, but what is the point?

 

[Cobblestones]

Not sure where to start. If we need a concensus then it really isn't science, is it? The models from the scientists are wrong so why should we be so willing to fundamentally change the economic structure of the world in order to accomodate something may or may not exist? What if we were head long preparing for the next iceage that was predicted in the 70's by a 'concensus' of scientists?

It makes me question not only their findings but their motives. Please explain (if it turns out to be a hoax) to what purpose or end?

Here is an short interview of Patrick Michaels conducted by a couple of LA radio personalities. If you listen, the interview starts at about 3:20.

http://www.kfi640.com/cc-common/mediaplayer/player.html?redir=yes&mps=JohnandKen.php&mid=http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/18227/1h/cchannel.download.akamai.com/18227/podcast/LOSANGELES-CA/KFI-AM/JK1123096P.mp3?CPROG=PCAST?CCOMRRMID&CPROG=RICHMEDIA&MARKET=LOSANGELES-CA&NG_FORMAT=talk&NG_ID=kfi640am&OR_NEWSFORMAT=&OWNER=&SERVER_NAME=www.kfiam640.com&SITE_ID=616&STATION_ID=KFI-AM&TRACK=

And more;

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/07/20/shifting-of-the-pacific-decadal-oscillation-from-its-warm-mode-to-cool-mode-assures-global-cooling-for-the-next-three-decades/

And more;

http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~dbunny/research/global/predictions.pdf

And Easterbrooks resume;

http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~dbunny/resume.htm

Ok, I looked at 3 of the four links (not the interview). One establishes the credentials of this guy, one is a 2 page article which simply stipulates that CO2 is not the source of warming and rather it's some 30 year cycle. The third one goes in more details about the 30 year cycle: it's the PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation).

Let me just discuss the figures of the article. The first two are ok. The third one is definitely silly. If the blue line is an average, the red line should be as much above the blue one as below. That's not true for the latest years. And why does it turn down so sharply at the end? I can guarantee you that the author has 'doctored' with the blue curve to make it look 'pretty' or 'dramatic' in probably the same way the guy from the email exchange did with his figure. He must have employed a mathematical regression/fitting/smoothing trick which produced a desired result.

Figure 4 is entirely ridiculous and boarders on scientific misconduct. It looks to me as if the author copied the data set between 1945 and 1975 and simply pasted it as 'prediction' beyond 2008. This is so far from a scientific model as you can get. Why on earth would you rather give this guy credence than the much more rigorous scientific studies using actual climate models?

 

[Anonymous]

Irony? Yes, I'd say so. Alinsky the 'community organizer' whose prized pupils include Hillary Clinton among others. Don't see where Alinsky worked with too many right wingers... wonder why?

Because they already knew how to do what he codified.

This stuff really gained traction during the Bork confirmation (or crucifixion) when Uncle Teddy unloaded on Bork during the hearing. I don't think anything like that had ever happened before. Coined a new phrase, "getting Borked". Folks can point the fingers at the right if it makes them feel better as we are the bigots, homophobes, racists who want to let old people die in the streets while hoarding all the money we steal from the unionized workers of this country lest we forget about polluting the environment (as if we don't need clean air and water??). I could go on but hopefully the point is made.

No, these kinds of things are not that new. In fact, you might want to listen to the Nixon tapes for an example of this kind of thing before the example you cite. Then go back and read the things said by politicians about each other every election back to George Washington...and before that.

Again, the Alinsky thing is political theatre. He didn't come up with anything new, he just wrote it down.

There are really bombastic things coming from the right too. No excuses for that.

There was a time when there was some decorum betwen folks who disagree but those days are long, long gone.

I think you and I have done a pretty good job of maintaining civility. I disagree with many of your postitons, but respect your right as a person to hold them. My problem is generally with those who start in with insult (hypocrisy I know... ) in these types of things. It is why for the most part, I have maintained a distance on this thread. I have a friendly correspondence with you and want to maintain that. I recognize that we will disagree, and I am cool with that. I am fairly certain that our political opinions are of little concern to either party. They are much more concerned with people who can fund their elections. That is where the real policy is made.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

This is why people like me don't trust people like you. I cannot decide whether you are lying, stupid, or delusional. A simple check with Google shows the following "liberal" media covering the story:

I could go on and on, but what is the point?

