Re: [asa] tipping point?

From: PvM <>
Date: Sun Mar 04 2007 - 15:16:30 EST

This is a bit of a weird quote mining since it is an article which
references a claim by Crichton to argue why Crichton is wrong in his

<quote>At the end of the book, Crichton gives us an author's message.
In it, he re-iterates the main points of his thesis, that there are
some who go too far to drum up support (and I have some sympathy with
this), and that because we don't know everything, we actually know
nothing (here, I beg to differ). He also gives us his estimate, ~0.8 C
for the global warming that will occur over the next century and
claims that, since models differ by 400% in their estimates, his guess
is as good as theirs. This is not true. The current batch of models
have a mean climate sensitivity of about 3 C to doubled CO2 (and range
between 2.5 and 4.0 degrees) (Paris meeting of IPCC, July 2004) , i.e
an uncertainty of about 30%</quote>

I am confused as to why Janice is so quick to accept poor science to
reject good science?

What are the standards by which Janice determine the
relevancy/veracity of the 'science' she quotes?

On 3/4/07, Janice Matchett <> wrote:
> At 09:35 PM 3/3/2007, Randy Isaac wrote:
> He, as a non-scientist, doesn't do any models, doesn't do any scientific
> work, doesn't tell us his methodology, doesn't know how to do statistics,
> and comes up with a very precise number which is somehow more to be trusted
> than that of the scientists. I better go scratch my head a little more on
> this one. ~ Randy
> @ QUOTE: [Scientists] "models differ by 400% in their estimates, so his
> guess is as good as theirs.":
> To reiterate what I posted on Thu, 01 Mar 2007:
> # 69 QUOTE:
> ".. I disagree with Gavin Schmidt: Dr. Schmidt seems to think that the
> temperature projections in the IPCC Third Assessment Report, or TAR (i.e., a
> temperature rise of 1.4 to 5.8 degrees Celsius from 1990 to 2100) are better
> than Michael Crichton's projection of 0.8 degrees Celsius from 2000 to 2100.
> But the IPCC TAR projections are clearly worse, if one places the same range
> of temperatures around Michael Crichton's estimates that exist in the IPCC
> TAR. That is, the IPCC TAR has a mean value of 3.6 degrees Celsius increase,
> +/- 2.2 degrees Celsius.
> If Michael Crichton's value of 0.8 degrees Celsius is taken with a range of
> +/- 2.2 degrees Celsius, it becomes a prediction of anything from a cooling
> of 1.4 degrees Celsius, to a warming of up to 3.0 degrees Celsius (with a
> mean value of warming of 0.8 degrees Celsius). Even assuming a warming of as
> much as 2.0 degrees Celsius from 2000 to 2100, Michael Crichton would still
> have a better prediction than the IPCC TAR (i.e. 0.8 degrees is closer to
> 2.0 degrees than 3.6 degrees is to 2.0 degrees). As I noted, I will post
> again (when I have more time) on why Michael Crichton's prediction is
> *better* than the predictions in the IPCC TAR. Comment by Mark Bahner 25
> Dec 2004 @ 1:58 pm
> # 31. Gavin Schmidt writes, "He (Crichton) also gives us his estimate,
> ~0.8 C for the global warming that will occur over the next century and
> claims that, since models differ by 400% in their estimates, his guess is as
> good as theirs. This is not true."
> I agree. That's not true. Michael Crichton's guess of ~0.8 degrees Celsius
> for the 21st century is far, far better than the IPCC projections of 1.5 to
> 5.8 degrees Celsius (from 1990 to 2100). I discuss this fact on my website
> (my own prediction is for ~0.7 degrees Celsius warming in the lower
> troposphere):
> A review of IPCC projections versus historical and likely future trends
> The IPCC projections are completely unrealistic, in part because: 1) They
> include completely unrealistic projections for future atmospheric methane
> concentrations, and 2) They include unrealistic projections for future
> CO2 emissions, and for future CO2 atmospheric concentrations. Mark Bahner
> (environmental engineer)
> And as far as any "tipping point" goes --- that isn't reached until after
> "the big lie" is stated long enough and loud enough where enough people
> actually come to believe it and put pressure on elected officials to "do
> something". The "real" tipping point is articulated quite well below:
> "... I used the term "least-worst" deliberately. The "worst" thing is to
> panic over GW, and cripple our economies -- with all the social upheaval
> that would entail. Given that a "tipping-point" seems to have been reached;
> whereby no politician can be seen to be opposed to "doing something" about
> the "problem" -- one of the least worst thing would be a carbon tax.
> Moderately-worst "solutions" include things like mandatory fuel
> efficiencies for auto manufacturers (less flexible than a carbon tax).
> Sending billions to China and Russia for "carbon credits" (the only good
> thing being that this is one of the cheapest ways to achieve Kyoto targets).
> Some of the most-worst "solutions" that are being bandied about (or tried
> out) include: strict rationing; forced closure of coal-fired power plants;
> and, draconian population-reduction programs."
> 10 posted on 02/01/2007 3:38:10 PM EST by USFRIENDINVICTORIA
> "Those who favor a cap are the like of GE which does 10 BILLION in wind
> turbine and alternatative energy business, and also power companies who have
> a heavy part of their electricity being generated by nuclear, hydroelectric,
> natural gas and other less carbon intensive methods. They see a huge
> competitive advantage by requiring those companies relying on coal to clean
> up or pay carbon taxes. This is a sham, just like the ethanol/ADM cabal is
> foisting on us."
> 6 posted on 02/01/2007 3:15:30 PM EST by milwguy
> "Carbon futures is a fine way to game the system coming and going."
> 7 posted on 02/01/2007 3:17:23 PM EST by RightWhale
> ~ Janice

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Mar 4 15:17:06 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Mar 04 2007 - 15:17:06 EST