Re: [asa] Anthropogenic Climate Change Theory and Busted Sod

From: Janice Matchett <>
Date: Sat Oct 20 2007 - 16:58:48 EDT

At 02:37 PM 10/20/2007, wrote:
>Janice, Janice, Janice.
>I offer these three items below in order to
>remind omnipotent moral busybodies (legalistic
>pharisaical mentalities who continue to insist
>on imposing their immature consciences on the
>rest of us so that they can feel good about themselves)
>Don't sugar coat it, Janice. Tell us what your really think.

@ That wasn't me - it was C.S. Lewis.

>that the fallout from their "good intentions"
>have a LONG history of disaster, and this latest effort will be no different.
>While I am a firm believer in a Bayesian view of
>the future reflecting the past, there is always
>a termination of one line of Bayesian logic by a
>larger context. Like the rising of the Sun, we
>can be confident that the the sunrise will
>continue far into the future, but not
>forever. Another, larger Bayesian contextual
>analysis of distant stars using up there fuel
>and dying out provides a statistical end to our
>own enormously consistent sunrise. The progress
>of science is the larger context in this case.

@ I disagree. The larger context is the
politicization of science and the inability of
the naive to know when they're being manipulated and by whom.

>The intermixing of science and politics is a bad
>combination, with a bad
>Michael Crichton is a doctor, not a climatologist.

@ Ozone Al is a politician, not a scientist or a
climatologist. In fact, he got a "D" in science
at Harvard in addition to flunking God (bounced
out of "Divinity School" with 5 F's)

Since Al's technical acumen (to analyze complex
data, assess risks, and identify the right
countermeasures) has a bad track record that is
easily discovered by anyone who wants to look,
what does that say about the dolts who blindly
think he knows what he's talking about

Anti-American bigots may give him "peace-prizes"
but I would give him an "F" in peace promotion
and an `"A" in promoting just the opposite:

On the other hand:

CRICHTON, (John) Michael. American. Born in
Chicago, Illinois, October 23, 1942.

Educated at Harvard University, Cambridge,
Massachusetts, A.B. (summa cum laude) 1964 (Phi Beta Kappa).
Henry Russell Shaw Travelling Fellow, 1964-65.
Visiting Lecturer in Anthropology at Cambridge University, England, 1965.
Graduated Harvard Medical School, M.D. 1969;
post-doctoral fellow at the Salk Institute for
Biological Sciences, La Jolla, California 1969-1970.
Visiting Writer, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1988.

>And the "rain follows the plow" theory below was
>devised long before we had even the most
>rudimentary understanding of the forces that
>dictate the weather. Now we know more. We will
>always know more if we keep our eyes on the
>evidence. That's the Bayesian trend here, not
>continued idiocy. The idiocy of the past has
>been sharply reduced precisely by the advance of
>science, a trend that refutes your contention
>that our naiveté with respect to the rain
>following the plow is equally present in our
>current link between CO2 production and the Greenhouse effect.

@ Sorry - but as long as there are human beings
- idiotic ideas and Stalinists attempting to
enforce them will continue unabated (utopians and
their "temporal-man-is-perfectible" daydreams aside).

I'm being magnanimous when I use the word naive
to describe the average man on the street /
church goer or his pastor that embraces junk
science. The only other alternative is to accuse
them of being like Animal Farm Algore,,
who deliberately engage in lying and propaganda.

"Recently many people have said that the earth is
facing a crisis requiring urgent action. This
statement has nothing to do with
science. Frankly, the very idea of consensus in
such an immature and multi- faceted subject as
climate change should be suspicious ab initio.
Consensus is largely a propaganda claim designed
to relieve ordinary people of the need to
understand the issue. This is neither good for
science nor for public policy. . " ~ Richard S.
Lindzed the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of
Meteorology at MIT. Global Warming: The Origin
and Nature of the Alleged Scientific
Vol.15, No. 2, Spring 1992

"Human induced global warming is a weapon of mass
destruction at least as dangerous as chemical,
nuclear or biological weapons that kills more
people than terrorism." ~ John Houghton Monday July 28, 2003

  "I don't believe God is going to condemn a
person who is ignorant of the scientific facts
and simply chooses to believe a ...assertion
...... However, lying about what science
actually "proves" is not something a Christian
should do. If one is going to claim a
scientifically verifiable explanation (or even
invoke an unproved hypothesis), then there needs
to be a forthright acknowledgement of the
scientific evidence or lack thereof. .." ~ Jon
Tandy Thu, 11 Oct 2007 09:30:19 RE: [asa]
Denver RATE Conference (Thousands...Not Billions)_Part 6 & The End

>Chrichton's bemoaning of the new corn economy, however,

@ That wasn't Crichton - it was another sound-minded man named McClintock.

>is spot on with respect to the idiocy of the
>notion itself, but incorrect with respect to
>what's behind the drive to make fuel from corn.
>Climate scientists are not driving the ethanol
>push, nor are hardly any serious
>environmentalists. That whole "alternative
>fuel" drivel is driven by Agribiz interests and
>lobbyists. Already people are going hungry in
>Mexico for want of their cheap staple of corn
>meal since the new corn economy (coupled with
>the severe drought in the South) has hiked the price something fierce.