I guess I was frustrated when I went to the UPI, Reuters, and the AP late last night and found nothing at all. This morning (after posting) I found the articles from the British papers - apparently posted after I went to bed, one seemed fairly unbiased in it's presentation - the other only provided the statements from Professor Phil Jones without citing the specifics of the controversial emails.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

Reality will be different from the models, because climate is a complex system and we don't know all the factors and how everything ties together. That said, reality could very well be worse than what the models predict. It is also true that there will be benign consequences of global warming (it seems P. Michaels does not deny the fact of global warming in general). Rising temperatures might make large parts of Canada and Siberia much more habitable, for instance. The question is: will the benefits outweigh the bad consequences?

...

Are those good enough reasons to bet the lives of future generations on? When we discussed the national debt earlier in this thread you were quick enough to point out the tremendous debt load for our children. A runaway greenhouse effect would likely overshadow that by orders of magnitude.

Your first paragraph had some reasonable questions - the answers are unknown but this is not the first time that humans have had to deal with periods of warming and cooling. If I remember correctly, there is a consensus in the geographic/historical community that there was once a Siberian land bridge between the Asian land masses and North America which allowed travel between them.

Then there was the Medieval Warming period which started in roughly 800 AD and ended around 1300 AD. Some suggest that this period benefited the Mayan culture in Central and Northern South America as well as the travel of the Vikings during that time frame. Instead of a man made warming - the current thought among some is that the warming was related to solar activity.

Then humans had to deal with the global cooling from 1300 until around 1900 when the temperature averages seemed to drop. Again, man is not thought to be the cause of this period of cooling, in stead both the sun and volcanic activity have been advanced as the culprits.

Of course it is likely that the cooling did expand the glaciers and ice flow that during our recent warming trend is thought to be in danger of flooding entire nations out of existence.

IMO - it seems extremely egotistical to believe that there have been ice ages and extreme warming in the past but the current cycle is something that man has been able to enforce upon the global climate.

 

[Anonymous]

Ok, I looked at 3 of the four links (not the interview). One establishes the credentials of this guy, one is a 2 page article which simply stipulates that CO2 is not the source of warming and rather it's some 30 year cycle. The third one goes in more details about the 30 year cycle: it's the PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation).

Let me just discuss the figures of the article. The first two are ok. The third one is definitely silly. If the blue line is an average, the red line should be as much above the blue one as below. That's not true for the latest years. And why does it turn down so sharply at the end? I can guarantee you that the author has 'doctored' with the blue curve to make it look 'pretty' or 'dramatic' in probably the same way the guy from the email exchange did with his figure. He must have employed a mathematical regression/fitting/smoothing trick which produced a desired result.

Figure 4 is entirely ridiculous and boarders on scientific misconduct. It looks to me as if the author copied the data set between 1945 and 1975 and simply pasted it as 'prediction' beyond 2008. This is so far from a scientific model as you can get. Why on earth would you rather give this guy credence than the much more rigorous scientific studies using actual climate models?

You can probably tell I'm not in the scientific community. It's not that I'm giving him more or less creedence, my point is that this issue is very far from being concluded one way or the other. It appears (unless his resume is bogus) that Eastbrook is a pretty accomplished guy. With all due respect (I'm sincere) your guarantee above makes me take pause but is not very persuasive.

As to your previous post about my claim that the modelling is/may be wrong;

"According to Robert Toggweiler of the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory at Princeton University and Joellen Russell, assistant professor of biogeochemical dynamics at the University of Arizona -- two prominent climate modellers -- the computer models that show polar ice-melt cooling the oceans, stopping the circulation of warm equatorial water to northern latitudes and triggering another Ice Age (a la the movie The Day After Tomorrow) are all wrong.
"We missed what was right in front of our eyes," says Prof. Russell. It's not ice melt but rather wind circulation that drives ocean currents northward from the tropics. Climate models until now have not properly accounted for the wind's effects on ocean circulation, so researchers have compensated by over-emphasizing the role of manmade warming on polar ice melt.
But when Profs. Toggweiler and Russell rejigged their model to include the 40-year cycle of winds away from the equator (then back towards it again), the role of ocean currents bringing warm southern waters to the north was obvious in the current Arctic warming.
Last month, Oleg Sorokhtin, a fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, shrugged off manmade climate change as "a drop in the bucket." Showing that solar activity has entered an inactive phase, Prof. Sorokhtin advised people to "stock up on fur coats."
He is not alone. Kenneth Tapping of our own National Research Council, who oversees a giant radio telescope focused on the sun, is convinced we are in for a long period of severely cold weather if sunspot activity does not pick up soon.
The last time the sun was this inactive, Earth suffered the Little Ice Age that lasted about five centuries and ended in 1850. Crops failed through killer frosts and drought. Famine, plague and war were widespread. Harbours froze, so did rivers, and trade ceased.
It's way too early to claim the same is about to happen again, but then it's way too early for the hysteria of the global warmers, too."

