Re: [asa] IPCC

From: Janice Matchett <>
Date: Wed Feb 14 2007 - 13:22:03 EST

At 03:06 PM 2/13/2007, Rich Blinne wrote:

>On 2/13/07, Janice Matchett
><<>> wrote:
>At 05:31 PM 2/12/2007, Rich Blinne wrote:
>>Note to Janice with respect to scientific methodology. This does
>>not prove that CO2 is causing global warming. Rather, some other
>>non-falsified mechanism other than solar and/or GCR forcing must
>>explain the increase in global average temperatures over the last
>>half century. ~ Rich B.
>@ Exactly. "Some cite the fact that the climate is currently
>warming and the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is
>increasing. This is true, but correlation is never proof of
>causation. In Europe, the birth rate is decreasing and so is the
>number of storks. Does this correlation prove that storks bring
>babies? Besides, the climate cooled for much of the 20th century,
>between 1940 and 1975, even while carbon dioxide was increasing rapidly."
>~ Dr. S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences
>at the University of Virginia. His latest (co-authored with Dennis
>T. Avery) book: Unstoppable Global Warming-Every 1500 Years
>Remind me to completely discount Singer from now on. He should known
>better. As anyone who is even remotely up to speed on climate models
>know is that CO2 is not the only forcing (or even the only
>anthropogenic forcing) in the climate. ... ~ Rich Blinne

@ @ It is a given that you will discount any opinion that isn't
advocated by the parrots at

"The [IPCC] report is the end product of a political agenda, and it
is the political agenda of both the extreme environmentalists who of
course think we are destroying the world. But it's also the political
agenda of a group of people ... who believe that industrialization
and development and capitalism and the Western way is a terrible
system and they want to bring it down. They couldn't do it by
attacking energy because they know that would get the public's back
up very quickly. ... The vehicle they chose was CO2, because that's
the byproduct of industry and fossil-fuel burning, which of course
drives the whole thing. They think, "If we can show that that is
destroying the planet, then it allows us to control." Unfortunately,
you've got a bunch of scientists who have this political agenda as
well, and they have effectively controlled the IPCC process." ~
Timothy Ball Canadian climatologist, who has a Ph.D. in climatology
from the University of London and taught at the University of
Winnipeg for 28 years, who is also of the opinion that the widely
propagated "fact" that humans are contributing to global warming is
the "greatest deception in the history of

>>GHG forcing has not been similarly falsified and that is why it is
>>the current consensus. It may be wrong but to date no other
>>alternative hypothesis explains the data better. ~ Rich B.
>@ Shattered Consensus: The True State of Global Warming by
>J. Michaels
>Excellent scientific foundation. The issue is far more uncertain
>than the Media states. , August 7, 2006
>Reviewer: Gaetan Lion
>Patrick J. Michaels is the most famous global warming skeptic, but
>he is not alone. The book consists of ten chapters written by ten
>different scientists who focus on specific aspects of global warming
>including: temperature and precipitation forecasts, volatility of
>weather patterns, the impact of El Nino, impact of rising
>temperature on human health, impact of CO2 concentration on rising
>The second chapter outlines how a scientist manipulated the
>underlying variables to create the "hockey stick" suggesting
>temperature levels are highest for the past millennium. The
>scientist who created this hockey stick pattern refused to share the
>data and explain his methodology when he was asked. This scientist
>purposely overweighed a variable to create the hockey stick effect.
>The author of the chapter uncovers how the scientific peer review
>process is bankrupt. A scientist is free to manipulate the data so
>as to create a fictitious hockey stick that is at the foundation of
>the global warming paradigm. In the business world, such behavior
>(manipulation of financial record) would get a CFO in jail. The
>author makes the case that due diligence requirements (audits)
>should apply to the scientific world as well. ~ Janice
>This, simply put, is libellous. .. ~ Rich Blinne

@@ You had better advise them to file suit, then. RUN!

>...An error in precipitation of only 0.1 inch equates to an error of
>1.77 degree Fahrenheit. Yet, our models are all over the place on
>precipitation predictions.
>Similarly, just a 4% increase in stratus clouds formation would
>counteract any effect from a doubling in CO2 concentration. Yet, we
>can't model cloud formation so far. Thus, global circulation models
>(GCM) are incredibly unreliable.
>I want to concentrate on the second issue. Yes, clouds can have a
>negative feedback on climate change but water vapor is a GHG. We
>have had increasing CO2 and we can measure the feedback of water.
>Here's a clue: the sign of the feedback is positive, but thankfully
>not as positive we feared a few years ago. ~ Rich Blinne

@@ No kidding. :)

"...As soon as people start saying something's settled, it's usually
that they don't want to talk about it anymore. They don't want
anybody to dig any deeper. It's very, very far from settled. In fact,
that's the real problem. We haven't been able to get all of the facts
on the table. The IPCC is a purely political setup.