@ All you did was prove my point.

Special interests - including "the government"
will only provide "funding" for the scientists
who are willing to "find" the science they need
in order to sell a product or service. It's like
Crichten said - the only way we're ever going to
get half-way "honest" science is to have a blind
pool of R&D money and to have 5 or 6 teams of
scientists working on the same projects
simultaneously. If working separately - without
collaboration - they all come up with the same
result, then one may have higher confidence that the science is sound.

As things stand now - no serious person will
swallow the pop-culture science pronouncements
that the media bombards us with on a daily basis
as they help promote a product or a service. It's become a joke.

>I think, Janice, that you are biased by issues
>external to the science and more to your
>personal/political disposition. You would do
>well to try and examine the world purely on your
>own recognizance, and pay less attention to the
>polarized, dogmatic positions of what passes for
>the American political landscape.
>-Mike (But I still love ya.)

@ Now THAT is the funniest thing I've heard all
day! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

Once again, I see the need to post the reference
Randy Isaac gave us to the comments of K. Emmanuel of MIT:

"The evolution of the scientific debate about
anthropogenic [man-caused] climate change
illustrates both the value of skepticism and the
pitfalls of partisanship." " Scientists are most
effective when they provide sound, impartial
advice, but their reputation for impartiality is
severely compromised by the shocking lack of
political diversity among American academics, who
suffer from the kind of group-think that develops in cloistered cultures.

Until this profound and well documented
intellectual homogeneity changes, scientists will
be suspected of constituting a leftist think
tank." "On the left, an argument emerged urging
fellow scientists to deliberately exaggerate
their findings so as to galvanize an apathetic public..."

"Conservatives have usually been strong
supporters of nuclear power. .. Had it not been
for green opposition, the United States today
might derive most of its electricity from nuclear
power, as does France; thus the environmentalists
must accept a large measure of responsibility for
today’s most critical environmental
problem." ~ K. Emmanuel - MIT

~ Janice (But I still love ya. :)

>[3] Chill out.
>Washington Post ^ | October 14, 2007 | BJORN LOMBORG
>"... predictions of impending disaster just don't stack up.
>"...research shows that the cold is a much
>bigger killer than the heat. According to the
>first complete peer-reviewed survey of climate
>change's health effects, global warming will
>actually save lives. It's estimated that by
>2050, global warming will cause almost 400,000
>more heat-related deaths each year. But at the
>same time, 1.8 million fewer people will die from cold.
>"...Global warming will claim lives in another
>way: by increasing the number of people at risk
>of catching malaria by about 3 percent over this
>century. According to scientific models,
>implementing the Kyoto Protocol for the rest of
>this century would reduce the malaria risk by just 0.2 percent.
>On the other hand, we could spend $3 billion
>annually -- 2 percent of the protocol's cost --
>on mosquito nets and medication and cut malaria
>incidence almost in half within a decade.
>Malaria death rates are rising in
>Africa, but this has nothing to do with climate
>change and everything to do with poverty: Poor
>and corrupt governments find it hard to
>implement and fund the spraying and the
>provision of mosquito nets that would help
>eradicate the disease. Yet for every dollar we
>spend saving one person through policies like
>the Kyoto Protocol, we could save 36,000 through direct intervention.
>"......Wherever you look, the inescapable
>conclusion is the same: Reducing carbon
>emissions is not the best way to help the world.
>.....I'm frustrated at our blinkered focus on policies that won't achieve it.
>In 1992, wealthy nations promised to cut
>emissions to 1990 levels by 2000. Instead,
>emissions grew by 12 percent. In 1997, they
>promised to cut emissions to about 5 percent
>below 1990 levels by 2010. Yet levels will
>likely be 25 percent higher than hoped for.
>"...Even if the policymakers' earlier promises
>had been met, they would have done virtually no
>good, but would have cost us a small fortune.
>The climate models show that Kyoto would have
>postponed the effects of global warming by seven
>days by the end of the century. Even if the
>United States and
>had signed on and everyone stuck to Kyoto for
>this entire century, we would postpone the
>effects of global warming by only five years.
>Proponents of pacts such as Kyoto want us to
>spend enormous sums of money doing very little
>good for the planet a hundred years from now. ...
>The typical cost of cutting a ton of CO2is
>currently about $20. Yet, according to a wealth
>of scientific literature, the damage from a ton
>of carbon in the atmosphere is about $2.
>Spending $20 to do $2 worth of good is not smart policy. ...
>...I formed the Copenhagen Consensus in 2004 so
>that some of the world's top economists could
>come together to ask not only where we can do
>good, but at what cost, and to rank the best
>things for the world to do first. The top
>priorities they've come up with are dealing with
>infectious diseases, malnutrition, agricultural
>research and first-world access to third-world
>agriculture. For less than a fifth of Kyoto's
>price tag, we could tackle all these issues. ....."
>Lomborg, an adjunct professor at the Copenhagen
>Business School, is the author, most recently,
>of "Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming."
>Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta
>check out free

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Oct 20 17:00:27 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Oct 20 2007 - 17:00:27 EDT