http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~dbunny/research/global/glocool_articles1.pdf

And;

"Global Cooling comes back in a big way
Dr. Kenneth Tapping is worried about the sun. Solar activity comes in regular cycles, but the latest one is refusing to start. Sunspots have all but vanished, and activity is suspiciously quiet. The last time this happened was 400 years ago -- and it signaled a solar event known as a "Maunder Minimum," along with the start of what we now call the "Little Ice Age."

http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~dbunny/research/global/glocool_articles3.pdf


Kevin Trenberth's email suggesting the modelling doesn't work;

Here is Trenberth’s email to Mann…

From: Kevin Trenberth
To: Michael Mann <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:57:37 -0600
Cc: Stephen H Schneider , Myles Allen , peter stott , “Philip D. Jones” , Benjamin Santer , Tom Wigley , Thomas R Karl , Gavin Schmidt , James Hansen , Michael Oppenheimer

Hi all

Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low. This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing weather).

Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth’s global energy. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 1, 19-27, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [1][PDF] (A PDF of the published version can be obtained from the author.)

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

That said there is a LOT of nonsense about the PDO. People like CPC are tracking PDO on a monthly basis but it is highly correlated with ENSO. Most of what they are seeing is the change in ENSO not real PDO. It surely isn’t decadal. The PDO is already reversing with the switch to El Nino. The PDO index became positive in September for first time since Sept 2007.see[2]http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/GODAS/ocean_briefing_gif/global_ocean_monitoring_c urrent.ppt

Kevin


So Trenberth shares a Nobel prize with AlGore. If he's worried about the modelling then I should be too, right?

 

[Anonymous]

Because they already knew how to do what he codified.



No, these kinds of things are not that new. In fact, you might want to listen to the Nixon tapes for an example of this kind of thing before the example you cite. Then go back and read the things said by politicians about each other every election back to George Washington...and before that.

Again, the Alinsky thing is political theatre. He didn't come up with anything new, he just wrote it down.


I think you and I have done a pretty good job of maintaining civility. I disagree with many of your postitons, but respect your right as a person to hold them. My problem is generally with those who start in with insult (hypocrisy I know... ) in these types of things. It is why for the most part, I have maintained a distance on this thread. I have a friendly correspondence with you and want to maintain that. I recognize that we will disagree, and I am cool with that. I am fairly certain that our political opinions are of little concern to either party. They are much more concerned with people who can fund their elections. That is where the real policy is made.

I agree politics has always been a full contact sport but I was really referring to what changed and when regarding public discourse. To hear Harry Reid say "the war is lost" while we are still fighting it would not have happened prior to the 1960's. IMO, Teddy ushered in the new discourse rules when in his speech on the floor of the senate he said;

"Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists would be censored at the whim of government, and the doors of the federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is often the only protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy."

I could be wrong but I don't think this type of Alinsky tactic had ever been brought into the public forum before that speech.


I enjoy discussing stuff with you and many of the posters here. I'm with you tho, the insults and name calling just cause me to lose interest. Look at it this way, without you, Race Radio (Eva), Digger and a few others I'd still think LA was all that and a bag of potato chips.

 

[Cobblestones]

Ok, much to respond to.

First of all:

IMO - it seems extremely egotistical to believe that there have been ice ages and extreme warming in the past but the current cycle is something that man has been able to enforce upon the global climate.

It can seem egoistical, but take as an example the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in 1991. We know pretty well through measurements how much of what gasses were blown in the atmosphere. And the models reproduce well the effect of those gasses on the climate for the following years. Man-made production of certain climate gasses and pollutants is roughly in the same order of magnitude. We know that because we can measure it. Also the year without summer, 1816, was caused by the eruption of the Tamboro volcano.

Scott:

as for your post, I think everybody acknowledges that there are effects which are not modeled well enough. One of them is the interaction between wind and ocean currents, another is the connection between solar activity, cosmic rays and cloud formation.

I am well aware that not too long ago, researchers worried about the shutting down of the gulf stream. That prediction has apparently disappeared. It is right and well for everybody (including the scientists involved) to worry about the modeling. The more observations we have, the better the modeling gets.

A lot of the uncertainties about predictions can be taken into account by providing a range of calculations, where the most uncertain effects are varied within bounds. That's how you get a confidence interval of the predictions. People have thought about much and tried to incorporate all kinds of stuff in their models or at least to estimate the effects somehow. At this point, it is very unlikely that a single, yet to be discovered effect will change the predictions completely.