There was a large group of people, the political people, who wanted
the report to be more harum-scarum than it actually is. In fact, the
report is quite a considerable step down from the previous reports.
For example, they have reduced the potential temperature rise and
they've reduced the sea level increase and a whole bunch of other
things. Part of it is because they know so many people will be
watching the report this time. ~ Timothy Ball - Canadian
climatologist, who has a Ph.D. in climatology from the University of
London and taught at the University of Winnipeg for 28 years, who
is also of the opinion that the widely propagated "fact" that humans
are contributing to global warming is the "greatest deception in the
history of

>>It is not some grand conspiracy or giant CYA. Thus, when you say
>>such things you are falsely accusing people and you unintentionally
>>debase the cause of Christ as a result. This is because
>>non-Christian climate scientists (and others who are well informed
>>on the topic) will wrongly assume that falsely accusing people must
>>be the modus operandi of Christians. ~ Rich Blinne
>@ Once again you misrepresent my position. So what is that?
>I have _never said_, nor do I believe, that there is any
>"conspiracy" or "CYA", nor have I said that I believe there is any
>"grand conspiracy or giant CYA" among scientists. It is a fact,
>though, that individual scientists and individual governments have a
>_political_ agenda. If you deny that, you deny reality and are
>living in a parallel universe of your own (or someone else's)
>"feel-good" imagination. ~ Janice
>I don't know other's agenda, but I know my own and you accused me
>personally of having an agenda I don't have.
>"My translation: "I'm getting my head on straight and getting with
>the program if I know what's good for my career." :)" ~ Janice
>Given that you falsely accused me, the probability goes up for
>others. What you state is above is a conspiracy theory because you
>don't merely state that people have biases but that the biases
>corrupt their judgment. .. ~ Rich Blinne

@@ You should have known that I was only kidding - didn't you see
the smiley face? I thought I had made it quite clear that I don't
attribute any bad motives to you -- merely naivete`. Make that the
more accurate, "sincere, but naive".

>...Which brings me to a question: If you a skeptical of climate
>scientists when they provide evidence, how come you are not
>equivalently skeptical of non-experts who provide none? Isn't that a
>little too "feel good" given that scientists might have a political
>agenda such as trying to avoid government regulation for their
>client companies? ~ Rich Blinne

@@ I know who the players on on both sides. You'll find your
answer in my post # 19 here:

> Those who think a person must believe in "conspiracies" just
> because they don't fall into line with the latest "group think" (on
> any subject), are laughable and demonstrate easily led they are. ~ Janice
>... It is unbecoming of Christians to argue that either side is
>saying what they say because they are beholden to "group think" or
>evil corporations. ~ Rich Blinne

@@ The group thinkers count on such navite`.

>In addition - outside the parallel universe in which some appear to
>live - never have I ever said that I don't believe there is "global
>warming". In actual fact, I have stated the exact opposite many
>times, one of which was exactly one year ago, here: Tue, 14 Feb 2006
>and another just a couple of months ago, here: Mon Dec 04 2006 -
>~ Janice
>Rich Blinne: Yeah, strange definition of global warming: "Since
>global warming has been going on since God created the sun - and
>long before he created man - "global warming" (as well as "global
>cooling") is ordained by God." ~ Janice
>"Global Warming" is the red herring you drag across the trail --
>either in actual ignorance -- or in the hope that most people are
>careless readers and will go sniffing off in the particular
>direction you want them to go. So once more I will bring you back to
>the subject of all of my posts on the subject, ie: "Human-induced
>global warming / global cooling", etc." ~ Janice

@@ Well there ya go! I happen to think that the 60's radical
extremists are the ones with the "strange definitions" regarding all
things having to do with the environment. The Gaias quote the same
scientists you do - they don't quote the ones I quote. There's a
reason for that. Here -- let me help you connect the
   and here:

>I tend to avoid using the term global warming because its so sloppy
>as evidenced by your quotes above. So, I don't know where you get
>the idea that I have you deny global warming in the strange sense
>above. All that believing in global warming means is that the
>current net radiative forcing is positive. When AR4 looked at this
>and added all the positive and negative forcings together including
>the anthropogenic ones, they looked at the 90% confidence range of
>the net forcing. This range was all positive. This is the science
>behind the very likely (>90%) conclusion -- and is not arbitrary --
>that humans are causing the current global warming. Since the
>human-caused forcings overwhelm the natural ones, you really cannot
>make the distinction above between global warming and human-induced
>global warming. You either need to affirm both or deny both. ~ Rich Blinne

@@ That is your "need" - it isn't mine. Where is your
"peer-reviewed" study that shows what the ideal temperature of the
earth should be? Down through history, human beings have shown
themselves to be quite resourceful and well able to "adapt" and
"acclimate" themselves to their environment - whether it's warming or
cooling. Central planners (omnipotent busibodies) aren't needed, nor
are they welcome.

~ Janice .... The IPCC is the Vatican of the Church of Climate

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Feb 14 13:23:08 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Feb 14 2007 - 13:23:09 EST