So, I think everybody agrees that we should continue the research, but most of the opponents of global warming or arguments against it seem to consist of a single scientist, making much noise over one single detail and proclaiming that hundreds of scientists and a collected body of work of many thousands of articles and calculations must surely be wrong. When you look more closely, the claims are usually based on handwaving arguments and are definitely not based on models executed with the same attention to detail and scientific rigor as those they claim to refute.

About the mathematical trick, in Fig. 3, I'll write a different post. It looks to me that instead of a regression model, which would be more appropriate IMHO, the author used a running average (a low-pass filter) which he executed badly at the edges of the range.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

So, I think everybody agrees that we should continue the research, but most of the opponents of global warming or arguments against it seem to consist of a single scientist, making much noise over one single detail and proclaiming that hundreds of scientists and a collected body of work of many thousands of articles and calculations must surely be wrong. When you look more closely, the claims are usually based on handwaving arguments and are definitely not based on models executed with the same attention to detail and scientific rigor as those they claim to refute.

I do not have an extensive background for the 31,000 scientists who apparently have signed the petition against Kyoto agreement http://www.oism.org/pproject/ and a quick reference check on the internet suggests that only 05% or so have been verified as actual scientists, however, it appears that perhaps more than a single scientist is arguing against man made global warming.

In addition the few thousand listed above (I would entertain cutting the number by 50% and accept a 15,000 number for the purpose of remaining conservative) here are a few other comments:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220

Richard Siegmund Lindzen - MIT (atmospheric physicist) and was part of the "Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change"

Politico has commented that there is a growing number of scientists who view the warming period of the past century to be moderate and caused by the sun rather than man, citing comments by Joseph D’Aleo (professor of Meteorology at Lyndon State College, and Director of Meteorology at the Weather Channel, ret.) http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15938.html

 

[Cobblestones]

I do not have an extensive background for the 31,000 scientists who apparently have signed the petition against Kyoto agreement http://www.oism.org/pproject/ and a quick reference check on the internet suggests that only 05% or so have been verified as actual scientists, however, it appears that perhaps more than a single scientist is arguing against man made global warming.

In addition the few thousand listed above (I would entertain cutting the number by 50% and accept a 15,000 number for the purpose of remaining conservative) here are a few other comments:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220

Richard Siegmund Lindzen - MIT (atmospheric physicist) and was part of the "Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change"

Politico has commented that there is a growing number of scientists who view the warming period of the past century to be moderate and caused by the sun rather than man, citing comments by Joseph D’Aleo (professor of Meteorology at Lyndon State College, and Director of Meteorology at the Weather Channel, ret.) http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15938.html

I don't know who the scientists are who signed the petition, but unless they're climate researchers, their opinion isn't really important. I'm a scientist (not in climate research), do you follow my opinion?

Neither of the other links are scientific. The WSJ opinion page asserts that one single prediction of a consequence of global warming (it doesn't seem to dispute global warming itself) the frequency of tropical storms is junk science. This might or might not be true; the article itself says it was a casual claim to begin with, so no robust prediction. Then it descends into a rant about oppressing dissenting opinions etc.

I cannot comment on the politico story. There's just too little in it. All claims (and very general at that), no reasoning why things are different than we think. The weirdest quote was:

And the almanac predicted that the next year will see a period of cooling.

The almanac? Really???

Anyway, let me come back to the promised post about the blue curve in Scott's article. First of all, the red curve is not a curve at all, it is a number of (I think monthly) data points which are connected by straight line segments. The data points fluctuate, hence there're spikes in both directions. It is often difficult to see a trend in such data. Several techniques can be used to create a trend line.

The first is a regression model. In it's simples form, you can calculate an average of all data points and produce a horizontal line. Of course that doesn't produce any trend at all. As a next step, you can try a linear regression, which will produce a straight line with a slope. It would look pretty benign on the graph, likely sloping down a bit, but not by much. At least it would produce a trend, but likely a weak one. Then you can go on and try higher order fits (polynomials). Because the data fluctuates so much, I don't think you could do much better than linear regression. Anyway, none would produce the blue curve, so no need to discuss it.

What strikes me as odd is that the blue curve is bang on the very first data point (Jan. 2002) and bang on the very last one (probably June 2008). The chances of that happening by accident is microscopic. This indicates that in the construction of the blue curve, these two data points have been given much much more weight than the others. There's absolutely no scientific reason to do that. It wouldn't happen in a regression model, but it could happen if you use running averages (averages over, say, 5 data points left and right) and then mess it up at the edges. It would also happen when you use spline interpolation. Anyway, it's not a reasonable way to do a trend line. Maybe it's an honest mistake (he might have used some Excel function he didn't really understand), maybe it's a case of selecting a method to construct a trend line which produces a more desired visual result? In the latter case it's comparable to what the pro-warming guy from the email exchange did.

 

[Anonymous]

A little more digging reveals there is certainly more than one or two scientists who doubt the current man-made global warming theory.

http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=10fe77b0-802a-23ad-4df1-fc38ed4f85e3

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2674e64f-802a-23ad-490b-bd9faf4dcdb7

The introduction is pretty compelling.

Highlights of the Updated 2008/2009 Senate Minority Report featuring over 700 international scientists dissenting from man-made climate fears:

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical...The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”



Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.



“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.



“So far, real measurements give no ground for concern about a catastrophic future warming.” - Scientist Dr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, a chemical engineer at Abo Akademi University in Finland, author of 200 scientific publications and former Greenpeace member.



“Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time.” - Solar physicist Dr. Pal Brekke, senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Centre in Oslo. Brekke has published more than 40 peer-reviewed scientific articles on the sun and solar interaction with the Earth.

“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico

“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.
“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.


“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet.” - Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.


“The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse. It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round…A large number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact,” Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher.


“I am convinced that the current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken...Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science.” - Award Winning Physicist Dr. Will Happer, Professor at the Department of Physics at Princeton University and Former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy, who has published over 200 scientific papers, and is a fellow of the American Physical Society, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Academy of Sciences.



“Nature's regulatory instrument is water vapor: more carbon dioxide leads to less moisture in the air, keeping the overall GHG content in accord with the necessary balance conditions.” – Prominent Hungarian Physicist and environmental researcher Dr. Miklós Zágoni reversed his view of man-made warming and is now a skeptic. Zágoni was once Hungary’s most outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol.


“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" - Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.


“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.


“The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil... I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science.” - South Afican Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.


“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” - Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.


“All those urging action to curb global warming need to take off the blinkers and give some thought to what we should do if we are facing global cooling instead.” - Geophysicist Dr. Phil Chapman, an astronautical engineer and former NASA astronaut, served as staff physicist at MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)


“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” - Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.


“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.


“The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.” - Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.



“Whatever the weather, it's not being caused by global warming. If anything, the climate may be starting into a cooling period.” Atmospheric scientist Dr. Art V. Douglas, former Chair of the Atmospheric Sciences Department at Creighton University in Omaha, Nebraska, and is the author of numerous papers for peer-reviewed publications.





“The ‘global warming scare’ is being used as a political tool to increase government control over American lives, incomes and decision making. It has no place in the Society's activities.” - Award-Winning NASA Astronaut/Geologist and Moonwalker Jack Schmitt who flew on the Apollo 17 mission and formerly of the Norwegian Geological Survey and for the U.S. Geological Survey.

“I have yet to see credible proof of carbon dioxide driving climate change, yet alone man-made CO2 driving it. The atmospheric hot-spot is missing and the ice core data refute this. When will we collectively awake from this deceptive delusion?” - Dr. G LeBlanc Smith, a retired Principal Research Scientist with Australia’s CSIRO. (The full quotes of the scientists are later in this report) [/I]

 

[Anonymous]

Ok, I know this is Fox, but it's pretty funny. If the posters on this thread could argue face-to-face this is probably what it would look like (ok we'd have to throw in a few F-Bombs).

http://video.foxnews.com/11904096/the-science-is-very-clear/

Be patient, the interview degenerates pretty quickly...

 

[CentralCaliBike]

Ok, I know this is Fox, but it's pretty funny. If the posters on this thread could argue face-to-face this is probably what it would look like (ok we'd have to throw in a few F-Bombs).

http://video.foxnews.com/11904096/the-science-is-very-clear/

Be patient, the interview degenerates pretty quickly...

Begley should be able to take Stewart - he looks younger and relatively fit

 

[Laszlo]

A little more digging reveals there is certainly more than one or two scientists who doubt the current man-made global warming theory.


“The ‘global warming scare’ is being used as a political tool to increase government control over American lives, incomes and decision making. It has no place in the Society's activities.” - Award-Winning NASA Astronaut/Geologist and Moonwalker Jack Schmitt who flew on the Apollo 17 mission and formerly of the Norwegian Geological Survey and for the U.S. Geological Survey.

[/I]

I'd be careful including NASA astronauts some of them seemed to have returned without the "a"....global warming may be a statistical anomaly or a result of any other thing, not necessarily carbon emissions; still, because we are not certain should we continue an unrestrained dumping into the atmosphere ? and what if then we realize, too late, that it is real and beyond our ability to fix ? what then ? I think the risk far outweighs the "reward" don't you ?

 

[CentralCaliBike]

Interesting take on the peer review process: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703499404574559630382048494.html?mod=googlenews_wsj